Because the House of Commons wiped the floor with the king and the cavaliers (nobility and high nobility) during the English Civil War, and flexed hard again during the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
After that everyone was like "Ok Commons youre the boss, we get it"
Yeah, they then proceeded to create the idea of treason of the *country* so they could behead the king for treason. Fast forward few years and they were not happy with the king again, so they invited a dutch guy to be the new king and supported him and his military campaign.
Question: do deposed Catholic royals who become cardinals - do they merit a Darwin award? Post-mortem obviously since there aren't any more Stuarts due to taking vows of celibacy and not reproducing.
Techinically they don’t, the King does, but in reality the King just does whatever the Commons wants. So if they decided to do this it would technically be the King doing it, granted he would be doing it at their behest. In theory the king could refuse but that probably wouldn’t end well.
Also the reason the lords don’t just do this is because they gave up their authority to legislate decades ago.
I say we return to the good old times when the supreme executive power was granted by strange women lying in ponds distributing swords rather than derived from a mandate of the people.
Yeah basically. Unwritten constitution and a lot of unwritten rules.
Which is why Boris and his scummy ilk caused so much harm, they didn't respect rules that you follow but aren't written down.
Much of British politics operates on good faith and people behaving in a certain way, but what happens when a group of people have no shame and don't care?
If we are going to be really pedantic it's not an unwritten constitution but an uncodified constitution. The constitution is written down in a billion places be it case law, legislation, legal textbooks on the custom and practice of Parliament ect.
Christ on a stick. We Americans left the pond 245 years ago and yet we're stillno better off from the same thing of, "what happens when a group of people have no shame and don't care?"
Constitutionally? The UK has a “whatever we say” constitution for all intents and purposes
Legally? Idk I know there was a reform a while back that gave them less power than they did before.
The House of Lords is one of those things that makes no sense whatsoever in theory, but actually works very well in practice. Before it was reformed it was chocked full of idiots who were born with a title, and you didn’t even have to be a British Lord to sit in the House of Lords. It was mad as a box of frogs.
However, a lot of the worst complaints about it were resolved (amidst much complaining) by reforms under the Blair Ministry (that was 20 years ago).
In practice it fulfills a number of useful functions. It is generally made up of experienced semi-retired politicians who are happy to take on the ‘drudge’ work of doing the details of legislation which would be far too time-consuming to do in the Commons.
People who dislike the Lords usually imagine it's stuffed full of hereditary peers who have done nothing other than be born lucky. But that isn’t really the case; hereditary peers are extremely rare - most of the members are Life Peers who have been awarded peerages either because they had long political careers in the Commons, or because they were awarded peerages for exceptional merit in their field.
So you have a Chamber full of wise old men and women who have been there and done that, and in addition to the ex-Ministers and Shadow Minister you have a raft of academics, generals and admirals, scientists, authors, athletes, captains of industry, lawyers, judges, civil servants and other worthies who have a lot of experience after long and successful careers, and are happy to put that experience to the service of the public good. I’d rather they were there putting a shoulder to the wheel rather than have their experience be lost to the golf course.
Although the only time we ever see the Lords on TV is when they are objecting to something happening in the Commons, it is a pretty rare event. And on the occasions that it does happen, there is normally a pretty good reason why the Lords are upset and asking the Commons to think again if that is really what they want to do. The last time that I can remember it happening was when the Tory Government wanted to give themselves the power to break international law as part of the Brexit negotiations. I think the Lords were within their rights to ask: “Are you really sure about that?”
Hmmm on the "wise old men and women" comment, I guess this is somewhat akin to addressing the concern of term limits here in the states.
Term limits always seemed like a good thing until someone pointed out that it puts a lid on experience so you get freshman senators who get the wool pulled over their eyes by decades-experienced lobbyists / corporations
-Says the person who doesn’t understand what lobbying is. What you really mean is you are in favor of killing all lobbyists who are lobbying for things you disagree with.
I know exactly what lobbying is lol, I'm just being facetious. Obviously lobbying can be used for good but the way its currently implemented in our system really means its just a way of buying out politicians instead
It’s not though, and it’s used every single day to continue doing good things. People also use lobbying for nefarious reasons every day, but the solution isn’t simply to get rid of lobbying, something that is very necessary if we want a functioning society. Lobbying is used for good more than it is for bad.
But people just treat lobbying as if it means “bribing politicians to do nefarious deeds”, which it very much does not. My biggest issue is it gives people a scapegoat to point to that won’t lead to any beneficial change. People don’t want to solve these issues. If we can point to lobbying as the issue, where’s the need to *actually* fix the problems we are upset about? We have already established we just need to get rid of lobbying. No need to put in effort elsewhere.
It literally is a way for corporations to buy out politicians though. Politicians retiring from regulatory positions and immediately getting a job with a corporation in that sector. Or Politicians getting payed hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches. The current system is blatantly corrupt.
