Most of Britain's Parliament is not elected... Meet THE LORDS

[@aaron62688]

As an American I can say that having two houses both elected doesnt solve a damned thing.

[@caligulalonghbottom2629]

Our highest court isn't even elected...lol and that impacts everything perpetually. I would dare imagine that most Lords are conservatives though regardless of not having a political party although many lords are innately eccentric and liberal so its really a luck of the draw in that regard.

[@grimftl]

The Senate wasn't elected until 1914. Even now, it's a permanently gerrymandered election.

[@teflonsinatra9002]

The problem is america is Bipartism

[@ArticWolfv]

for proof see the life term members of congress

[@silvermix5093]

When politicians seriously want to make any law they don't care

[@zakbrewin1709]

I respect that old dude, he's like " yeah it's stupid but you would do it too"

[@FirebirdPrince]

Right? Free power is hard to pass up. Even if you're a good person you're probably thinking that you can contribute positively

[@visigoth3696]

Only a liar would say they wouldn’t want it.

[@rileysmall4317]

@@visigoth3696 a liar or a simple minded person.

[@swagatochatterjee7104]

No trust me you won't do it. Only old power hungry racist megalomaniac would do it

[@erushi5503]

@@visigoth3696 i wouldnt want it, too much attention, and responsibility Id rather stay in military And it's easier to act on things as normal person, if your a monarch you cant just say stuf or do stuff but being someone from common lineage you can volunteer to help others Ive seen my fair share of stupidity of those in power, so yeah, call me simple minded but id rather be in a place where i can actively help those around me Ahahaha

[@tiffanyi5645]

As an American the House of Lords sounds nuts, but looking at the state of our own politics, Im just gonna sit this one out 😂😂

[@bradmetcalf5333]

Right lol.

[@dylansylvester4719]

Both are royally fucked

[@MarkMiller304]

How very un American of you, I think UK needs some freedom.

[@anmolt3840051]

Despite its faults, I'd say the US is a 1000 times more democratic than the UK

[@MusikCassette]

it does. But so does the US-Senate.

[@Zozi_og]

The cut at 8:40 is classical example of media manipulation. While he is asking the question, they jumpcut to some other footage where she looks "scared" by the said question and jump back to original cut when she starts talking. Look at the top left of her head and notice the hair.

[@Philcoulson918]

You are Right, this is insane

[@JJ-ze6vb]

It’s called „editing“. All editing is manipulation, since, by definition, it edits parts out. Calm down.

[@Zozi_og]

@@JJ-ze6vb I presume that majority of people understand what the definition of "editing" is. But clearly you missed the point i was trying to make.

[@JJ-ze6vb]

@@Zozi_og I hope you find something that will calm you down

[@Ursi_]

@@JJ-ze6vb you’re avoiding the point, and everyone here is calm lol

[@anmolt3840051]

The earl of Limerick submitting a limerick is such a power move ... I'm honestly rather impressed

[@mcbabwe4977]

That’s a chap with a sense of humor

[@jameskingston3058]

Funny yes.As an Irishman,I ask why an English peer could have a seat in the English parliament when Limerick is a city in a foreign country,the Irish republic.There is no earl of Calais even though this French city was under English rule for centuries.

[@pippipster6767]

When I first saw it I blinked. Although it was impressively succinct. I thought it was a gimmick. Not from the Earl of Limerick. And now I quite like it I think.

[@barrymoore4470]

@@jameskingston3058 In contrast to peers of Scotland, no person holding titles only in the peerage of Ireland has ever been allowed a seat in the UK House of Lords (unless he were specially selected as a representative peer, beginning in 1800, by his fellows in the Irish nobility). However, should a peer of Ireland also hold a title in the peerages of England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom (and beginning in 1963, the peerage of Scotland), then that peer was entitled to a seat in the House of Lords, until the 1999 reform revoked the automatic right of anyone to be seated as a Lord by virtue of any hereditary title. Hereditary peers remain eligible for the House if duly appointed by correct parliamentary procedure, and hereditary peers holding life peerages are guaranteed to be seated in the House (pending any retirement from that advisory body). As the Earl of Limerick also bears a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom, that of Baron Foxford, he is eligible to be appointed to a seat in the House of Lords, hence the application that is briefly discussed in the clip.

[@jameskingston3058]

Many thanks for your explanation

[@lm7970]

Failed to mention that the House of Commons which is wholly elected can reject any motion that the House of Lords proposes. The House of Lords is simply advisory and has no power.

[@ArkadiBolschek]

So what you're saying is, Britain could perfectly discard it and adopt a unicameral system, like many other countries in the world?

[@fil_britbunnyboi872]

The Lords can veto laws passed by the Commons. Ill say that's real power

[@ArkadiBolschek]

@@fil_britbunnyboi872 I don't *think* they can actually veto laws. AFAIK They can reject them and send them back to the House of Commons, but there's a limit to how many times they can do it.

[@diglory89]

What about the tax payer money? It wouldn’t be an argument for an advisory position. It’s obviously more than that

[@danjcollier]

@@fil_britbunnyboi872 The Lords can’t veto laws, they can make amendments, which the Commons can accept or reject. If neither House can agree, the commons has the final say.

[@hastrom]

As I have understood they don´t come up with laws or have the ability to stop something that the commons have voted on. They review the text and propose changes and/or send the bill back to the commons. They can delay something but not stop. Feels like people might watch this and going away with the belief they have more power than they actually have. It should be changed but it's not like it's a democratic disaster atm.

[@monkeymox2544]

They can introduce legislation, but yes the commons always has the final say. Personally I like having an appointed upper chamber - I don't think the hereditaries or bishops should be in there (or rather, they shouldn't automatically get seats, although I have no problem with people who happen to be hereditary peers or bishops if they earn it, but its nice to have people involved in the parliamentary process who aren't obsessed with PR, many of whom actually have some expertise in fields other than politics.

