About damned time. Shocking for a 21st century democracy to still allow power to be given to unelected rich people. We also need a strong democratically elected house to keep the house or commons in check.
Yes. Strip them of their ill gotten ermine and let them earn their position as law makers, rather than sit as spongers for the rest of their lives on the back of corruption.
The only reason we have politically appointed HOL is because labour “reformed” it before.
It should be wholly appointed and wholly separate from politics. Appointments should be fixed term and based soley on merit.
I don’t really know how you’d do that and keep poltical influence form getting in, but I’m just the ideas guy.
Imagine a football club, or any business organisation having a board stuffed with people who did favours or will do favours for whoever was in charge, and for no other reason. This is our country and no wonder it is badly run for so many.
I don’t think the Lords has that much to do with distrusting politics but still good nonetheless
Not really a fan of Stammer or Labour to be honest but this would get my vote.
Great agree 100%
wondering when he’ll break that pledge
Yet they have been the only ones who have at times prevented absolutely insane government agendas and schemes… Kier and his cronies really do try their best to be unappealing as possible
That would be the House of Lords that continues to oppose the attempts from the Commons to remove laws guaranteeing our Human Rights? Or the House of Lords that questioned the least sane (and now most damaging) parts of Brexit?
Almost every politician who hates on the Lords does so because they want unlimited power – especially if they are, or want to be, Prime Minister.
A Second Chamber, with different selection criteria than the first, is a most useful guarantee of actual Democracy and a most irritating brake on authoritarian Prime Ministers.
The Lords should be chosen in some more representative fashion, and then given actual powers to block and amend legislation. How about that?
So two elected chambers that both need to agree to pass anything? Is that for the best?
The HoL may be an odd feature but it seems like a pretty good check and balance, especially recently given what a mess the HoC is.
I disagree with this. It needs some heavy reforms, such as no life peers and no peerages from PMs once they leave office, however something is needed to keep the Commons in check. The House of Lords should be filled with independent experts in a variety of fields, such as education, finance, defence and health. Those experts should be rotated regularly to keep the House filled with experience and knowledge relevant to the modern era. The idea of the House of Lords is not the problem, it is the antiquated way it is run that is the problem.
It’s funny because the house isn’t just for rich moguls but rather experts in certain fields.
I understand the view about them but actually the House of Lords have actually helped advise the government well at times.
Can’t say I’m not disappointed as I think the House of Lords has value and is quite underappreciated.
But I suspect the public is generally behind this idea so strategically not a mistake. Can’t see how the papers could attack him for it… although they can get creative!
I would say that Corbyn was weakened from both policy overload and scaring the pigeons with too many drastic ideas. Starmer isn’t close to that, but I suspect he can’t be doing too many of these straight away.
Disingenuous headline. That’s not what he said at all.
So, If I remember correctly. To get this passed, he would have to get the motion on the floor, pass it once. At which point the house of lords would reject it, then they would need to pass it again by 2/3rds of politicians in the house of commons?
Can anyone else corroborate this? Labour would need a massive majority, the support of the SNP because since brexit, those guys arent going anywhere. Probably the greens and lib dems too considering that the rise of SNP has scuppered labours ability to get a majority.
This is very radical compared to Keir’s normal political patter and I’m into it. Our current political system has been exposed as incredibly vulnerable and corrupt in the last few years and massive change is needed to fix the rot
Wait it been the house of lords holding some of the policies to account over the last few years. Yes how it’s membership is made up is questionable but it’s oversight is its value regardless who is in power
I really don’t get the point in an elected HoL – surely that will just lead to a duplicate of HoC and all the party politics that entails?
Ideally we would have 25% appointed experts (and former MPs, SPADs etc are barred) plus 75% normal people appointed by lottery: ie anyone between 25 and 55 offered a 15 year term with same pay etc as MPs.
Over 500 people or so that should be representative of the whole UK population.
My god, this is the first time I’ve heard something I agree with from Starmer in months.
I doubt it, he’s riding that high poll rating until he’s elected into office.
Don’t expect ranked choice voting to come in either.