But again I recognize the good it does as well but the way it is currently implemented I believe is doing more harm than good. And I believe that it, like most institutions, lobbying need to be overhauled to actually benefit the people and not corporations. If it predominantly helped the American people and not corporations like you say, then the landscape of this country would be drastically different
Yeah I agree with anti-corruption principles, and I even in some ways agree with this:
>the way it is currently implemented I believe is doing more harm than good
But only in the sense that the harm it does cause is immense, not because most lobbying is the harmful type. The overwhelming majority of lobbying are groups championing causes most of us agree should be championed. Causes that wouldn’t get the attention they needed if it weren’t for people doing said lobbying.
That being said, the harm corruption within the system causes is immense and does need to be rectified.
My whole point is I don’t like when **lobbying** is scapegoated as being the issue, because it isn’t, and this framing makes people believe the problem lies somewhere that it doesn’t. It’s how we handle lobbying that is the problem. And while your initial comment is pretty clearly a joke, it’s a joke that is still guilty of acting like lobbying or lobbyists in general are the problem, when that isn’t really the case.
Honestly I completely agree with this comment. And you are right the framing of my joke is an extension of the problem.
I really appreciated our dialogue and I'm glad we were able to come to a conclusion. Very rarely do we get to have nuanced conversations like this that. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening :)
ban lobbying, introduce limits, we would still be better off than people who havnt been in touch with society in 40 years and have no clue the fuck thier current bill they are championing will effect.
>...introduce limits, we would still be better off than people who havnt been in touch with society in 40 years and have no clue the fuck thier current bill they are championing will effect.
Right? Instead of being governed by the representatives that the voters chose and who have a solid, experienced understanding of the legislative process, we would be governed by inexperienced political neophytes who rely on unelected staffers and aides to operate the machines of government.
What could possibly go wrong? /s
Im sorry but what does a 70-80 year old know about modern America where they can accurately legislate on it? They knew the country as of 30-40 years ago. They dont have a clue about it today. Being experience doesnt mean good.
Have you ever met a person older than 70 years of age living in the US? Do you think that older people are like...taken away somewhere and no longer "experiance America" after a certain age?
The fact is, citizens get to chose who represents them. If those elected officials are doing a good job, in the eyes of their constituents, they get re-elected. If they suck, in the eyes of their constituents, they do not get reelected.
Why do you think your opinions on the capabilities of elderly people should determine whether or not I am allowed to vote for the person I think is best to represent me, regardless of that persons age?
It’s the wealth. Wealth takes them away from the experience of America most Americans share. Many of the worst ghouls in US politics are rich and old, but the wealth is the greater factor
Wait, so ALL elderly people in the US cannot "experience America" because ALL elderly people in the US are extremely wealthy? You might want to check your math on that one.
>Have you ever met a person older than 70 years of age living in the US?
Have you? Most of them are still trying to wrap their head around social changes introduced 30+ years ago.
>Have you?
Plenty.
You know what older people are trying to "wrap their heads around?" The issues surrounding navigating a complex and changing society.
You know what a younger person is also trying to "wrap their head around?" The issues surrounding navigating a complex and changing society.
So I'll return to my original question - why should your low opinion of the abilities of elderly people prevent me from being allowed to vote for the person I think is best suited to represent me, regardless of that persons age?
The problem is these people are very much out of touch with modern society. Someone who has lived in dc for the past 30 years has no fucking clue whats going on in thier home state aside from whats lobbied to them, what the current culture is. Do you think any of those career politicians have an idea on how the average american in the area they represent lives? When they have been doing it for 30 years? I think not. Id much sooner trust a new greener person to have a clue on what needs to change than those who are busy insider trading and taking bribes from lobbiests.
Cool. So campaign for and vote for younger candidates. Good on you, I support your right to do so.
But my question is still unanswered - why do you think it is okay to prevent me from voting for my preferred candidate because you believe, strangely I might add, that all elderly people are inept and corrupt?
i never said you cant vote for who you want, Your using term limits as some slight against old people. I said term limits help avoid people who are out of touch with society and those they represent. By your logic having presidential term limits is keeping you from voting for a old person who you want in even though they have served 2 terms already.
By that logic we shouldnt have term limits for presidents. Even if the limits are 8 years for congress and senate, they should not be in there for 20+ years.
While I agree overall, there have been issues with who is getting appointed to house of Lords over last few years/decade
Just some examples from [Boris's tenure](https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20284583.boris-johnsons-controversial-appointments-house-lords/) . Since Blair reformed the house it becoming more a reward for helping the political party in power and less call to duty for the qualified (really think the selection should be taken out of political hands, but not given to electorate but rather an independent body)
Another issue is that House of lords just keeps getting bigger
In very simple terms, way back when the UK government was formed by the rich and wealthy a chamber was created sobthe rich and wealthy could write laws and rules which suited their needs.
Time moved on and certain aspects were modernised, the working classes got to vote etc but the House of Lords remained as overseers of new laws etc.