[@skindred1888]

@@monkeymox2544 pr...or the public...or who cares what the public think of their decisions....being accountable comes with almost every job in the world apart from the lord's.

[@alanhat5252]

@@skindred1888 the Lords are accountable, it's just that they tend to behave responsibly so we don't see the censure

[@alanhat5252]

@@monkeymox2544 the hereditaries & bishops _don't_ automatically get seats, 92 seats are _available_ for hereditaries & I think 26 _available_ for bishops. The hereditaries are _elected_ from a pool of 810 Peers of the Realm & bishops from however many thousands of the Church of England & if enough aren't elected the seats aren't filled (I don't think it's happened for long but it's theoretically possible). They're all there on merit.

[@monkeymox2544]

@@alanhat5252 Yes I understand that the hereditaries are elected from a pool, I just don't think they should be. Bloodline shouldn't come into it at all, in the slightest. And to say they're there on merit is a bit of a stretch - they're elected by the other hereditary peers! If we're going to have an unelected chamber it should completely be appointed, with no seats reserved for hereditary peers at all. Again, I've no problem with people who have titles being in the house, as long as they get there by the same method as the other members.

[@dh2profit]

Remarkable job of confusing the viewer about the comparative power, or lack thereof, of the House of Lords.

[@jamesjack67]

this video is shite honestly, definitely not made from an objective standpoint

[@dobrasilaomundo.8086]

This bozo thinks he is a journalist, but in reality he is an activist, you can tell by the way of his mannerism.

[@MattFoss848]

Agreed, incredibly bias.

[@rogg8496]

Only 12% of the members in the house of Lords have inherited their position.

[@markkelly4102]

12% too many.

[@RoseSiames]

12% Inherited 3.4% Bishop and the rest bought their way in

[@Zizzles]

@@RoseSiames aren’t most of the life peers retired MPs?

[@RoseSiames]

@@Zizzles oh yes

[@prosperitylife5344]

Don’t care 🤷🏾‍♂️ why they there anyways. Corruption

[@filiphelset872]

I don’t know where this obsession over total democracy comes from. The House of Lords is a great example of how much work can be done when you don’t have to focus on winning elections every four years. Total democracy would require each citizen to know exactly what’s best for themselves and the rest of society, which is simply not possible.

[@afgor1088]

name a worthwhile thing the house of lords has actually done

[@T0M_X]

@@afgor1088 allowed to hold suspected terrorists for 42 days, halted the tax credit fiasco and came up with the dormant cash act to name a few. They are the unsung heroes in a lot of cases

[@owenlees1832]

Total democracy has worked in the past. Representative democracy allows citizens to be ignorant by giving away their say to a representative.

[@zeroroninoh]

@@owenlees1832 total democracy is not always right

[@owenlees1832]

@@zeroroninoh it works though, it has worked many times throughout history. One of the main arguments liberals used in the late 18th to early 20th century for implementing representative democracy that democracy endows the average man with an interest in political matters, and thus reduces the tendency for ignorance. However, by having representatives, people give away this endowment and remain relatively ignorant as they are not required to think through complex political and economic questions. Total, or direct, democracy ensures people have to take an interest in politics, and thus reduces ignorance, a pattern seen throughout history. Apply this to the workplace in abolishing capitalism, and suddenly we have a truly democratic society.

[@femboyskeleton9150]

I'm not a big fan of the house of lords but this is so clearly bias it's repulsive, and they clearly entrapped that peer absolutely disgusting practice and I would have expected better from channel 4

[@Jmcinally94]

Good journalism is when you soft ball questions that don't hold people accountable. Make sure you tell the interviewee all the questions in advance so they have a chance to say no or create spin in advance. I agree this is a one sided video, but to complain about "entrapping" this peer makes it clear you have your own bias about who deserves to be treated with unearned respect.

[@daegeunjeong3683]

Agreed

[@MrBopee]

Not sure why you would expect much better after their reputation...

[@thepigdot]

Funnily enough, I thought the peer wondering around his garden actually came across very well despite the bias.

[@rainbowappleslice]

Kinda crazy that the guy interviewed was in parliament for 48 years and say 9 prime ministers, and in 2022 as a 16 year old I’ve seen 7.

[@brycegroen6087]

For a program called “FactCheck”, this used some of the most weighted language and had some of the clearest bias I have seen from any Channel 4 content.

[@chiefdoesgaming8269]

What did you expect from channel 4

[@Fucccunt-ff2su]

Bryce Groen they’re are not very smart or loyal, if people could defund them, they should.

[@johnbull9195]

Channel 4 is about as impartial as the Labour Party

[@alanhat5252]

@@chiefdoesgaming8269 I expected better, _far_ better. This _'show'_ is populist drivel

[@aminwizz4035]

gay

[@thepigdot]

I think the lords are fine so long as they're picked based on merit, rather than by donations to political parties. They should be nominated based on a third party non-political body, picking the best economists, scientists, businessmen, environmentalists, etc.

[@inanis9801]

I don't really mind inherited lords.

[@feelmehish8506]

third party body? you fucking crazy?

[@brunobarton-singer9622]

there is a third-party body currently, but the PM has the ability to overrule and ignore it - and does. More generally, it's a nice idea but who decides which experts and what balance? Tories would push for more businessmen, Labour for more environmentalists, etc. Once elections are removed as a check on power and these decisions are made behind closed doors, corruption flourishes. I think each party should put forward their best selection of experts - in a party list, and people can vote on which list they like best. There could be a list for the current unaligned peers as well, and we could see how well they'd do, judged on their merits.

[@inanis9801]

@@brunobarton-singer9622 you can't have experts on specific things making decisions about hundreds of diffrent topics. For example an expert on environmental living might vote to pass a law pass a law where every new house must have solar Panels then there is no affordable housing. And if there is a financial expert they may never agree with them. You need people who know bits about everything but have what is best for there constituents in mind, that way they can consult bodys of experts ( which also eliminates the individual biases one expert might have.)

