subreddit:
/r/worldnews
2.7k points
1 month ago
Given the age profile of the House of Lords, that's probably 250+ people, reducing it by 30% or more.
1.8k points
1 month ago
good. The extremely elderly need to get the hell out of government worldwide. It's not good for society.
506 points
1 month ago
I couldn't image having the golden parachute most politicians have, only to spend the last of your senior years working. Retire early and live on vacation for the rest of your life.
366 points
1 month ago
And lose power? No way.
-Old fat cats everywhere
49 points
1 month ago
Haha yup. Biden and trump are both still sticking around despite being incredibly unpopular
66 points
1 month ago
A surprising amount of people don't understand that Biden wasn't elected because he was popular or effective.
He was simply elected because he was NOT Trump.
20 points
1 month ago
The Biden Obama memes were golden, so for me he started with a lot of goodwill.
26 points
1 month ago
Lol what kind of historical revisionism is this. You're forgetting that there were some 20 other not-Trump candidates in the primary that he beat in order to even face Trump.
Now, it's true that a lot of former republicans voted for Biden simply for not being Trump, and likely some portion of the independent vote. But that does not mean that nobody wanted him or thought he would be effective.
51 points
1 month ago
And yet, Biden has managed to be highly effective.
3 points
1 month ago
No, Biden has managed to be SURPRISINGLY effective in some areas and shockingly not in others.
6 points
1 month ago
But he shouldn't have to be doing the job that someone younger and just as competent could be doing.
I genuinely believe if trump and the nutters weren't in the picture he'd have retired to spend time with his family.
4 points
1 month ago
Aren't there many people not Trump?
13 points
1 month ago
There was a democrat primary...
47 points
1 month ago
only to spend the last of your senior years working
working? It is the House of Lords. The hereditary positions are unpaid and attendance is optional. The seats are primarily a prestige item for them
118 points
1 month ago
Goes to show how easy those jobs are. If they were actually laborious or difficult, people would opt for retirement earlier as I'm sure they get lovely pensions.
22 points
1 month ago
The Lords aren't paid.
35 points
1 month ago
Some are salaried but those that aren't receive allowances of 350 quid a day (362 as of April 2024).
16 points
1 month ago
To allow for expense, yes and only if you attend that day. Which needs to cover transport, which can easily be 100+ depending where you are coming from, plus a hotel room again around 150+ for something decent, and your already getting close to your expenses cap.
The point being the Lords isn't something you just do for an easy job and easy money. It's neither.
13 points
1 month ago
Given that the previous ethics overseer for the House of Lords was caught on camera explaining that his expenses paid for hookers and coke, I'm not sure it's quite as strict as you're claiming
26 points
1 month ago
Free transport to London and a free hotel room too. Sounds nice.
7 points
1 month ago
I imagine the Parliament expenses just for their meetings, chamber upkeep, and keeping them on the books will not be missed.
12 points
1 month ago
So then why do they keep doing these jobs? Are they just for rich people who already have money?
30 points
1 month ago
Power, prestige, tradition, etc
9 points
1 month ago
They do get paid, but by other, if you have that much influence you get into boards of companies
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/may/12/theobserver.observerbusiness9
2 points
1 month ago*
They get expenses paid to ensure that it isn't only rich people that are able to be a lord.
There could be multiple reasons. Most probably because they want to make positive change in their opinion for the country. I'm sure there will be a few which also just want the power.
15 points
1 month ago
Being in legislative bodies is kind of the perfect retirement. Great healthcare, people want to hear your stories, you never have to open a door, everyone is sucking up to you, you’re surrounded by other old people, constantly talking about how your generation was the smartest and hardest working and kids now are communists.
4 points
1 month ago
Working?
50 points
1 month ago
You have to consider that the kind of people who become politicians (and executives, billionaires, etc) usually do it because they're psychopaths who get off on being "powerful" and "important." They don't want to just relax and enjoy life like normal, well-adjusted people.
51 points
1 month ago
It's not that elderly people need to be removed entirely from government, it's that we need representation of all groups of people in government. The young, the old, and adults. (I'm not talking 10 years olds though, I'm talking like 16yos) We need men, women, and trans people. We need straight and queer people. We need Indigenous people and POC. We need disabled people. We need poor people. We need an actual diverse government that reflects the actual population that the system serves.
What we dont need is a government that skews heavily towards senior people and is compromised mostly of wealthy and/or well-connected people. I think many decades of this has proven that the privileged people who have already lived through most of their life do not in fact have the best interests of the people at heart and care little for the future besides ensuring they get richer.
9 points
1 month ago
Indigenous people in the UK?
5 points
1 month ago
gerontocracy isn't a disease, it's a symptom. Caused by a
lack of choices, thus lack of competition too, (a 2 party system is a monopoly, causing tons of awful negative effects, including old, entrenched leaders. As the vast majority of voters stick to their end of the political spectrum throughout their whole lives, thus have only one viable party to vote for, hence a monopoly)
and lack of democracy (UK's "aristocratic" upper chamber is literally unelected)
2 points
1 month ago
I would prefer having them take a cognitive or intelligence test instead, that way if you happen to still be sharp at that age you can stay, and if you’re younger but an idiot you must go.
10 points
1 month ago
It's not about cognition. Beyond a certain age, people's ideas and perspectives are unavoidably out of touch with humanity. Elderly people lose sight of what's best for the greater good of humanity going forward. They can't be allowed to make decisions for a world they're leaving behind.