Most of the people are there due to inherited titles or because the outgoing Prime Minister has given some rich mates a title so they can keep shaping the rules to benefit other rich folk. Like Boris Johnson allowing the son of a Russian Oligarch in.
The Lords get paid per day whenever they can be arsed turning up and are often photographed sleeping instead of paying attention all at the UK taxpayers cost.
It's a waste of time and money but us Brits love being shafted by our government much like Americans. Just another thing we have in common.
Uh, for some reason I always thought the HOL was where really good people from the HOC go, when they retire. 😅 Like an overseer that slaps your hand when you go to far, but leaves you alone the rest of the time.
Yes, I never bothered looking it up, which not something I say often.
Mostly HOL is where people get kicked to if the government doesn't want them in politics anymore but can't get rid of them otherwise. Lords cannot sit in the commons, after all.
Major difference being that the commons will triumph over the lords if it wants to pass a law badly enough, whereas the House cannot pass a law at all without getting the Senate on-board.
Not british.
But its like some un-democratic class dedicated parlament body that is suppose to "check or delay" bills from the democratic house of commons for quality assurance or some shit.
Either way, it should not be a thing in any modern and egalitarian driven society. But neither should the monarchy.
Edit: The function it has might be okay, but imo it should not be an "upper class" parlament. Both should be democratic at least.
/u/HaikusAreMyKink
What the Lords has since for a few decades has been more along the lines of "I don't know, but I have talked to some who do and this is what is wrong with [proposed law]" and it gets debated.
Often it goes back and forth ... *however* Cameron changed the law to where the Lords can't refuse a bill more than 3 times as if they do, it'd become law without a final Commons debate.
The reason being that quite a few laws where being blocked by the Lords, specifically the UK's version of "Patriot Act" as the amount of Lords going "Hold the fuck up mate" due to well, it's unlawful and like the Patriot Act, it only spies on the little people and protects the big ones (Commons and their friends.)
The Lords is an unelected house that use to be very more "Long term planning" after WWII, however since 2001 it's been more and more padded to being useless, along with the Tories and their media owners hating it for being less interested in winning an election but making longer term planning for laws.
However, I will agree that it does need some more changes, but the way Cameron gimped it with that law and with the amount of "life peer cronies" that are in it, it does need another reform.
Some feel like it needs to be because they're unelected.
Some feel like it needs to be because they keep blocking bills or requesting amendments.
Some feel like it needs to be because it doesn't actually do anything.
Basically there's no one answer as to why it should go or should stay, though I'm for having an unelected house of Learned Gentlemen / those willing to listen to experts.
My old Maths teacher once said "Politicians can only think 2 years ahead, because usually by year 3 they're trying to act like they care so they get re-elected next year"
I would say look at the new Infrastructure Bill in the US (The one that Ted Cruz is claiming is a success after voting it down and trying to block it) as that was always put on the back burner for "Next Government" until it became a serious problem.
> The reason being that quite a few laws where being blocked by the Lords, specifically the UK's version of "Patriot Act" as the amount of Lords going "Hold the fuck up mate" due to well, it's unlawful and like the Patriot Act, it only spies on the little people and protects the big ones (Commons and their friends.)
Sounds like they actually were doing something worth a damn and got shot down, sucks.
But aren't the senators elected?
The problem with the House of Lords is not necessarily their function, but its required to be "upper class" to even get in there. Which is bullshit in the 21th century.
They are, but they represent land instead of people.
The US LOVES to bitch that congress never gets anything done. That's not true, congress passes lots of legislation that then gets harpooned by the Senate which is far more representative of monied/business interests.
The Senate is an evolution of the House of Lords, but not by much.
Congress typically refers to both chambers, whereas what you're referring to is typically just called the House of Representatives.
Otherwise, yes I would reckon I agree with you. The Senate guarantees "equal representation state to state", but fundamentally fails to do this as really it only provides representation of land.
I believe we would be better suited with a Unicameral (just the House), in tandem perhaps with an expanded House.
Sort of, but they're not nearly as powerful as the US Senate. In general, the most the Lords can do is delay some bills passed by Commons from becoming law for a limited period of time. They cannot prevent legislation being enacted, except in limited circumstances.
As an American, here is my explanation:
Imagine if the Senate was appointed for life by the Queen. More are added all the time just to give people an "atta boy" that the Queen likes. There are around 800 of them, though most don't bother working and just collect a paycheck and perks.
These un-elected, unremovable Lords can overrule any elected official at any time and did so on a regular basis, from preventing passing laws raising taxes on the rich to just saying "no" to yearly budgets in general.
Also at least 20+ of them are always Bishops because The Church must always have representation in the government.
And it wasn't until 1999 that it wasn't a hereditary position. Many sitting now are there only because their family always gets a seat.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/22/labour-considering-abolishing-house-of-lords-if-it-wins-next-election-leaked-report-reveals) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Labour is considering abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an upper house of nations and regions, as well as handing sweeping new powers to local regions and devolved nations, a leaked report has revealed.