[@brunobarton-singer9622]

@@inanis9801 so are you saying, abolish the lords entirely? I think that's also a reasonable position. My point is just that if you like the idea of a second house which is a bit more long-term and focused on expertise, the current system isn't that and I was suggesting an alternative. I think there's nothing wrong with experts in particular topics in the commons or the lords, I just think it should ultimately be up to voters

[@davidstokes8441]

The important part, the legislative part of Britain's parliament is the Commons. The Lord's is there as a brake to extreme and badly written law sent to it from the Commons. InOz until reasonably recently the Upper Houses of our Parliaments were elected by land owners only, and exists for the same reason.

[@igneridelgado7866]

I kind of like the idea of having a group of non political party affiliation participate in democracy.

[@afgor1088]

they're not apolitical. they represent the interests of the wealthy. that is inherently political

[@goose9515]

Everything is political

[@harrylundie5542]

@@afgor1088 well that’s not true is it really

[@afgor1088]

@@harrylundie5542 yes. It is true

[@brunobarton-singer9622]

well that's not the lords! 507 peers are associated to the three main parties. Many are donors, or ex-MPs being rewarded for party loyalty

[@amxoppl7589]

This guy is shocked he lives in constutional monarchy 😱

[@thecuddlyaddict]

£200 is lavish expenses for a politician. Hahahahahahahahaha, that is literally the most insignificant amount a politician has ever spent. Imagine being outed for £200 while you are most likely partly responsible for thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted.

[@gerardjagroo]

The purpose of the House of Lords is to act as a counterbalance against the extremes and demagoguery of the Commons. Commons is there to do the actual law making.

[@alexkfridges]

I.e., make everything way more conservative

[@thagamerzzz]

@@alexkfridges radical change is never good for a country, whether its reactionary or revolutionary. The Lords ensures that any change that occurs is organic and gradual, which is better for the country

[@IvarDaigon]

So your entire argument is... to counter a house where a common person could end up having delusions of grandeur we will stack another house full of people who are born with delusions of grandeur... or to put it another way... "to avoid someone like Boris Johnson gaining too much power we are going to stack an entire chamber full of Boris Johnsons." Every other stable democracy on earth that does not have hereditary peerage just has a second chamber of elected office holders to counter-balance the first chamber.

[@rwboa22]

Or as their counterparts in Canada referred to their Senate (the equivalent to the Lords) as "the chamber of second sober thought."

[@jordanforbes2557]

@@thagamerzzz "better for the country". That's laughable, there is absolutely no way to ensure that with a House of Lords who are appointed by the government. Most Lords are Conservative, so I think what you mean is better for the wealthy minority.

[@benjaminnathanson3284]

As an American who just finished watching the last presidential debate, a monarchy doesn't seem like such a bad idea any more.

[@JesseWright68]

It's a terrible idea.

[@elitealice]

Get off your knees

[@anthonyparillo7832]

It has no actual influence genius British politics is also a joke

[@aspencouloir761]

The Lords should probably should have more power and even a few more hereditary peers. "Democracy" can be extremely dangerous when it becomes tyranny of the majority. The ability to stop craziness by people not beholden to buying votes, in balance with elected representatives, seems a pretty good system. Look at the state of the UK. Has having power almost fully vested (since the monarch won't stop idiocy with their significant, if not omnipotent powers) in elected representatives who focus mainly on buying votes and perpetuating problems so they can stir outrage at the next election, instead of actually solving problems, really worked that well in the last several decades?

[@adamseery5012]

This has a sense of “let’s make fun of tradition”

[@guyincognito7979]

Tradition in this case is unnecessary and stupid

[@addmin5487]

Well yeah it looks stupid, and it isn’t democratic. Its the remnants of monarchy rule

[@YevOnegin]

@@guyincognito7979 newsflash, every "political stance" active in the UK today is "traditional", as they're all over a century old, and even worse, based on politics most of which are over 2000 years old. Whether its democracy, republicanism, tribalism, religion, communism, anarchism, socialism. They all have their roots in tradition, one way or another.

[@guyincognito7979]

@@YevOnegin i didn't say tradition is always stupid but this particular one is.

[@YevOnegin]

@@guyincognito7979 what, this tradition of minimal influence who can't even pass laws? Thinking practically, I'd assume the house of commons being full of people who act as mouthpieces for billionaires' interests would be a bigger problem as far as traditions go. But going after the aristocracy is just in vogue, isn't it

[@Shetoocrazy]

The personal statements caught me entirely off-guard 😂😂

[@chechnya8006]

In Thailand, appointed Senators can elect the Prime Minister together with MPs(most powerful than your). And sadly, many people who wrote this rule often referred to your Lords when they talk about "Why we need this Senate".

[@gbnexofa5483]

ถูก มันไม่มีความ สมดุลเลยถ้าเทียบกับสหราชอาณาจักร

[@tombranch2261]

Thailand is a glorified autocracy.

[@kamachi]

The Lords have no real power, the Commons who are elected can ALWAYS overrule anything the Lords come up with. The Lords is a cultural relic of our past and should be kept. The constant attacks on English and British culture is never ceasing.

[@edbush1415]

Yep 100% agree

[@alexandreferreira1085]

Fully agree!!!! 👍👍

[@blueciffer1653]

Costs taxpayers millions per for a useless unelected class of people. The (stupid) "culture" is useless. + Your culture sucks

[@nomahope3182]

The British went around destroying other people's cultures. Now you can't handle criticism of the English culture.

[@kamachi]

@@nomahope3182 Cope and seethe.

[@judahfriedman8516]

Nations should strive for republic, not democracy.

[@travisjoyce4678]

I'd be more concerned about the fact that you can't get a fixed rate mortgage in the UK than whether or not a baroness is part of parliament....

[@windwaker0rules]

.... but the reason for that is because of the house of lords making policy that makes a fixed rate mortgage impossible.