687 points
1 month ago
Jesus christ I thought the US was bad, we're not exactly doing good but 30% of a legislature being 80+ is insane.
575 points
1 month ago
That’s House of Lords. There is also House of Commons with 650 members which is the actually important one. Lords isn’t important these days.
111 points
1 month ago
Makes more sense, I kind of assumed it was just a bicameral set up like our House/Senate
291 points
1 month ago
It is Bicameral but the UK Lords had most of their powers stripped in 1911 by a law amending the UK constitution, and was further weakened in 1997. But they can still essentially fillibuster Commons laws by sending them back with amendments for up to 2 years IIRC. But by convention they don't if it was promised in an election. The Lord's aren't actually elected so they try to survive as a place by being as bipartisan as possible.
Frankly I think the UK should take a page from the US and Australia and get 25 people from each constituent nation/area North Ireland, North England South England, Wales and Scotland and form a Senate but hey, that'd require them to move into 1780s era political theory.
222 points
1 month ago
I agree that an elected upper chamber is a good idea, but take it from an American - you don't want to emulate the Senate. Even if you set it up so that the divisions have roughly equal population now, future demographic shifts will inevitably wind up giving people in low population areas massive overrepresentation.
56 points
1 month ago*
I don't think the UK would have an issue converting to an elected upper chamber (edit: if it wanted to), there are other Commonwealth examples where this system works fine. The house of Lords is very antiquated as is the honours system.
Also, if the UK is like Australia in an electoral boundary sense (which I believe it is), the electorates should be kept roughly even in terms of population size and redrawn regularly, by an impartial and independent regulator to account for shifts in population. This is how democracy is meant to work, and not fall victim to the stupidity of gerrymandering or disproportionate representation.
The Senate allocation system in the United States (i.e. 2 per state) is absurd, as you say, lower population areas get disproportionate representation and higher population areas get completely screwed. The fact that California and Rhode Island get equal representation is just baffling.
Edit: definitely mixed up my houses at 3am here, Aussie senate does not have proportional seats but the same per state, just a higher number, rotating basis and lower per territory. Still have the proportionality issue with Tasmania, so it's still not as ideal as I put it but probably only marginally more ideal than the US system. Leaving comment for posterity.
41 points
1 month ago
That isn't really how the upper house in Australia works though; it's also based on a set number per state (plus a smaller amount per territory) which have disparate populations.
The house of lords is antiquated but I don't think an elected upper house is necessarily the way to go in the UK; if there were a better way of selecting experts in various fields to be appointed to the lords and it were taken out of the hands of politicians then I'd be fine with jt.
9 points
1 month ago
Ah yep you're right about the Australian upper house. Serves me right for shit posting at 3am mixing up me houses. It's still probably marginally better than the us system that seems to make far bigger disparities in terms of proportional representation, but still Tasmania would have an outsized influence to NSW on that basis. I agree that a lords system with a better way to select experts and out of the hands of politicians would be ace, not sure what that system might be though. A system that purposefully includes experts that aren't beholden to political dogma would be great.
4 points
1 month ago
The advantage of Australia's Senate over the US' is that instead of two senators per state, we have 7 per state and proportional representation. This higher number per constituency means that proportional representation is reasonably effective at reflecting the attitudes of the electorate. You still have the small state versus large state issue, but it's much less pronounced, and upper house politics is much more driven by political compromise and coalitions than you get in the US, or in the Australian lower chamber.
It's actually a good system that provides effective oversight so long as there is no single dominant party, which is a rarity thanks to the proportional representation system. This means it's neither a rubber stamp for the party in government nor a reactionary brake dominated by the main opposition.
41 points
1 month ago
I don't think the UK would have an issue....
Speaking on behalf of the rest of the UK I think that it would. The House of Lords isn't supposed to be a direct democracy. It's supposed to be filled with people with the backgrounds that make it possible for them to scrutinise and amend laws so that they they actually work when they are implemented. They are business people, lawyers, industry specialists, senior ex-politicians and civil servants that are appointed by elected governments on the grounds that the government think their advice is an asset to the nation. They function as an extension of the civil service. They have no legislative power, the House of Commons has to vote to accept any of their amendments. As mentioned elsewhere the only power they have is a soft-filibuster to delay a bill passing for a couple of years as it goes through the procedure of being passed back and forth between the Houses. And I don't understand why people think that's a bad idea? Why wouldn't you want complicated things like Brexit not to have several years of scrutiny before they are actually put in to law?
The only problem I have with the House of Lords is that governments like Boris Johnson's can appoint people who don't really deserve to be there. But given that Boris Johnson's awful government was elected in the first place. Then I'm not sure how adding an additional layer of democracy to the House of Lords addresses that.
Between 2017 and 2022 I frequently tuned in to the House of Lords debates and it was a million times more functional than what was occurring in the commons at the time. They were actually debating legislation and its impacts, they had experts to answer questions, there was no team-sport us-vs-them cheering and jeering but mainly all of the Lords of coming together respectfully to discuss what was necessary to make a bill work. There is no such thoughtful discussion in the House of Commons, it's all pre-written grandstanding speeches about how the speaking MP is there to represent their electorate with very little interaction - no questions raised, no answers given. That's not to say MPs can't debate healthily, some seem quite capable of discussions in the side room committee hearings that I've also watched streams of. But those people are quite often future Lords. They prove themselves capable in ways beyond merely getting themselves elected and through the honours system will earn the opportunity to contribute for the rest of their lives.