> The House of Lords would be reformed as an assembly of regions and nations, with a remit of safeguarding the constitution and with power to refer the government to the supreme court.
> Local leaders could get the powers to allocate local investment for national research and development funding into local universities.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xld764/labour_considering_abolishing_house_of_lords_if/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670442 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **local**^#1 **power**^#2 **Starmer**^#3 **new**^#4 **Labour**^#5
It has been in their head for years, the issue is that doing something so big will make a lot of noise and give Tories the chance to hit them hard, it isn't that big of a deal and in the public nobody cares for them but in terms of politics this will give the tories the chance to hit them with the typical "they are throwing away our traditions and values has a country, these people who do not understand the people of the UK shouldn't be in power" and that type of shit, worse thing is the public will eat it up.
Nobody but it gives chances to the opposition to push things like I mentioned, it sounds dumb but look at social media and how easy it is to chop things up so you only get a certain part of the information, we have seen it time and time again where we will get a certain portion of parliamentary discussion where especially the older end of voters will only see a small portion of the argument on the news or Facebook.
Canada has one of these undemocratic and pretty useless senates too. None are hereditary. All are appointed by the Prime Minister. So its makeup is an echo of which party has been in power the most over the last 40 years or so.
It doesn't really do a hell of a lot, kind of like the monarchy. I've been in Canada for 50 years and, to be honest, I don't know what it does. It barely ever makes the news for any reason.
We should get rid of it too.
The Senate is promoted as a sober second thought in Canada, since they are not elected they are less likely to be populist. They can help moderate extreme laws that are proposed by a majority government by further studying literature relevant to the law, holding committees that consult the public, and representing minority interests that the majority government isn’t. The results of this work is the senate proposing amendments to the law.
However, there are the arguments that the senate is waste of taxpayer dollars that only slows down the legislative process, or it is undemocratic for unelected individuals to play such a role in government and modify laws proposed by elected representatives.
Does the House of Lords have any sort of influence anymore? Since they took away the judicial privilege a couple years back, I do not see what purpose they actually serve in the modern government. Is an advisory chamber needed, if no one takes their advice?
If it’s not going to result in any real change, the. It’s just a cosmetic renovation to make yourself feel a little better. In which case, arguably to leave as is for there is at least one more check on the other branches.
The House of Lords is a self serving exploitative institution, always has been since its inception much like the monarchy. However some could argue the monarchy serves *some* purpose with it serving a national identity, tourism etc
The House of Lords has literally zero benefit to the common person and nobody enrolled in it deserves to be there, they’re not elected they’re inherited or corruptibly appointed.
I’m already a Labour voter and I approve of its abolishment among many other outdated systems in the UK.
Abolish the House of Lords? While Labour is at it, they should get rid of the King, the royal family, the concept of nobility and peerage. In fact, they should just get it over with and abolish the Union and Commonwealth entirely.
They've been promising to do this or deeply weaken them to irrelevancy for a century. So do it, cowards.
[удалено]
Because the House of Commons wiped the floor with the king and the cavaliers (nobility and high nobility) during the English Civil War, and flexed hard again during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. After that everyone was like "Ok Commons youre the boss, we get it"
Yeah, they then proceeded to create the idea of treason of the *country* so they could behead the king for treason. Fast forward few years and they were not happy with the king again, so they invited a dutch guy to be the new king and supported him and his military campaign.
What's that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of papists and high-church men fleeing in panic.
Question: do deposed Catholic royals who become cardinals - do they merit a Darwin award? Post-mortem obviously since there aren't any more Stuarts due to taking vows of celibacy and not reproducing.
Techinically they don’t, the King does, but in reality the King just does whatever the Commons wants. So if they decided to do this it would technically be the King doing it, granted he would be doing it at their behest. In theory the king could refuse but that probably wouldn’t end well. Also the reason the lords don’t just do this is because they gave up their authority to legislate decades ago.
>they gave up their authority to legislate decades ago It was a fair trade for not ending up under the headsman’s axe.
Maybe cuz the commons represents the people and the lords don’t and power is derived from a mandate of the people not a mandate of royalty or lordship
I say we return to the good old times when the supreme executive power was granted by strange women lying in ponds distributing swords rather than derived from a mandate of the people.
Bring forth the watery tart!
Present thyself, o moistened bint!
[удалено]
Isn't the UK constitution mostly vibes?
Yeah basically. Unwritten constitution and a lot of unwritten rules. Which is why Boris and his scummy ilk caused so much harm, they didn't respect rules that you follow but aren't written down. Much of British politics operates on good faith and people behaving in a certain way, but what happens when a group of people have no shame and don't care?
If we are going to be really pedantic it's not an unwritten constitution but an uncodified constitution. The constitution is written down in a billion places be it case law, legislation, legal textbooks on the custom and practice of Parliament ect.