[@travisjoyce4678]

@@windwaker0rules Isn't that in the purvue of the House of Commons?

[@D1vu5]

As stated in the video, a major problem with democracies is that it is hard to take the long view past the next election. The lords currently work as a mitigating factor to this problem. If it is changed to having elections then personally I think they should still have very long terms, to remove them from the need to placate short term interests.

[@syasyaishavingfun]

@Hernando Malinche because these dictators are still controlled by the European elites, mostly French. You have to look at China where long term plans for the country is always paramount. Look, even with the genocide it's done because they believe in making a one culture, one race, one nation will make the country better - like Korea and Japan.

[@IvarDaigon]

not really, that is what a senate is for. you can have senate full of elected representatives to take the long view that only gets elected every 5-8 years while the peoples house gets elected every 3-4 years.. anyways what was the long sighted view about Brexit? seems entirely short sighted and populist to me. Especially considering they hadn't even thought about what they were going to do about northern Ireland before pulling the pin..

[@tuluppampam]

@@IvarDaigon the house of lords can only delay action, it cannot stop it (which renders it almost useless)

[@MikeAG333]

@@IvarDaigon Brexit was decided in a referendum. What are you suggesting.......that the government should have ignored the result of a massive democratic process simply because it didn't like the outcome? Really? Did you think that through?

[@IvarDaigon]

​@@MikeAG333 a properly functioning first and second chamber actually work together to reduce the chances of populist politicians gaining power in the first place because they help keep politicians accountable for what they say and do. Do you think people would have voted for brexit if they actually knew how much it would cost them? Would anyone actually vote to become poorer? would they vote for more red tape? would they vote for supply chain issues causing food and energy shortages? This isn't hindsight.. lots of economists said that it would be a disaster for the economy but they were drowned out by politicians who were only in it for themselves and thought they knew better.. In Australia the senate serves to keep the b's honest. In the UK the house of lords serves only themselves. In the US the senate serves the interests of the two major parties and, while not ideal, it still (in theory) serves the interests of the people via their elected officials.

[@charlessmith9903]

As an American I can say 2 things 1.) It's fascinating how Britain's government works and how very different it is from our House and Senate and 2.) I can also say a House and Senate doesn't solve a damn thing. It's all about parties today which btw our founding fathers despised (hint hint America).

[@thomasroutt380]

I know absolutely nothing about British politics but from what i can gather… if it ain’t broke don’t fix it

[@Conservator.]

I think it’s good to have an institution that can check new proposed legislation and that will recommend changes if for instance the execution of the legislation would require a disproportionate effort or if the legislation would help to reach the goal it aims for. Such an institution should have the status somewhere between the civil service and the high court and it should be technical and non political. A political second chamber should be elected. I’d suggest one based on proportional representation.

[@Anon54387]

But how technical are they really? I bet the guy running a small restaurant understands more about how business works than the vast, vast majority of those in the House of Lords.

[@Conservator.]

@@Anon54387 My comment is about a new second chamber, not the current House of Lords

[@Ryan-ce1oc]

@@Anon54387 Actually most people who run restaurants are complete clowns. Have you seen any of Gordon Ramsey's programmes?

[@jacquesmostert3942]

The House of Lords is vital to ensure that change is measured and thoughtful. They don’t get everything right.

[@MSMS-ug3zu]

As far I as I am aware, the UK is the only country where the number of upper house members is larger than that of the lower house. I understand that these peers, lords, or overlords have some 'expertise', but isn't it time to start thinking about the right size and save money?

[@randeknight]

Yes, but getting everyone to agree on the size and who should be removed would take so much time debating that they wouldn't be able to get around to talking about more pressing issues. eg. we've got a large Tory majority atm, and I'm sure they'd love to dismiss a bunch of labor peers to make their laws pass through easier, but once you've made that a precedent, what's to stop a future labor govt doing the same thing to dismiss a bunch of tory peers? (Note that the opposite currently happens - a new govt tries to ADD more peers predominately on their side, which is why we've got so fuckin many of them)

[@annusa3682]

It's simply a way for the British establishment to retain their influence over the country's political structures.

[@juanmanuelg.delamelaydeiba8683]

Ann, the House of Lords has almost no power. And only 92 out of 800 are heritable.

[@tombranch2261]

Wrong, it holds significant power, just because you cannot see the influence peddling does not mean its not there.@@juanmanuelg.delamelaydeiba8683

[@hans-joachimtenhoope1744]

We have the same thing in the Netherlands, it is called the first chamber (eerste Kamer). Their job is basically to check if the propositions of the second chamber (tweede kamer) do not violate existing rules and laws. Members of the second chamber are elected by the people, members of the first chamber are not.

[@johngalt2880]

Is this guy training to be a clown? What is he wearing?!!?

[@showtimebruin7821]

The House of Lords has a function in a constitutional system of government. The Lords provide stability and policy making without regard to the whims and extreme passions of the voting public. It’s the same idea why the U.S. Senate is a 6 year term and unelected until the 20th Century. The Lords are the upper chamber, the more mature chamber that is less prone to public opinion. They act based on what they believe is in the nation’s best interest whereas the Commons serves the wishes of the public.

[@tb3ezzy]

If they remove this, the monarchy has very little chance of survival

[@tybaltmarr2158]

I think that’s probably the goal. The media ;) conglomerate loves the American system because they’re able to manipulate the public, who the elected politicians are (somewhat) beholden to

[@GHOSTTIEF]

@@tybaltmarr2158 American politicians are only beholden to corps if the public were smarter and more informed that wouldn’t be the case.

[@josipj705]

good

[@josipj705]

@@tybaltmarr2158 the American system is controlled by rich corpos and the british by rich descendants of corpos, I don't get people who support inherited power, it's just plain stupid

[@tybaltmarr2158]

@@midlos nah I'm pretty happy, I know where I am in the food chain. UKs not perfect but there isn't anywhere else I'd rather live. Don't be salty just because we set the standard for all future imperialist countries, USA included. you're welcome by the way :D

[@roastbeef1010]

We should have kept the hereditary House of Lords, it was the last truly independent section of parliament. Now it is full of cronies!