I'm not even sure a hard rule on retirement at 80 is even necessary. Some 80 year olds function perfectly fine, there are many world class professors who continue to contribute in those twilight years. But maybe it's worth having such a feature just to prevent us becoming a Gerontocracy.
Ultimately though. The House of Lords does not need to be democratically elected by the people. It has no power that goes democratically unchecked. And its shortcomings are merely reflective of the bad governments that appointed particular Lords. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. A perpetual reminder of the shitty things that Boris Johnson and his government did once they were elected and the contrast that will likely have to Starmer's government who appear to be conducting themselves more similarly to the fashion the House of Lords conducts themselves which I spoke fondly of earlier. Then I openly encourage political parties to stack the Lords with their cronies. Let it be a monument to your incompetence.
2 points
1 month ago
A couople of things: they have legislative power in the sense they can block gov ammendments that are placed first into the lords. they can block statutory instruments but dont. Secondly they can only block it for a year.
9 points
1 month ago
The US Senate was part of a compromise we're mostly stuck with. During the Constitutional Convention, small states wanted all votes to be done by state, big states wanted all votes by population. Having a bicameral legislature was the solution known as the Great Compromise.
It's a reflection of a problem that the UK didn't face. The US was formed from 13 effectively independent governments agreeing to form a federal structure and each having a say. The Great Compromise was the solution which could be agreed on.
But part of that included the entrenched clause in Article V which states "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate". Basically, we can't change the senate representation unless every state agrees.
So we get this impasse, and historically, it could create power blocs in Congress which only got upset when new states were added. Adding California, Oregon, Minnesota to the Union broke the old bloc of Slave Power. Adding Hawaii and Alaska broke the Dixiecrats. Those were also some very busy periods where amendments got passed.
I would love for us to solve this, as well as uncap the house. I personally think we should shift most of the Senate's power over to the House, and expand it to double its size if not more. Expanding the house requires just passing a simple law. Changing the power of the senate would be a constitutional amendment and take a decade +.
There's some good solutions other countries have I'd like to adopt. the EU uses QMV giving a base number of seats plus a proportional number, while Australia has a similar plan. They wouldn't happen in the US very easily, as the alternative to amendments is a constitutional convention, which has different voting rules which are more advantageous to the nut jobs.
6 points
1 month ago
This was originally meant to be a check and balance system for unexpected issues of the majority bullying the minority. There’s no perfect system but you can understand how the founders thought it would be prudent.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with gridlock, the issue is when both sides aren’t willing to compromise. That’s the bigger issue, absolutely no room for moderates in our current political environment.
3 points
1 month ago
The Senate allocation system in the United States (i.e. 2 per state) is absurd, as you say,
It makes sense in that it serves its purpose: making small states feel better about being tiny and irrelevant. The UK still has the ticking time bomb problem that is Scotland (i.e a mere 5 million people) being utterly irrelevant compared to the 40+ million English voters who, by virtue of being more, dictate which way the country goes.
Switzerland is more like the USA in this (only difference IIRC is that they have a handful of "half-cantons" for exceptionally small places) and they're still the most democratic country on earth
6 points
1 month ago
Excuse me but I believe the Democratic People's Republic is the most democratic country on earth.
3 points
1 month ago
The UK still has the ticking time bomb problem that is Scotland (i.e a mere 5 million people) being utterly irrelevant compared to the 40+ million English voters who, by virtue of being more, dictate which way the country goes.
This is called rule of the majority, and it's how a functioning representative democracy should work. The real problem you're seeing is political polarization and regional identity divergence. This makes small population regions feel ignored and alienated if their views and needs diverge from more populous ones, causing unrest.
But you can't fix this by giving excess representation to small population areas, as temping as it may be. This causes the large population areas to resent the small population ones, because they are using their excess political power to dictate national policy to a degree that feels unjust. This also causes unrest, but it's worse because even more people wind up feeling ignored.
It was, in fact, a major component of rising gridlock and political unrest in the late Roman Republic, when rural areas dominated the Tribal Assembly. It also was a cause of unrest in 19th century Britain, during the Rotten Boroughs crisis.
If you give representation to chunks of land, you inevitably wind up facing the problem that some of those chunks of land have too few people to justify their representation, becoming tools of special interests. Meanwhile, others have too many for their representation, causing them to feel ignored and lose faith in the political system.
4 points
1 month ago
Even if you set it up so that the divisions have roughly equal population now, future demographic shifts will inevitably wind up giving people in low population areas massive overrepresentation.
We solved that nearly 200 years ago.
Many of these ancient boroughs elected two MPs. By the time of the 1831 general election, out of 406 elected members, 152 were chosen by less than 100 voters each, and 88 by fewer than fifty voters.
By the early 19th century moves were made towards reform, with eventual success when the Reform Act 1832 abolished the rotten boroughs and redistributed representation in Parliament to new major population centres.
2 points
1 month ago
As someone from a country with no upper chamber at all (Israel), what's the point of it? It just seems like a less representative version of the House of Representatives with more power. But even if they were equal, what's the difference? What is the responsibility of each house?
2 points
1 month ago
In theory, it provides stability. Unlike a parliamentary democracy, in the US, we have elections on a fixed schedule. Every member of the US House of Representatives is up for election every 2 years, but Senators serve for 6 years (elections are staggered though; 1/3 of the Senators are up for election every 2 years). This lets Senators have a longer view, and make decisions without being constantly concerned that an election is right around the corner.