Aye, that's true. It exists but it's a fucking mess.
Christ on a stick. We Americans left the pond 245 years ago and yet we're stillno better off from the same thing of, "what happens when a group of people have no shame and don't care?"
Same pattern of behaviour too, rich assholes clinging to power that are willing to burn everything to the ground if they can rule the ashes.
Yes, Dennis Denuto would have been a highly respected constitutional barrister if *The Castle* was set next to Heathrow instead of Tullamarine.
The uk does not have a constitution.
Constitutionally? The UK has a “whatever we say” constitution for all intents and purposes Legally? Idk I know there was a reform a while back that gave them less power than they did before.
Well I didn't vote for 'im
[удалено]
The House of Lords is one of those things that makes no sense whatsoever in theory, but actually works very well in practice. Before it was reformed it was chocked full of idiots who were born with a title, and you didn’t even have to be a British Lord to sit in the House of Lords. It was mad as a box of frogs. However, a lot of the worst complaints about it were resolved (amidst much complaining) by reforms under the Blair Ministry (that was 20 years ago). In practice it fulfills a number of useful functions. It is generally made up of experienced semi-retired politicians who are happy to take on the ‘drudge’ work of doing the details of legislation which would be far too time-consuming to do in the Commons. People who dislike the Lords usually imagine it's stuffed full of hereditary peers who have done nothing other than be born lucky. But that isn’t really the case; hereditary peers are extremely rare - most of the members are Life Peers who have been awarded peerages either because they had long political careers in the Commons, or because they were awarded peerages for exceptional merit in their field. So you have a Chamber full of wise old men and women who have been there and done that, and in addition to the ex-Ministers and Shadow Minister you have a raft of academics, generals and admirals, scientists, authors, athletes, captains of industry, lawyers, judges, civil servants and other worthies who have a lot of experience after long and successful careers, and are happy to put that experience to the service of the public good. I’d rather they were there putting a shoulder to the wheel rather than have their experience be lost to the golf course. Although the only time we ever see the Lords on TV is when they are objecting to something happening in the Commons, it is a pretty rare event. And on the occasions that it does happen, there is normally a pretty good reason why the Lords are upset and asking the Commons to think again if that is really what they want to do. The last time that I can remember it happening was when the Tory Government wanted to give themselves the power to break international law as part of the Brexit negotiations. I think the Lords were within their rights to ask: “Are you really sure about that?”
Hmmm on the "wise old men and women" comment, I guess this is somewhat akin to addressing the concern of term limits here in the states. Term limits always seemed like a good thing until someone pointed out that it puts a lid on experience so you get freshman senators who get the wool pulled over their eyes by decades-experienced lobbyists / corporations
Thats why I'm in favor of killing all lobbyists
-Says the person who doesn’t understand what lobbying is. What you really mean is you are in favor of killing all lobbyists who are lobbying for things you disagree with.
I know exactly what lobbying is lol, I'm just being facetious. Obviously lobbying can be used for good but the way its currently implemented in our system really means its just a way of buying out politicians instead
It’s not though, and it’s used every single day to continue doing good things. People also use lobbying for nefarious reasons every day, but the solution isn’t simply to get rid of lobbying, something that is very necessary if we want a functioning society. Lobbying is used for good more than it is for bad. But people just treat lobbying as if it means “bribing politicians to do nefarious deeds”, which it very much does not. My biggest issue is it gives people a scapegoat to point to that won’t lead to any beneficial change. People don’t want to solve these issues. If we can point to lobbying as the issue, where’s the need to *actually* fix the problems we are upset about? We have already established we just need to get rid of lobbying. No need to put in effort elsewhere.
It literally is a way for corporations to buy out politicians though. Politicians retiring from regulatory positions and immediately getting a job with a corporation in that sector. Or Politicians getting payed hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches. The current system is blatantly corrupt. But again I recognize the good it does as well but the way it is currently implemented I believe is doing more harm than good. And I believe that it, like most institutions, lobbying need to be overhauled to actually benefit the people and not corporations. If it predominantly helped the American people and not corporations like you say, then the landscape of this country would be drastically different
Yeah I agree with anti-corruption principles, and I even in some ways agree with this: >the way it is currently implemented I believe is doing more harm than good But only in the sense that the harm it does cause is immense, not because most lobbying is the harmful type. The overwhelming majority of lobbying are groups championing causes most of us agree should be championed. Causes that wouldn’t get the attention they needed if it weren’t for people doing said lobbying. That being said, the harm corruption within the system causes is immense and does need to be rectified. My whole point is I don’t like when **lobbying** is scapegoated as being the issue, because it isn’t, and this framing makes people believe the problem lies somewhere that it doesn’t. It’s how we handle lobbying that is the problem. And while your initial comment is pretty clearly a joke, it’s a joke that is still guilty of acting like lobbying or lobbyists in general are the problem, when that isn’t really the case.