[@mrman8541]

Hear hear.

[@pete8299]

Agree.

[@adrian1622]

hear hear

[@cameronsteele7289]

Maybe when your deciding between cronies and feudal aristocracy to give power to you should maybe just choose neither of them? Britain is so backwards and brain dead sometimes.

[@Amanojaku8]

@@cameronsteele7289 I can practically hear him tearing at his forelock with one hand while typing with the other.

[@sturlamolden]

OK, it could be far worse. Here in Norway we cannot vote for (or against) politicians, only for established parties. We cannot vote useless politicians out, because the parties will just put the same ones in. What we get is an establishment of professional sycophants, who can only suck up to the party officials. They will in turn form a sort of an oligarchy, taking all decisions, and even instructing MPs how to vote. After all, the MPs are in office because the party officials put them there. In fact, the parties have now come to the arrangement that MPs do not even have to show up at work, because they must vote as instructed they are not even allowed to speak as they wish. So the parliament it empty while the party officials rule in the names of their MPs. When an MP is allowed to speak, from a given a manuscript, they speak to an empty room because nobody cares what they have to say. There is nothing anyone in Norway can do about it, because voting for parties will just make sure the same oligarchs stay in office. Party officials cannot be elected, and they will always put the same sycophants in the parliament. We fool ourselves into thinking Norway is a democracy. In the UK, at least you can vote directly for politicians and keep them responsible. If you want to see what a really flawed democracy looks like, you need not look any further than to your neighbours to the east.

[@stephenderry9488]

The purpose of the House of Lords, constitutionally, is to be a "repository of expertise." Elected politicians tend not to have a huge amount of real life experience in the fields they are legislating on, the Lords are there to be the experts, largely free from political pressure, to make sure the laws will be relevant, efficient, effective and do what they are intended. Most Lords are appointed from specific fields by a Prime Minister (elected by his/her elected parliamentary party) or a committee (appointed by the elected House of Commons). So they are one or two degrees away from electoral accountability. There is a case to be made for the Bishops, although arguably they are overrepresented and other faiths (and maybe secular organisations) should also have representation to ensure their constituencies (the people they speak on behalf of) are represented in respect of legislation that effects them. As for hereditary peers, they are mainly a compromise-hangover of earlier times, much watered down. Perhaps there is a need for representation of the land-owning class, but 92 members? At some point no doubt a reforming government (if such a thing can ever happen again here) will look at it - is there really a need for the Lords to sit in the expensive Palace of Westminster where space is already at a premium? I'm not in favour of more elections, more career politicians bringing more ignorance to our legislation, there are plenty of occasions where the Lords have fought the government from the brink of doing something stupid. The idea of a review body packed with expertise rather than just another tier of party hacks MUST be preserved, in my opinion. But absolutely there is scope for improvement.

[@SuperGion915]

I have a simple idea to fix the House of Lords: - Get rid of appointments. - Have Proportional representation for it. - If you get elected, you either sit for life or get very long terms (12-16 years seems fair) That way there is no polarization, no constant pressure, allowing for controversial yet needed legislation, and allows a bit of Proportional representation that gets moved over time.

[@kindnessfirst9670]

It's bizarre to think that the UK has things like unelected members of Parliament and a state religion. On the other hand- in the USA millions of citizens are barred from voting for President and/ or Congress due to where they reside (Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico). We can pay taxes and serve in the military though. In Northern Ireland citizens can choose between being on the UK Olympic team or the Ireland one.

[@franciscruickshank8794]

all parasites job for the boys !i see the retired kick boxer got cushy job for brown nose to wastminster! SAOR ALBA

[@aike6471]

In my country, imprisoned people can vote... I would like to live in the UK

[@kindnessfirst9670]

@@aike6471 In the USA prisoners can vote if they haven't been convicted of a felony. 2/3 of prisoners in local jails have not been convicted of anything. They are awaiting trial and can't afford bail. Therefore they still have the right to vote.

[@richardlusk8024]

Watch some tape from the House of Lords and the House of Commons and than tell me which is better

[@alanhat5252]

www.parliamentlive.tv/Lords

[@Mmartins1097]

American-Brazilian here. This is actually great. one of the issues we have in the United States is that our governance is disgustingly greedy and when you relieve a particular group of citizens from the need for greed you have a small control group that make legislation or helps impede legislation without the sway of money or power.

[@MrCmon113]

If you give your stuff to the thief, he can't steal it. Brilliant plan.

[@dbkarman]

I was diagnosed with brain-dead-desease at age 6 and bought Established Titles lordship pack, does that mean i can go into the house of lords too?

[@thnkgodimanatheist]

I at least appreciate her straight forward way of answering challenging questions. Yes, no and why. I wish our politicians (I’m not british) would face scrutiny that way

[@bandav_lohengrin]

They don't have to worry about being reelected every 5 minutes, so they can be truthful and honest without fear of being put out of power

[@thnkgodimanatheist]

@@bandav_lohengrin well elected authorities should try that. I would vote for that

[@peterlogan1264]

Take New Zealand as an example. They ditched their Upper House and gets on without it. Now it’s one of the top most democratic countries in the world, it would be the top but has the King of Great Britain as its head of state. NZ uses a MMP system of government

[@romanmarcus14]

Honestly in someways having a body of people that can have a very long view of a country can be a good thing. Long term issues generally arent well faced by politicians who have to face an election every few years. These Longer term issues and projects are much better faced by people that will have to deal with their consequences 30-50 years later.

[@tombranch2261]

Or a bad thing, considering they answer to nobody, and are there for life, they can make bad decisions as well, and the fact there is no way for them to be held accountable for that is a serious flaw.