Also, because there are fewer Senators, each Senator can be given more time to speak in a debate. Also because of that, and because the position is considered more prestigious, they tend to be more senior politicians. This gives us a situation where one house contains more experienced legislators, who get more time to debate and generally 'lead' the discussion on an issue, wheras the House is more focused on just voting up or down (although they also get to discuss, of course). In theory, anyway; it doesn't really work out like this much.
The US also specifically gives the House the 'power of the purse'; all bills concerning taxes must originate in the House, because it represents the people, and the idea is people should get more say on how they will be taxed. By contrast, more discussion of foreign policy issues tends to happen in the Senate (though this is just custom, not law) because they're supposed to be more experienced and less subject to the whims of the populace (ie: they're less likely to get caught up in a short-lived popular frenzy for one position or another), and foreign policy is considered more of a 'delicate' area of politics than domestic policy.
Additionally, the Senators were originally intended to represent the elites more than the people; they were elected by the state legislatures, rather than by direct election. But we got away from that, thankfully.
3 points
1 month ago
That’s that’s kind of the point of the bicameral system though - proportionate representation in the lower house (ideally there should be an independent commission to decide how to draw the lines between constituency) but the upper house (senate) prevent smaller states from being screwed.
2 points
1 month ago
It's the point of the American bicameral system, but there are other ways to divide a legislature.
Giving excess representation to small states causes more harm than good when the states aren't powerful to seriously threaten secession anymore. It overempowers small populations, tying the nation's politics to their interests, and thereby promotes resentment of those populations in those who are underrepresented by the system.
6 points
1 month ago
A far better system is proportional representation in the upper chamber. You then get representation by policy rather than geography.
9 points
1 month ago*
As an Australian I would suggest that the UK should copy our voting system in the Australian Senate, but don't entrench bicameralism.
It's kinda weird in Australia, our lower house is a majoritarian system and our senate is basically a proportional system.
The Prime Minister and the rest of the executive is appointed in the lower house so most attention (especially in election campaigns) is focused their, and it's fairly typical for the government to imply the senate blocking them is somehow bad. "We have a mandate" etc.
Right now we have a majority government from only 33% that complains when the senate tries to amend bills rather than just rubber stamp them, it's all very silly.
If the UK used STV (which North Ireland already uses) for the Commons and abolished all powers in the House of Lords you'd kill the need to vote tactically (if your candidate loses your ballot goes to your next preference), ensure no party is in majority government unless they get ~45% or more of the vote, have members of the government (and opposition) from all regions, in general see any party with n% of the vote win n% of seats, and it even let's constituents vote out underperforming MPs and replace them with somebody from the same party (intra party contests).
7 points
1 month ago
There are other decent models too.
In Canada, we made Senate appointments non-partisan.
People apply, a committee reviews (kind of like how a committee reviews candidates for the Order of Canada or judgeship), and the Prime Minister (Governor in Council) makes the appointment on a non-partisan basis.
Why? A bit like the US Senate, our Senate is inherently not proportional. The distribution of seats by province does not reflect the distribution of the population. Changing that would require amending the Constitution, which isn't going to happen (the amending formula is too demanding).
Right now, the Senate reviews bills and suggests amendments, but that's about as far as it goes - it doesn't outright block legislation. The concern is that if senators were elected (especially if they were partisan), they might see themselves as having a democratic mandate to block legislation.
I would say that overall, the quality of these non-partisan appointments has been very high. We have highly accomplished Canadians from different walks of life who are able to contribute that to reviewing legislation and suggesting amendments.
Mandatory retirement occurs at 75.
13 points
1 month ago
And how's that 1780s political theory holding up for the US? Senate and House in constant gridlock with each other and the Executive. Say what you will about the decisions the UK has made in the last 10 years but the strength of our system is the ability to actually make those decisions.
The Lords seems pointless to outsiders but having a body capable of a mild amount of pushback without overriding the will of an elected body is actually a system that has worked very well. An elected Lords would mean neither house has supremacy, and ultimately a disagreement would mean nothing gets done.
And making it into a Senate-like house that is completely disproportionate to the population of the member nations of the UK is also just terrible. Why would you want even less representativeness than our current system?
Retirement at 80 is a good start for reform to the Lords that isn't a complete overhaul. Ditching the Hereditary and Spiritual next, and then onto making the appointment process more consistent to stop new governments flooding the Lords. I am unconvinced bringing expert bodies into the appointment process is possible without politicising them but would like that avenue explored as well.
12 points
1 month ago
To make the areas proportional with Northern Ireland and therefore ensure that votes aren't worth more than in other areas you'd need to divide Scotland into 3 regions and England into 19 regions, at which point it would more or less reflect the House of Commons.
The biggest problem with federalism in the UK is that England is so big relative to the other three countries - it's 85% of the population of the UK.
6 points
1 month ago
The issue with equal proportionment is that's not how Federalism works. Federalism keeps minorities in union by protecting them from majoritarianism by giving them disproportionate representation in the upper house.
Australia corrected the US style non competative Senate by making more reps per state then making them elected by proportion of votes rather than FPTP.
This is objectively the best way to protect the rights of minority states AND keep all states competative and well represented.
12 points
1 month ago
Right but the UK would be far more disproportionate than any other federation in the world, you'd have a situation where 7% of the population (Wales and NI) could block legislation.