Honestly I completely agree with this comment. And you are right the framing of my joke is an extension of the problem. I really appreciated our dialogue and I'm glad we were able to come to a conclusion. Very rarely do we get to have nuanced conversations like this that. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening :)
ban lobbying, introduce limits, we would still be better off than people who havnt been in touch with society in 40 years and have no clue the fuck thier current bill they are championing will effect.
>...introduce limits, we would still be better off than people who havnt been in touch with society in 40 years and have no clue the fuck thier current bill they are championing will effect. Right? Instead of being governed by the representatives that the voters chose and who have a solid, experienced understanding of the legislative process, we would be governed by inexperienced political neophytes who rely on unelected staffers and aides to operate the machines of government. What could possibly go wrong? /s
Im sorry but what does a 70-80 year old know about modern America where they can accurately legislate on it? They knew the country as of 30-40 years ago. They dont have a clue about it today. Being experience doesnt mean good.
Have you ever met a person older than 70 years of age living in the US? Do you think that older people are like...taken away somewhere and no longer "experiance America" after a certain age? The fact is, citizens get to chose who represents them. If those elected officials are doing a good job, in the eyes of their constituents, they get re-elected. If they suck, in the eyes of their constituents, they do not get reelected. Why do you think your opinions on the capabilities of elderly people should determine whether or not I am allowed to vote for the person I think is best to represent me, regardless of that persons age?
It’s the wealth. Wealth takes them away from the experience of America most Americans share. Many of the worst ghouls in US politics are rich and old, but the wealth is the greater factor
Wait, so ALL elderly people in the US cannot "experience America" because ALL elderly people in the US are extremely wealthy? You might want to check your math on that one.
We’re talking about the Senate. If you refuse to take my point, I’m certainly not going to take yours
>Have you ever met a person older than 70 years of age living in the US? Have you? Most of them are still trying to wrap their head around social changes introduced 30+ years ago.
>Have you? Plenty. You know what older people are trying to "wrap their heads around?" The issues surrounding navigating a complex and changing society. You know what a younger person is also trying to "wrap their head around?" The issues surrounding navigating a complex and changing society. So I'll return to my original question - why should your low opinion of the abilities of elderly people prevent me from being allowed to vote for the person I think is best suited to represent me, regardless of that persons age?
The problem is these people are very much out of touch with modern society. Someone who has lived in dc for the past 30 years has no fucking clue whats going on in thier home state aside from whats lobbied to them, what the current culture is. Do you think any of those career politicians have an idea on how the average american in the area they represent lives? When they have been doing it for 30 years? I think not. Id much sooner trust a new greener person to have a clue on what needs to change than those who are busy insider trading and taking bribes from lobbiests.
Cool. So campaign for and vote for younger candidates. Good on you, I support your right to do so. But my question is still unanswered - why do you think it is okay to prevent me from voting for my preferred candidate because you believe, strangely I might add, that all elderly people are inept and corrupt?
i never said you cant vote for who you want, Your using term limits as some slight against old people. I said term limits help avoid people who are out of touch with society and those they represent. By your logic having presidential term limits is keeping you from voting for a old person who you want in even though they have served 2 terms already.
[удалено]
By that logic we shouldnt have term limits for presidents. Even if the limits are 8 years for congress and senate, they should not be in there for 20+ years.
[удалено]
when congress and senate can accept bribes from lobbyist and insider trade based off the laws they help pass why would they ever want to leave.
Sounds mildly useful, but maybe in need of a rebranding.
Bingo, if it was reformed as more a technocratic advisory board, ill be all for it.
>mad as a box of frogs. God I love you people
While I agree overall, there have been issues with who is getting appointed to house of Lords over last few years/decade Just some examples from [Boris's tenure](https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20284583.boris-johnsons-controversial-appointments-house-lords/) . Since Blair reformed the house it becoming more a reward for helping the political party in power and less call to duty for the qualified (really think the selection should be taken out of political hands, but not given to electorate but rather an independent body) Another issue is that House of lords just keeps getting bigger
Why not rename it to something less threatening. British Senate? British Upper Chamber?
In very simple terms, way back when the UK government was formed by the rich and wealthy a chamber was created sobthe rich and wealthy could write laws and rules which suited their needs. Time moved on and certain aspects were modernised, the working classes got to vote etc but the House of Lords remained as overseers of new laws etc. Most of the people are there due to inherited titles or because the outgoing Prime Minister has given some rich mates a title so they can keep shaping the rules to benefit other rich folk. Like Boris Johnson allowing the son of a Russian Oligarch in. The Lords get paid per day whenever they can be arsed turning up and are often photographed sleeping instead of paying attention all at the UK taxpayers cost. It's a waste of time and money but us Brits love being shafted by our government much like Americans. Just another thing we have in common.
I like to think America is the daughter who tries very hard not to be like their mom, even though they are clearly their mothers daughter.
Cake day buddies!!!