[@jairomedina861]

Keep things the way they are. Don't try to fix what is not broken. The system has been there for centuries and it works.

[@tombranch2261]

It IS broken.

[@jacquelinebailey3637]

what a joke they all are, and once again, we, the public, are paying for this.

[@Filipe_Veras]

The best support argument to the house of lords is: it’s running like this for considerable amount of time and England is doing great. I myself think that the house of lords should have a bit more power (but not much).

[@katrinegadegaard1241]

Is it really doing that great though? It kinda seems like it's been in a steady decline for quite some time now, and no sign of that changing. Not saying that has anything to do with the house of lords necessarily, though.

[@tombranch2261]

Clear that you are delusional.

[@saulo5435]

The channel 4 guys should read "On Power" by Bertrand de Jouvenel, specially the red haired one. Making something more democratic and in consecuenece without restriction it's a dangerous thing. I love the British system cause it's a slow and progressive democratic system. Look around other countries and what have the done in the name of the "people"

[@tombranch2261]

And here we have a pro autocracy argument from Saulo.

[@jaker3151]

1:10 It's kind of crazy how one man/family can own 6000 acres (about 9 square miles) of land in the UK. How can such a person who from birth has all these privileges and wealth truly represent and understand the struggles of ordinary people.

[@BiglerSakura]

It's a feudal kingdom. The entire land there belongs to the nobility and the royal family directly or indirectly. Actual residents and businesses pay rents and royalties to them. They literally own the country while promoting the popular belief that monarchy in Britain is just "decorative" and "ceremonial".

[@danentakoto2701]

Because this it is private property. Same applies with land paid and bought by private companies. It's how democracy's capitalist system works, a better version of the feudal system is what it is.

[@dom8286]

You think people who get elected are poor??

[@PLuMUK54]

@Yamazakura v. Lyfflandt I own my land freehold, and pay nothing to either royalty or the aristocracy. What I do pay is a tax on my property paid to local government to pay for various services that they provide. I think you need a little more research.

[@dom8286]

@@BiglerSakura Yeah if you looked at the top 100 wealthiest Brits maybe like 3 of them would be considered nobility. What an idiot comment smh

[@justin00372]

Uk 11 th in ranking of democracy, how stupid democracy index can be

[@johnbull9195]

The House of Lord's is not designed to be a representative house like the House of Commons so it needs no more to be elected than the Cheif Constable of Police Scotland or the judicary. The purpose of the House of Lord's is to scrutinise the legislation passed by the House of Commons therefore it makes sense that people with expertise in all fields of life such as scientists like Lord Winston or the Bishops, elder statesmen like Harold Macmillan, entrepreneurs like Lord Digby Jones etc. are able to be brought in to that role of scrutinizing legislation.

[@ScottishRoss27]

How do they have power to effectively overrule scottish mps ? snp has a policy of not sitting in the unelected lords the gutter.

[@ScottishRoss27]

Powers reserved to wastemonster too.

[@johnbull9195]

@@ScottishRoss27 Ever since Lloyd George the Lord's have been very limited in their power, for example they can't veto legislation, they won't oppose anything which was in a manifesto and I think there is limited amount of times they can send legislation back to the House of Commons. The reality is Scottish MP's have more power than Scottish Lord's. As for the SNP I am not surprised they don't sit in the House of Lord's they are too naive and simple to understand the importance of the upper chamber. Power is much better reserved to Westminster than devolved to the pretendy parliament in Edinburgh which has the intellectual level of a primary school.

[@ScottishRoss27]

@@johnbull9195 Jawdropper. John talking-Bull defending this unelected uk burocracy yet slanders Scotlands elected parlie 😂 Couldnt make it up could you! We dont have an 'upper house' everyone in scotland is thee upper house! ,800 unelected burocrats (more than eu par) enjoy your brexit

[@R0B1NG5]

Well, Chief constable, or anything like that is a full time job. You are payed a salary because a panel of relevant authorities assessed, approved and hired you on your relevant merits. You didn't just get your dads job when he died and everyone just accepted you probably know how to do the job. That would be a horrific way to function. Not really helping your stance to compare that to the house of lords.

[@jboycaceres2871]

As an outsider, UK should retain the Lords. It has been part of their identity and Traditions for millennia. However, keep them for ceremonial purposes only.1After all, their ancestors served the British Empire one way or another.. Remove the perks, privileges and salary, no one will ever dream of becoming part of that system in the future.

[@llewelyn7966]

As an insider, the house of Lords has nothing to do with our identity. The public hardly care about them and they're never seen. Most lords ancestors haven't served the British empire as only a small amount are hereditary however I agree they shouldn't have the perks and the salary

[@Acaykath]

@@llewelyn7966 Unfortunately, the house of lords arranged for the end of slavery, so you can't force them to work for free :p

[@PhenomenonGuy]

You don’t know how good you have it. Not having a voted official means that someone can hold corrupt politicians accountable. The biggest hardship with democracy is corruption. Finding balance is key. Your House of Lords is the key. Don’t throw it away. Trust!

[@keepingwoodiealiveeveryday8789]

"Democracy is yet to treat the masses in poverty square" RIP WOODIE

[@Connor-jl9gq]

You spent way too long on hereditary peers I mean they are the most outrageous point but they are a 1/7th of the lords and most of them don't even vote I agree that the lords need to be reformed but I'm concerned more about political appointees and I can see how the theoretical idea of the lords as a section of the government filled with experts who look over government legislation and use their skills to amend or criticise it is a really good idea but one that needs to be more of a focus and needs to be protected

[@lawrencehawkins7198]

Funny, damn odd, actually. People come to a country from somewhere else and then want to change that country…into something else.

[@joanhuffman2166]

As an American the one advantage I can see to having aristocrats and royalty is that they are easier to spot and it makes it easier to spot the rising authoritarians because they're trying to hang around the first two groups of people.