People don’t distrust the lords, they distrust MPs and the political parties, that’s what really needs replacing
Depressing that this is being held up as “sweeping constitutional overhaul” when really it’s the bare minimum. Not entirely convinced an elected upper house is the best thing to replace the Lords with but wait and see I guess.
And replace it with what?
At the moment the Lords cannot overrule the Commons. If they become an elected assembly then they have a mandate from the electorate.
The Lords have on many occassions been the voice of reason when there has been very little in the Commons. The very fact that they are not looking for election means that they take decisions that MPs cannot.
At their best they are a talking shop that scrutinises the Government and holds it to account. Many Lords have deep interests and are valuable members of committees.
The Lords are a very important and valuable addittion to the political landscape. Why does Starmer want to abolish them? Is it because they can’t be whipped?
Whilst I agree I also do have to remind myself, and others, but the lords have been the only thing to slow this Tory slide to oblivion down. Repealing various pieces of legislation causing delays and adjustments. Where is the check and balance if we scrap them?
Isn’t the house of Lords the only thing blocking some of the insane laws that the tories are trying to ram through?
Damn stupid announcement. The house of Lords serves its purpose as a break on the govt. This soubds radical and could scare many people back to the tories. Why not just say you want to evaluate it with an independent team.
We need proper voting reform, and reform of the upper chamber.
And, we need a real, written constitution.
Because right now, as no parliament can bind a future one, there’s nothing to stop future HoC from just bringing it all back.
It would be so wonderful if we could get this right.
But he needs a new bullet proof vest, not a new voting system, right guys?
I’d love to be convinced that the answer to restoring trust in politics is a *second* bunch of bastards put in place by the masterminds that are the British public.
I always liked to believe in democracy. But a recent example is our government silencing protesters.
The lords had objections. Even though the bill ended up being passed, to me that seemed a strong example of why we need persons that are not just wondering about toeing the party line, and doing what is best for the current government, but actually trying to represent the people.
As much as I hate the principle of having Lords in Parliament, that made me seriously reconsider my perspective.
29 comments
About damned time. Shocking for a 21st century democracy to still allow power to be given to unelected rich people. We also need a strong democratically elected house to keep the house or commons in check.
Yes. Strip them of their ill gotten ermine and let them earn their position as law makers, rather than sit as spongers for the rest of their lives on the back of corruption.
The only reason we have politically appointed HOL is because labour “reformed” it before.
It should be wholly appointed and wholly separate from politics. Appointments should be fixed term and based soley on merit.
I don’t really know how you’d do that and keep poltical influence form getting in, but I’m just the ideas guy.
Imagine a football club, or any business organisation having a board stuffed with people who did favours or will do favours for whoever was in charge, and for no other reason. This is our country and no wonder it is badly run for so many.
I don’t think the Lords has that much to do with distrusting politics but still good nonetheless
Not really a fan of Stammer or Labour to be honest but this would get my vote.
Great agree 100%
wondering when he’ll break that pledge
Yet they have been the only ones who have at times prevented absolutely insane government agendas and schemes… Kier and his cronies really do try their best to be unappealing as possible
That would be the House of Lords that continues to oppose the attempts from the Commons to remove laws guaranteeing our Human Rights? Or the House of Lords that questioned the least sane (and now most damaging) parts of Brexit?
Almost every politician who hates on the Lords does so because they want unlimited power – especially if they are, or want to be, Prime Minister.
A Second Chamber, with different selection criteria than the first, is a most useful guarantee of actual Democracy and a most irritating brake on authoritarian Prime Ministers.
The Lords should be chosen in some more representative fashion, and then given actual powers to block and amend legislation. How about that?
So two elected chambers that both need to agree to pass anything? Is that for the best?
The HoL may be an odd feature but it seems like a pretty good check and balance, especially recently given what a mess the HoC is.
I disagree with this. It needs some heavy reforms, such as no life peers and no peerages from PMs once they leave office, however something is needed to keep the Commons in check. The House of Lords should be filled with independent experts in a variety of fields, such as education, finance, defence and health. Those experts should be rotated regularly to keep the House filled with experience and knowledge relevant to the modern era. The idea of the House of Lords is not the problem, it is the antiquated way it is run that is the problem.