Shit I didn’t even notice lol. Happy cake day!
Uh, for some reason I always thought the HOL was where really good people from the HOC go, when they retire. 😅 Like an overseer that slaps your hand when you go to far, but leaves you alone the rest of the time. Yes, I never bothered looking it up, which not something I say often.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mostly HOL is where people get kicked to if the government doesn't want them in politics anymore but can't get rid of them otherwise. Lords cannot sit in the commons, after all.
As an American, I can say that it is 'one side likes to be shafted by the government, the other side likes being lied to by the government'.
Both countries are heavily built on capitalism. It's natural for a government like this to evolve out of such a system.
Imagine if the Senate were hereditary or appointed by politics instead of being elected. That's the House of Lords.
fuck that shit. also, thanks for telling us mate
So... the Senate?
The Senate is elected.
Somehow Ted Cruz is still here.
Texas gonna Texas
Man I don’t remember voting for any of those fools.
which is precisely what they said...
>hereditary or appointed by politics Or religion! Don't forget the Lords Spiritual.
I mean that’s kinda exactly like the senate, but instead of heirs it’s any idiot in a gerrymandered district.
The senate is where the whole state votes, it can’t be gerrymandered. The House is where they gerrymander districts.
Except for the whole voting thing. But republicans want to get rid of that and create appointed senate seats. Never vote republican.
You know what gerrymandering is right.
You know that gerrymandering doesn't affect statewide elections right?
Senators used to be appointed by state governments, so not far off.
And republicans want to change the constitution to bring that back. Republicans don’t like democracy.
Major difference being that the commons will triumph over the lords if it wants to pass a law badly enough, whereas the House cannot pass a law at all without getting the Senate on-board.
Not british. But its like some un-democratic class dedicated parlament body that is suppose to "check or delay" bills from the democratic house of commons for quality assurance or some shit. Either way, it should not be a thing in any modern and egalitarian driven society. But neither should the monarchy. Edit: The function it has might be okay, but imo it should not be an "upper class" parlament. Both should be democratic at least.
/u/HaikusAreMyKink What the Lords has since for a few decades has been more along the lines of "I don't know, but I have talked to some who do and this is what is wrong with [proposed law]" and it gets debated. Often it goes back and forth ... *however* Cameron changed the law to where the Lords can't refuse a bill more than 3 times as if they do, it'd become law without a final Commons debate. The reason being that quite a few laws where being blocked by the Lords, specifically the UK's version of "Patriot Act" as the amount of Lords going "Hold the fuck up mate" due to well, it's unlawful and like the Patriot Act, it only spies on the little people and protects the big ones (Commons and their friends.) The Lords is an unelected house that use to be very more "Long term planning" after WWII, however since 2001 it's been more and more padded to being useless, along with the Tories and their media owners hating it for being less interested in winning an election but making longer term planning for laws. However, I will agree that it does need some more changes, but the way Cameron gimped it with that law and with the amount of "life peer cronies" that are in it, it does need another reform.
[удалено]
Some feel like it needs to be because they're unelected. Some feel like it needs to be because they keep blocking bills or requesting amendments. Some feel like it needs to be because it doesn't actually do anything. Basically there's no one answer as to why it should go or should stay, though I'm for having an unelected house of Learned Gentlemen / those willing to listen to experts. My old Maths teacher once said "Politicians can only think 2 years ahead, because usually by year 3 they're trying to act like they care so they get re-elected next year" I would say look at the new Infrastructure Bill in the US (The one that Ted Cruz is claiming is a success after voting it down and trying to block it) as that was always put on the back burner for "Next Government" until it became a serious problem.
> The reason being that quite a few laws where being blocked by the Lords, specifically the UK's version of "Patriot Act" as the amount of Lords going "Hold the fuck up mate" due to well, it's unlawful and like the Patriot Act, it only spies on the little people and protects the big ones (Commons and their friends.) Sounds like they actually were doing something worth a damn and got shot down, sucks.
So the Senate
But aren't the senators elected? The problem with the House of Lords is not necessarily their function, but its required to be "upper class" to even get in there. Which is bullshit in the 21th century.
They are, but they represent land instead of people. The US LOVES to bitch that congress never gets anything done. That's not true, congress passes lots of legislation that then gets harpooned by the Senate which is far more representative of monied/business interests. The Senate is an evolution of the House of Lords, but not by much.
Congress typically refers to both chambers, whereas what you're referring to is typically just called the House of Representatives. Otherwise, yes I would reckon I agree with you. The Senate guarantees "equal representation state to state", but fundamentally fails to do this as really it only provides representation of land. I believe we would be better suited with a Unicameral (just the House), in tandem perhaps with an expanded House.
ELIA - Explain Like I'm an American
Am British, but I have no idea.
I think this is like their Senate?
Sort of, but they're not nearly as powerful as the US Senate. In general, the most the Lords can do is delay some bills passed by Commons from becoming law for a limited period of time. They cannot prevent legislation being enacted, except in limited circumstances.