[@myamdane6895]

The problem with Americans is they see authoritarianism as inherent tyranny

[@joanhuffman2166]

@@myamdane6895 it is.

[@myamdane6895]

@@joanhuffman2166 well that is where we differ

[@joanhuffman2166]

@@myamdane6895 Where in this world can you find human beings who will not abuse power in proportion to the authority they exercise over others?

[@myamdane6895]

@@joanhuffman2166 In theory I don’t disagree. But in a society with an authoritarian government like the UK checks and balances are in place. It just happens that society has stagnated and the people themselves have allowed it to happen

[@occamraiser]

The house of lords has very little power. It is an advisory body not really a legislative body. So the commons decides on a new law, the Lords review it and make suggestions - the commons decides whether it cares about those suggestions. If it wants the law exactly as first written then it simply tells the lords to sign it. It is uncommon, but not rare for legislation to be 'forced' through the house of lords. As an aside..... if the Lords were asked to try an ex prime minister who refused to leave No. 10 and got thousands of gun toting nutters to invade Parliament, said ex PM would be in prison within the hour - not What is the Senate's excuse?

[@singami465]

Channel 4 being like "oh noooo, a house we cannot gerrymander until we control it :((((("

[@tombranch2261]

Its pre gerrmandered.

[@gamelandmaster3680]

Come on, this is history. Be happy that the commons got as much power as they do. If you hate the Lords, you should love Cromwell, and Fairfax.

[@Hugh.G.Rectionx]

bring back cromwell

[@Governor-General.of.Qanada]

The Canadian senate is appointed too, but most democracies appoint the judiciary and no ones accusing them of not being democratic. Further, in the uk, the house of lords can only delay bills, not block them. They lost that right back in the 1910s, iirc. Until the uk has mmp (ranked choice for single member districts and at-large multimember districts for each constituent nation (England, Scotland, Wales, ni) in proportional representation by party lists, unicameralism is not recommended. New Zealand is a good example. It had been unicameral since the 1950s, but didn't get mmp until 1993. Between then, one of the pm's boasted that if an idea came to him he could have that idea made into a law by the evening.

[@sagnikganguly4651]

Well, focusing more on the negative side of things is actually gonna make it worse. The Lords get paid peanuts. Even if they weren't there, the building would still be needed to keep up and running, for the house of commons. These unelected people act as a check on the political parties, helping take general decisions for the better good of the British people.

[@perdbeer6713]

Is it just me or is there some organised Astroturfing going on in the comments here?

[@Fucccunt-ff2su]

Paula Erdbeer it’s channel four so yes.

[@perdbeer6713]

@@Fucccunt-ff2su nah if you look how much establishment buttlicking is going on and how quickly they came to the item, it's beyond unusual. And it's not even party politics. Very strange...

[@godofrock]

I love how dismissive the lords are of the publics intellect. Oh they can’t comprehend what the lords do. They answer questions as if they want the lords? They need to make up their minds? Any position that is appointed for life and cannot be voted out is not democracy so no England britton whatever is not a democracy. We have a similar problem with judges here in the USA there should be zero appointed I said ZERO appointed official positions including heads of departments which should be positions based on years in position and qualifications. Post office, anything with department of in front of it should have career people in charge not some appointee who’s last job was being a yes man or a lobbyist.

[@siddharthshekhar909]

The earl made an important point , there should be some in the parliament who are not subject to electoral pressures. Trust me ,a fully elected House of Lords ( or whatever it's called then) won't be any better than the present one. Most probably ,it will be worse off. And remember , the House of Commons has more powers .

[@alanyuan8565]

I'm not a huge fan of the House of Lords on paper, but these questions ... 1. How dare you charge people 230 pounds for 5 people 2. How dare you take a chauffer driven car with a foreign dignitary And she explains the arguments for keeping the house and the interview just cuts all that out. This really isn't fair and unbiased journalism IMO.

[@AKPNW76]

This video was just fodder. Not helpful at all

[@matthewoneill3771]

I would like a House of Lords full of experts in there fields. Doctors, scientist, economist, philosophers, teachers. Somewhere where intelligent professionals can depbate an make decisions. I’m not sure if we should vote them in

[@boiboiboi1419]

That's under category of meritocracy, It's the next thing , but we will not achieve it unless we face some sort of extinction Democracy is too powerfuly corrupts

[@tombranch2261]

What a crock of shite.@@boiboiboi1419

[@FrederikPedersen-gq6nh]

The House of Lords needs scrapping and replacing with a fully elected senate or scrapping altogether

[@gyaniadmi2347]

As an outsider, let Britan be Britain. Why does it need to be same as other countries. I don't think they should change the process of election of House of Lords. There is a danger in doing that, it will collapse the fabric of the country.. Who is the guy who is interviewing?

[@simonjones4855]

This video is missing out a very important point that I can't see in the comments. House of lords can't stop house of commons from making laws. They can only postpone it and make them make rediscuss(?), for lack of a better term lol. They can do that 3 times then house of commons just does what they like. Lords don't have the ultimate vote, commons does. Having a second house is important but they should be public committees. Groups of 300 randomly selected people akin to juries, analysing government bills and possibly rejects and sending back to discuss it. Maybe allowing public to indefinitely block it, not sure if that'd be smart or not.

[@WitchKing-Of-Angmar]

They have given conservative viewpoints a bad name and image, this doesn't seem remotely bad.

[@willgiles6848]

Must have been so horrible for her to have to take a car whilst wearing a ball gown on the way to the opera. Oh these public servants do serve us well

[@Andrew-rc3vh]

Would you rather have Arthur Scargill run the country?