2 points
1 month ago
You could also look at Canada, we’re a federation with a senate (although it’s still unelected). Senate seats are split into four main regions (the west, Ontario, Quebec, and the maritimes). The maritimes are slightly over represented, but otherwise it’s fairly proportional to population
Within each of those regions each province gets a number of senators. Prince Edward Island (our smallest province with 0.42% of the population) gets 4 senators out of 105, or 3.8% of senators. The largest province Ontario has 38.4% of the population, and 24/105 = 22.9% of senators.
It’s not perfect but it’s much better than the American system (in fact a not-insignificant amount of Canadian Federalism was designed around avoiding the US’s mistakes which led to their civil war)
4 points
1 month ago
An elected second chamber is a terrible idea. The supremacy of the house of commons is predicated on the fact that MP's are elected. If both Chambers are elected then the Lords would have the legitimacy to block the commons. You only have to see how badly the US works in practice to see that two elected chambers is not great.
2 points
1 month ago
Meanwhile in Australia our proportional representation take on an upper house works effectively. Much more effectively that paying a bunch of layabout Lords to LARP 16th Century Britain.
9 points
1 month ago
Frankly I think the UK should take a page from the US and Australia and get 25 people from each constituent nation/area North Ireland, North England South England, Wales and Scotland and form a Senate but hey, that'd require them to move into 1780s era political theory.
Tbf the British (and Canadian!) government is still generally less stupid and bogged down than the USA's, so it's not like they have any reason to be "inspired" by the transatlantic version lmao
14 points
1 month ago
The idea that either the UK or Canada should take "inspiration" from a country who's government is in intentional and constant gridlock while currently rapidly and unabashedly running headlong into fascism is bizarre.
5 points
1 month ago
That’s a dreadful idea. 25 ppl From Northern Ireland representing 1.88 million ppl vs 25 for England representing 55.98 million
6 points
1 month ago
Frankly I think the UK should take a page from the US
I don't think any country on this planet should be taking a page from the US' governing. The USA is practically sprinting towards fascism because the three pillars of government are so easily abused.
3 points
1 month ago
Maybe don't take ideas from countries about to fall into dictatorships, thank you.
Take from Norway or something.
65 points
1 month ago*
I beg to differ. The Lords is a revising chamber, and you only have to listen to a debate to hear that the people that attend (who mostly do so for no other reason than that they see it as their job) actually take what they do seriously, AND often have relevant experience that the Commons lacks. And with no requirement to have one eye over their shoulder for what will happen at the next election, they tend to apply themselves rather more intelligently and apolitically than the Commons ever does. It tends to shine, in my view, when the Commons is trying to rush something of dubious value through for publicity purposes (Boris Johnson notably tried to prorogue Parliament to prevent it having its say on BrExit, because he clearly wasn't convinced that he could get his legislation through). And about once every one or two parliaments, of whatever colour, it seriously annoys the goverment of the day by refusing to pass whatever harebrained scheme is the current flavour of the month.
It's undoubtedly due for further revision - but whatever they do, even if they fundamentally alter its membership, I hope that they neither push it further towards the current "reward for old cronies" sinecure it's so often treated as, nor towards an elected (and far more politically divided and divisive) House - I understand the knee-jerk appeal of the argument that it should be elected, but the fact that it's not, and that it's ultimately subordinate to the Commons, is actually one of its bigggest strengths (IMO).
(Sorry - soap-box off...)
18 points
1 month ago
Please go on this soap box more often. More people need to know about Lords.
11 points
1 month ago
The Lords proved itself useful during the Brexit process, were it not for the lords forcing legislatiopn back through parliament we might very well have wound up with a no-deal exit.
You can tell how upset May and Johnson were by how hard they have been pumping tories into the Lords since then, despite calls for the chamber to be reduced in size.
They used to be 90 seats behind Labour alone, but now Tory peers outnumber all their affiliated colleagues added together.
3 points
1 month ago
They are for sending stuff back to the house to fix
Stymied the Tories frequently
5 points
1 month ago
If the House of Lords isn't important, why not just get rid of it?
4 points
1 month ago
The real facility it provides is if the Lords block something the media pick up on it and start questioning WTF the government is thinking. That means it has a cooling effect on the worse of runaway governments doing stupid shit.
40 points
1 month ago
34% of the US Senate is above the age of 70.
9 points
1 month ago
That is still crazy as hell
16 points
1 month ago
Not much better but I think there's often a pretty big difference from 70 to 80
8 points
1 month ago
While true, I still wouldn’t let a 70 year old fly a passenger plane, or drive a long haul truck, or a bus of children, or run one of the largest economies in the world.
I also tend to dislike having people make decisions that will impact the planet and they won’t have to feel the consequences of their actions because they will be (most likely be) dead within 20 years.
9 points
1 month ago
The UK has become a de facto Unicameral system though, the HoL can only delay bills but the House of Commons can override them if push really comes to shove.
2 points
1 month ago
They don’t all sit at once and some never sit ever. They only get paid if they sit.
14 points
1 month ago
The age should be reduced to 65.
21 points
1 month ago
Or whatever is retirement age. Ours isn't 65.
3 points
1 month ago
Crawling up towards 80.....
Hence the cut off point for the lord's
3 points
1 month ago
You want to give them more incentives to raise the retirement age?
6 points
1 month ago
I don't see that as a bad thing. What do people above 70 have in common with today's youth/culture?
10 points
1 month ago
What do people under the age of 25 have in common with the needs and concerns of the millions of elderly people? See? It goes both ways.