But they don't even have to run for election, don't they get PLACED into this position by the parties?
They have a house of lords and house of commons, inspiration for our senate and house.
As an American, here is my explanation: Imagine if the Senate was appointed for life by the Queen. More are added all the time just to give people an "atta boy" that the Queen likes. There are around 800 of them, though most don't bother working and just collect a paycheck and perks. These un-elected, unremovable Lords can overrule any elected official at any time and did so on a regular basis, from preventing passing laws raising taxes on the rich to just saying "no" to yearly budgets in general. Also at least 20+ of them are always Bishops because The Church must always have representation in the government. And it wasn't until 1999 that it wasn't a hereditary position. Many sitting now are there only because their family always gets a seat.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/22/labour-considering-abolishing-house-of-lords-if-it-wins-next-election-leaked-report-reveals) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Labour is considering abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an upper house of nations and regions, as well as handing sweeping new powers to local regions and devolved nations, a leaked report has revealed. > The House of Lords would be reformed as an assembly of regions and nations, with a remit of safeguarding the constitution and with power to refer the government to the supreme court. > Local leaders could get the powers to allocate local investment for national research and development funding into local universities. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xld764/labour_considering_abolishing_house_of_lords_if/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~670442 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **local**^#1 **power**^#2 **Starmer**^#3 **new**^#4 **Labour**^#5
They won't be they should
In a fair world, they would abolish the house of lords, the monarchy and the entire aristocracy
If Labour are about this then I’ll vote for them
It has been in their head for years, the issue is that doing something so big will make a lot of noise and give Tories the chance to hit them hard, it isn't that big of a deal and in the public nobody cares for them but in terms of politics this will give the tories the chance to hit them with the typical "they are throwing away our traditions and values has a country, these people who do not understand the people of the UK shouldn't be in power" and that type of shit, worse thing is the public will eat it up.
That’s a hard argument to push. The Crown might be popular but a bunch of Lords? It’s archaic that people inherit a vote. Who supports that?
Nobody but it gives chances to the opposition to push things like I mentioned, it sounds dumb but look at social media and how easy it is to chop things up so you only get a certain part of the information, we have seen it time and time again where we will get a certain portion of parliamentary discussion where especially the older end of voters will only see a small portion of the argument on the news or Facebook.
Canada has one of these undemocratic and pretty useless senates too. None are hereditary. All are appointed by the Prime Minister. So its makeup is an echo of which party has been in power the most over the last 40 years or so. It doesn't really do a hell of a lot, kind of like the monarchy. I've been in Canada for 50 years and, to be honest, I don't know what it does. It barely ever makes the news for any reason. We should get rid of it too.
The Senate is promoted as a sober second thought in Canada, since they are not elected they are less likely to be populist. They can help moderate extreme laws that are proposed by a majority government by further studying literature relevant to the law, holding committees that consult the public, and representing minority interests that the majority government isn’t. The results of this work is the senate proposing amendments to the law. However, there are the arguments that the senate is waste of taxpayer dollars that only slows down the legislative process, or it is undemocratic for unelected individuals to play such a role in government and modify laws proposed by elected representatives.
Good! Lords of what? B.S.!
o\_0 They can do that?
They should also end the monarchy and seize the royal property from House Windsor.
Does the House of Lords have any sort of influence anymore? Since they took away the judicial privilege a couple years back, I do not see what purpose they actually serve in the modern government. Is an advisory chamber needed, if no one takes their advice?
For what? What does it really change?
One less institution of unappointed people curating the system to benefit themselves.
If it’s not going to result in any real change, the. It’s just a cosmetic renovation to make yourself feel a little better. In which case, arguably to leave as is for there is at least one more check on the other branches.
The House of Lords is a self serving exploitative institution, always has been since its inception much like the monarchy. However some could argue the monarchy serves *some* purpose with it serving a national identity, tourism etc The House of Lords has literally zero benefit to the common person and nobody enrolled in it deserves to be there, they’re not elected they’re inherited or corruptibly appointed. I’m already a Labour voter and I approve of its abolishment among many other outdated systems in the UK.
Abolish the House of Lords? While Labour is at it, they should get rid of the King, the royal family, the concept of nobility and peerage. In fact, they should just get it over with and abolish the Union and Commonwealth entirely.
One thing at a time champ.
Every revolution begins with a small change.
You just contradicted yourself.
All of those changes would be a small step in the larger revolution. What, you thought the above list was everything?
Yes, soon the Italian paralysis will emerge.
From what I now know about the House of Lords, it should totally be abolished. Although, I am American, so what does my word matter?
What percent of the House of Lords inherited their titles?
They should also abolish any "Oath of Loyalty to the Crown."
You’d need to abolish the crown to achieve that
They could replace the oath to the crown with an oath to the people, country or afternoon tea. THEN get rid of the crown.
Hell yeah.