It’s funny because the house isn’t just for rich moguls but rather experts in certain fields.
I understand the view about them but actually the House of Lords have actually helped advise the government well at times.
Can’t say I’m not disappointed as I think the House of Lords has value and is quite underappreciated.
But I suspect the public is generally behind this idea so strategically not a mistake. Can’t see how the papers could attack him for it… although they can get creative!
I would say that Corbyn was weakened from both policy overload and scaring the pigeons with too many drastic ideas. Starmer isn’t close to that, but I suspect he can’t be doing too many of these straight away.
Disingenuous headline. That’s not what he said at all.
So, If I remember correctly. To get this passed, he would have to get the motion on the floor, pass it once. At which point the house of lords would reject it, then they would need to pass it again by 2/3rds of politicians in the house of commons?
Can anyone else corroborate this? Labour would need a massive majority, the support of the SNP because since brexit, those guys arent going anywhere. Probably the greens and lib dems too considering that the rise of SNP has scuppered labours ability to get a majority.
This is very radical compared to Keir’s normal political patter and I’m into it. Our current political system has been exposed as incredibly vulnerable and corrupt in the last few years and massive change is needed to fix the rot
Wait it been the house of lords holding some of the policies to account over the last few years. Yes how it’s membership is made up is questionable but it’s oversight is its value regardless who is in power
I really don’t get the point in an elected HoL – surely that will just lead to a duplicate of HoC and all the party politics that entails?
Ideally we would have 25% appointed experts (and former MPs, SPADs etc are barred) plus 75% normal people appointed by lottery: ie anyone between 25 and 55 offered a 15 year term with same pay etc as MPs.
Over 500 people or so that should be representative of the whole UK population.
My god, this is the first time I’ve heard something I agree with from Starmer in months.
I doubt it, he’s riding that high poll rating until he’s elected into office.
Don’t expect ranked choice voting to come in either.
People don’t distrust the lords, they distrust MPs and the political parties, that’s what really needs replacing
Depressing that this is being held up as “sweeping constitutional overhaul” when really it’s the bare minimum. Not entirely convinced an elected upper house is the best thing to replace the Lords with but wait and see I guess.
And replace it with what?
At the moment the Lords cannot overrule the Commons. If they become an elected assembly then they have a mandate from the electorate.
The Lords have on many occassions been the voice of reason when there has been very little in the Commons. The very fact that they are not looking for election means that they take decisions that MPs cannot.
At their best they are a talking shop that scrutinises the Government and holds it to account. Many Lords have deep interests and are valuable members of committees.
The Lords are a very important and valuable addittion to the political landscape. Why does Starmer want to abolish them? Is it because they can’t be whipped?
Whilst I agree I also do have to remind myself, and others, but the lords have been the only thing to slow this Tory slide to oblivion down. Repealing various pieces of legislation causing delays and adjustments. Where is the check and balance if we scrap them?
Isn’t the house of Lords the only thing blocking some of the insane laws that the tories are trying to ram through?
Damn stupid announcement. The house of Lords serves its purpose as a break on the govt. This soubds radical and could scare many people back to the tories. Why not just say you want to evaluate it with an independent team.
We need proper voting reform, and reform of the upper chamber.
And, we need a real, written constitution.
Because right now, as no parliament can bind a future one, there’s nothing to stop future HoC from just bringing it all back.
It would be so wonderful if we could get this right.
But he needs a new bullet proof vest, not a new voting system, right guys?
I’d love to be convinced that the answer to restoring trust in politics is a *second* bunch of bastards put in place by the masterminds that are the British public.
I always liked to believe in democracy. But a recent example is our government silencing protesters.
The lords had objections. Even though the bill ended up being passed, to me that seemed a strong example of why we need persons that are not just wondering about toeing the party line, and doing what is best for the current government, but actually trying to represent the people.
As much as I hate the principle of having Lords in Parliament, that made me seriously reconsider my perspective.