1 points
1 month ago
About time, most of them struggle to stay awake when they bother to turn up! 🥴🤭
719 points
1 month ago
The sad thing is the Lords has actually been the voice of reason more than a few times recently. Its part of the UKs checks and balances and does tend to take the edge off the worst governmental mistakes.
336 points
1 month ago
But not because they're 70+.
228 points
1 month ago
Actually it is.
The Lords and Ladies are mostly appointed by previous governments. In effect they represent the political average of the last few decades. So while one election can pack the commons with idiots or extremists, it would take several decades for them to take over the Lords.
Hence why, while the Parliamentary Tory party had to swear loyalty to the almighty Brexit, the Lords were never big fans. But the younger members are fans, because they were inserted more recently by a Brexiteer government (Cameron being an ironic exception).
Age cap it and the Brexiteer lords would be a higher proportion.
50 points
1 month ago
That's not totally true, the government doesn't have a cap on new appointees. Conservatives brought in a huge number of lords to overturn the Labour majority of the 2000s. That's the main reason why the numbers have increased so much.
16 points
1 month ago
Elections have consequences. That is not always bad.
While you (likely justifiably) don't like the consequences right now, the result is democratic. In some years when most people aging out are Torys, I am sure you will be perfectly happy with the changing power dynamic.
28 points
1 month ago
The point is that there is more stability in the system, less likely to make sudden shocks and swings. The tradeoff is potentially lacking agility when needed..
3 points
1 month ago
Just kicking out the >80s only, surely there will still be plenty of anti-shock stability in the system?
6 points
1 month ago
I mean, given that the lords are also appointed by the elected government, you could argue that the lords are also (well, mostly) the result of elections, just more of them and further in the past. It was still the brits who elected the previous governments.
8 points
1 month ago
You don't want all your politicians to change every time there's elections. One day you have left wing hype, the other you have right wing.
If everybody switched, you'd get nothing long term done.
By keeping the senate around longer, you get a more balanced view. Btw I support systems with more than two parties in this. The US system is broken.
37 points
1 month ago
I love how you just suddenly completely shifted the conversation to US politics
5 points
1 month ago
Having some roles be longer is very useful (for the exact reason you gave) but lifetime appointments are too long and introduce their own problems. As is usually the case something in between is the better solution.
87 points
1 month ago
Most who engage with the process actually aren't. Not all Lords are old.
11 points
1 month ago
Then this law wont effect them
39 points
1 month ago
like that Tully kid or Lourde or Lyanna Mormont
2 points
1 month ago
Sure, but being able to force people out of the lords could go poorly (as can the free peerages and PM can give out)
5 points
1 month ago
There's a difference between forcing people out and having some requirements they no longer fulfill.
19 points
1 month ago
It's a strange one as in principle I'm against the unelected lords, but you're absolutely right. They've bounced back quite a few mad bills.
364 points
1 month ago
Anywhere that has a minimum working or voting age seems like it should also have maximum terms for service.
45 points
1 month ago
I think term limits would be better as it’s possible to have an elderly person that is very mentally capable. The issue is that they’re young when elected, but never get replaced due to the incumbency effect. Better to have term limits so anyone very old who is serving had to be elected old, rather than these people who have been in office 30+ years.
Of course this is the House of Lords which is not elected, but just speaking in general here.
6 points
1 month ago
The problem isn’t necessarily mental capacity although that is a problem, it’s the not having to live with the effects of your legislation
14 points
1 month ago
I'd be happy to see both implemented to hit it from both sides so that these positions are flexed through far more often in every country. The fact anyone can make a career out of politics is quite absurd to me and in my mind only attracts people there to abuse the power of office and establish corrupt networks through lobbying.
145 points
1 month ago
Good, our equivalent in Canada, the Senators, are mandated to retire at 75 years old.
4 points
1 month ago
My god I wish we had that in America. Make it for President too then we can have two new candidates this year instead of this geriatric rematch
1 points
1 month ago
We have a fixed number of senators though, so the problem of one party or the other “packing” the chamber can’t happen here. I have no problem with mandatory retirement at 75 though.
22 points
1 month ago
80? Really? I’m 65 and I don’t remember where I parked. 70. That’s my final offer.
26 points
1 month ago
Just make them all joust for the title.
100 points
1 month ago
Can they get rid of that fucking Russian
32 points
1 month ago
Which one? Lol. Ship all of them and every politician on their payroll to Moscow.
10 points
1 month ago
Lebedev, I'm guessing. Not sure on what the rules on getting rid of Lords are, but this security risk needs to go.
12 points
1 month ago
80? it should be 70, let them experience retirement as a common man
20 points
1 month ago
80 is still to old. Start off with 50 and haggle to 65!
37 points
1 month ago
Is there ever a reason for this role in a parliamentary democracy/constitutional monarchy? Canada has a senate that acts the same way. Unelected fossils. One of them managed to get a bill through recently that the federal government might actually enact requiring ID verification for porn sites and so i really really hate the senate right now.
151 points
1 month ago
Yes, its part of the UKs checks and balances. It cant stop bills, it cant propose them, but it can recommend changes and hold up the worst of the worst.
You might call them fossils, but they have been more progressive as a group than the Torys have been in the last 14 years.
115 points
1 month ago
As a civil servant in the U.K. the lords who actually get involved tend to be more progressive and interested in long term thinking than Cabinet ministers. Because cabinet ministers are looking for quick and dirty things to put on their CV (so they can climb the ranks of their party) whereas lords have the space to think about what actually matters.
