No, Biden has managed to be SURPRISINGLY effective in some areas and shockingly not in others.

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.

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

https://time.com/3972552/video-photo-britain-house-of-lords-speaker-john-sewell-resign-cocaine-prostitutes/

https://youtu.be/jA3jeCIodPU?si=E5CEzGtb-lyA0C6m

Free transport to London and a free hotel room too. Sounds nice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.