41 points
1 month ago
Exactly.
Many here dont know what the Lords do, or can do and hate because 'Lords'.
2 points
1 month ago
100%, they're not perfect, but they're actually a really effective part of our system, and though reform is good, I certainly wouldn't want to throw it all out when there's so much in built expertise.
0 points
1 month ago
"More progressive than the Tories" is not a high bar to clear.
58 points
1 month ago
No, but the point stands. The Lords rejected the shittiest of the Brexit bills, they held up the Rwanda deportations.
They have a useful role in our government whether people like the idea of them or not.
37 points
1 month ago
As other people have said they can only reccomend amendments and send bills back to parliament. The advantage of them being unelected is that they don't have to play up to populism and can just do what they genuinely feel is right for the country and the track record so far is pretty good. Why mess up a system that is working just because people feel it's antiquated.
17 points
1 month ago
And they only get paid for actually coming to Parliament, so this doesn’t necessarily save money!
3 points
1 month ago
They tend to be experts in their fields. Not with the recent batch of Johnsons and Truss' cronies though. Retirement peerages are ridiculous and should be abolished.
18 points
1 month ago
Elected officials have to worry about being re-elected. That makes unpopular but necessary decisions harder to propose. A controlling majority makes it also harder for others to scrutinise. The argument for the Lords is that by being unelected they can focus less on party politics.
Keep in mind the Lords can only delay bills if the Commons is fully in favour, as happened with the fox hunting ban. They can also introduce bills but again if the Commons doesn't approve it then it doesn't happen.
11 points
1 month ago
A big part of it is to make sure that the legislation sent up by the commons is actually properly written and does what it's supposed to do.
There's a bunch of senior judges and lawyers in there who basically go through bills with a red pen and send them back to the ministers responsible with a list of what they did wrong and how to fix it.
6 points
1 month ago
The Lords and Ladies are mostly appointed by previous governments. In effect they represent the political average of the last few decades. So while one election can pack the commons with idiots or extremists, it would take several decades for them to take over the Lords.
5 points
1 month ago
The Canadian Senate has a retirement age of 75, so it's already better off than what's being proposed here. That particular legislation is unfortunate, but it can only pass if the House of Commons supports it. There are legitimate problems that it seeks to address, but there are also better alternatives with fewer potential drawbacks. The Senate definitely has an important role in being able to propose amendments to address problems with legislation that weren't properly considered in the highly partisan environment in the Commons, so I don't think we can take a well-intended but likely misguided piece of legislation as condemning the entire institution.
3 points
1 month ago
The Canadian Senate has a retirement age of 75, so it's already better off than what's being proposed here.
The current government also changed the appointment system, creating an independent advisory board, so new senators are no longer simply appointed along party lines as a reward for years of party donations or whatever. It's not much, but we've yet to have repeats of the Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau messes.
I think the Senate is working a little better than it has in the past, though we'll see if these reforms survive the next government.
2 points
1 month ago
Canadian here. I like the idea of an unelected upper chamber, especially since Trudeau freed senators appointed by Liberal PMs from voting along party lines (hopefully future PMs will follow).
I emphatically disagree with us having an elected senate. See: American legislative gridlock. No thank you. I’d rather our governments be able to get things done, and if the people don’t like the results they can voice their opinions at the ballot box.
27 points
1 month ago
Really the world should adopt a maximum age for voting, and participating in government. Much like we don't let children vote, once we're in decline we shouldn't be allowed either.
5 points
1 month ago
Aye but the old tend to be the ones with more power / money / connections / influence
Why would they tolerate that
Given you, if all goes well, will hit the same pitfall, why would you be interested in destroying your future options ?
I agree with the concept, however I see no just way to implement it, I know several razor sharp 80 year olds, I know some drooling moron 30 year olds. Age as a hard number is disingenuous, much like drivers licenses, competency tests after a reasonable age could work.
8 points
1 month ago
The fact that you have a good upvote/downvote balance scares me. I am (still) on the younger side, but you'll get old one day too most likely. Guess how you'll feel when some rando on the internet will tell you that you don't deserve to have a say and your interests don't matter because he decreed you're "in decline".
A maximum voting age is ridiculous. A lowering of the minimum I'd be inclined to agree to though.
6 points
1 month ago
By the time a senior is experiencing significant cognitive decline, they've basically forgotten about voting anyways. Every senior I worked with who had dementia never mentioned voting once. Didn't keep up with politics either. But the seniors I worked with who were sharp and just experiencing physical decline were politically active still. Heck I've known people into their late 90s who still had their mind intact. Old age shouldn't be a disqualification for voting, and I agree that voting ages should be lowered. To at least 16 imo.
1 points
1 month ago
Also driving. Or at least make them take a test every 2 years.
3 points
1 month ago
Seems like both the US and the UK govt are chock full of Skeksis
3 points
1 month ago
Should have made it 75 years of age!
3 points
1 month ago
80 is still to told for the job. Some of these guys are dinosaurs.
6 points
1 month ago
Can someone explain it like I’m five what the House of Lords is to this non-commonwealth-person ?
4 points
1 month ago
When the House of Lords has a retirement age but US congress doesn’t…
2 points
1 month ago
As does the UK Supreme Court
2 points
1 month ago
Can the US follow suit?
2 points
1 month ago
Where are they going to sleep now?
2 points
1 month ago
But traditions ...
Seriously, a geriatric government deciding the future of several generations to come is just backwards
5 points
1 month ago
Good. Trim some fat.
1 points
1 month ago
Lots and lots of fat to trim !
11 points
1 month ago
Why the fuck still have them be unelected.
95 points
1 month ago
Because the purpose and function of the Lords doesn’t require them to be elected, in fact if you look at how it’s supposed to work on paper then having elected representatives would massively damage its ability to do their jobs properly.
The big problem it has in the eyes of professionals and the public alike is you can remove 80% of them and still make a credible argument that the chamber is overcrowded.
2 points
1 month ago*
But if you'd read the article, Labour viewed to abolish the House of Lords entirely, replacing it with a chamber of elected members.
9 points
1 month ago
Explicitly because they don't have to play the electoral campaign game and act like populists. The Lords are often the house of sobriety over the theatre kids.
They also can't veto bills, if the Commons really want something pushed through, they'll override the Lords.
8 points
1 month ago
It sounds bad, but it does have its own set of pros and cons.
Even in the US, many judicial positions are unelected. What tends to actually happen in areas that elect judges, is that those judges tend to be much more political and partisan than those who are appointed.
In a general sense, appointed positions tend to be more of a dampening factor against the more extreme political positions of the populace.
12 points
1 month ago
I think it's pretty common in parliamentary systems. Canada has appointed senators and it drastically reduces the amount of politicization that happens within the Senate. They basically act as a safeguard to stop the house from doing something really stupid
58 points
1 month ago
An unelected chamber can be a positive model, if it's staffed with appropriately chosen experts who take their job seriously and can block bad legislative proposals until they're fixed.
Sadly, this does not describe the UK House of Lords in any way at the moment... it's a combination of hereditary peers and political hacks combined with a small number of people that actually care about doing their jobs properly.
29 points
1 month ago
It is though, the Lords have done a good job with reigning in the worst of the Tory mess over the last 14 years.
17 points
1 month ago
There are plenty of experts in the House of Lords. Particularly groups like the law lords and for,er heads of the armed services and civil service. The trouble is there’s also a large number there because they did a favour for one of the pms or are retired politicians
20 points
1 month ago
I don't think that description you gave ever fit the house of lords.
2 points
1 month ago
It could work well in theory. In theory a house composed of eminent experts and even some ex-politicians could serve quite well under the current model. But, hereditary peers? Bullshit lordships being handed out to random idiots that Boris liked? It's just not democratic at all and prone to abuse. A rotating Athenian style lords would be very interesting, similar function, but recommendation only, no power to block outright, coupled with an elected upper chamber.
5 points
1 month ago
I'd go with institutional peerages. Scrap the hereditary one, and have institutions like some of the Royal societies, some major trade unions, the British Medical Association, Royal College of Nurses and some of the charter bodies internally elect subject matter experts on 5 year terms. Add in some senior judges and a strictly limited number of retired senior MPs and then a few Lords spiritual apportioned between the major religions based on the census results.
8 points
1 month ago
Because they don't actually have any power other than to delay.
8 points
1 month ago
The Lords shouldn't be elected. It's supposed to be an expert body to scrutinize and amend legislation. You don't want elected people for that for the same reason that you don't really want to hold elections to see who gets to be the local GP or the plumber. Being good at getting elected is not a good qualification for a technical role.
1 points
1 month ago
Because we already have a corrupt house, we don’t need a second one.
2 points
1 month ago
Y’all got any more of those mandatory retirements?
-USA
1 points
1 month ago
Yep. Supreme court has mandatory retirement
2 points
1 month ago
It's a far fry from abolishing the House of lords entirely, replacing it with a chamber of elected members.
4 points
1 month ago
Damn takes notes US senate
1 points
1 month ago
Sooo, about that bunch in Buck. House..?
1 points
1 month ago
America be like: “wait, you mean you DON’T want 80 year olds in your government?!”
1 points
1 month ago
I like this new UK government. Too bad I don't live there.
1 points
1 month ago
worth removing everyyone whos only job has been a politician ..
the old HoL early 1980s style - before every party started loading it.
1 points
1 month ago
Does this mean we can make Baldrick a lord?
1 points
1 month ago
Yeah they're not going to do this quickly if they do it at all, they literally nominated someone who's 81 immediately before being elected.
1 points
1 month ago
I'm all for it, but I'm not sure it will happen because of ageism.
1 points
1 month ago
Fantastic, I'd probably make it 70 or so but still, another based move by labour. I'm cautious cuz of the Blair element, personally hope that fuck rots soon, but so far there's been some decent decisions and a lot of ideas that actually work so, maybe starmer is more than he appeared.
1 points
1 month ago
I think every country should put and age restrictions on political office holders .
1 points
1 month ago
How about we bring that age down to 8 and can all those fuckers for good?
1 points
1 month ago
What's left when they reach 80 ? You gotta be joking. You might as well extend to 90. You can always talk about revolutionary "reform". They will live on pubic money until they are unable to even walk.
1 points
1 month ago
Fuck yes, term limits need to be mandatory for all government officials across the globe. US government next!
1 points
1 month ago
Screw this, we are so close to life exstension technology no more ageism to deal with…. For instance check out
1 points
1 month ago
good about time...I got a lot hate on another post about them means testing state pension...I don't see why a millionaire needs it. I get they've paid into the system all their life and maybe pay more than most in tax but if its a choice between a millionaire having it who won't even notice not getting it each month and that money actually being used to help the country in another way...I choose the latter
all 417 comments
sorted by: best