[@derpnerpwerp]

As the Duck of Puffington, I say public shouldn't get a say! My father held the title, my grandfather held the title.. all the way back to my great great great great great grandfather, who won it in a game of blackjack from the Viscount of Countdracongtonshire's nephew (who was also the second cousin of the Baron of Poshminshire). The commoners couldn't understand the complexities of what we do, nor could they understand the specific skills required to perform those tasks. They certainly aren't qualified to decide who is qualified

[@owenthomas5103]

House of lords is inherently undemocratic and needs changing. But I always remember the times Cameron and Osborn were outraged the Lord's would try to make them stick to there own election manifesto - that shows our "democratic" house has even more serious issues.

[@tybaltmarr2158]

It’s designed to be undemocratic, and that’s ok. Democracy just descends into tyranny of the majority against the minority.

[@owenthomas5103]

@@tybaltmarr2158 it's not ok to have a minority rule the majority because of there family name.

[@malua14]

First time to hear it and I am so surprised that Britain is a country with to me is a fake Democracy 😂🤣

[@claiminglight]

Coming from an American, it seems to me that the best place for the Lords to be is right on the razer line of 'undemocratic but helpful'. So long as they have cause to fear the dismantling of the system after a single overstep, they're like to do good work.

[@PlatinumNanos]

No one is saying you should take public transport, the problem is that your private transport was tax payer funded!

[@driverstoday8895]

I think to avoid the case of rubberstamp on issues on the floor from the elected members (House of Commons), especially when it comes to voting, most often these party members vote on party lines due to the whipping system and also not to offend their party leadership. So I think the wisdom here is that the House of Lords can vote on issues without being politically bias since they were not on any part ticket.

[@ye9206]

A lot are party nominated

[@davidweihe6052]

@@ye9206 Well, abolish Life Lords who have not been elected by only one party. Zero or at least two.

[@hallofettbacke]

Interviewer: "You yourself have made extravagant expenses claims at time, didn't you?" Baroness: *nods head* "No"

[@ordoabchao4202]

£240 for a limousine is nothing. That was a ridiculous accusation...

[@animeweng]

@@ordoabchao4202 You can walk or pay for a taxi for much cheaper. Still much more expensive.

[@ordoabchao4202]

@@animeweng don't be silly.. if you wear an evening dress and have diplomatic guests with entourage you don't "walk or take a taxi"... that is just petty... there are much bigger fish to fry when it comes to waste of taxpayer money...

[@Countrysidejournal88]

The public ruin everything

[@vukkulvar9769]

Neither UK, France, nor USA are democracies. France is a democratic republic. For the point about the house of commons that "they think too much of the next election". If the house of lords was removed and the seats in the house of commons were so that each representative was elected for a longer duration (10, 12, or 14 years) but half the house seats would be put to an election every half of that (5, 6, or 7 years) with everyone having voted for 2 representatives, 1 at a time. I would also bring the ability for any county to petition for their representative to lose their seat and be replaced with a new one for the remaining duration of the seat mandate. If the petition gather 50% + 1 vote from the county electorate, the representative lose their seat. It could also be made that no representative cannot present themselves for a 3rd time.

[@sarakajira]

Here's a question, and I have this as an American, and I pose it not only to Britain, but to my own country as well: why do we need two houses at all? What is the point of having a Senate (elected) or House of Lords (unelected)? I mean it seems to me that having the House of Representatives or House of Commons ought to be enough. I mean the people vote for those representatives, and there's already hundreds of them (in the US at least), and they vote, and pass bills: why isn't that enough? Why do we need some extra layer of bureaucracy when elected officials already did their job? It just seems to create a system that makes doing anything take longer, and gives lobbyists more chance to muck it all up.

[@CB-fz3li]

One defense of the Lords is that it contains a lot of people with the knowledge and skills to scrutinise legislation properly. I think to some extent this is not wholly incorrect, there are many people in there who have had distinguished careers in law and business. The argument is that this results in more considered legilsation passing into law. I am in favour of an elected second house but I do think based on the quality of our current elected politicians that we would lose a lot of that knowledge and experience that justifies a second house.

[@JonasM.M.]

While I am fine with the Lords hearing back, the church has something to say in the government makes me very angry

[@williampennjr.4448]

Democracy is over rated. It's only as good as the majority that vote. The worst thing the U.S. ever did was open up the senate to general election. I think senators , and Lords in the UK, should switch to a meritocracy. To get in you have to have a PhD in medicine, physics or economics, or 20 years experience in farming or blue collar work. 1/4th of the members compriseing each. Then you would be voted in by other members based on your expertise without regard to your politics, except that you are a citizen and have allegiance to the country and the general welfare of the people.

[@tomdudley5314]

Don't mind unelected second chamber as long as they're highly distinguished professional experts in their field with decades of experience. With a non party aligned commission that selects them. They're supposed to review laws and offer insight, after all idiots can be elected with party bias likewise been born a peer doesn't guarantee expertise either. Also 800 members seems excessive for what is effectively a review board, should be cut to 250. Make governance efficient

[@michaelt3172]

Honestly this is good because they don’t have to worry about reelection so they can at least be honest and not worry about pandering for votes

[@Jul_0077]

Look at Germany: Bundesrat, made of the governments of the regions and the Bundestag with directly elected MP‘s actually work pretty well.

[@RealJohnnyDingo]

joke is on them, I bought a square inch of Scotland and now apparently I'm a lord. when does the next session of Parliament start? 🧐

[@dans-designs]

Typical politician, basically the people arent intelligent enough to think for themselves... We NEED to get rid of these corrupt children!

[@AminaAhmed-n8y]

It looks good that the country values its traditions and its rich heritage. The first clip of house of the lords gave the vibes of medieval england

[@BKLau70]

Illusion of Democracy ... Quite powerful ...

[@Harry-x3p]

Abolish this gravy train institution. How can this country make any headway when they keep over ruling parliament !

[@sgtmtrush]

In the US, originally the members of the US Senate were appointed by the legislatures of each state, so they would not be influenced by the passing passions of the most vocal segments of the society.. The hope being they could serve as a check against rash, emotion fueled and dramatic political shifts.. It would seem that the Lords serve a similar function. Either way, both of our countries regulatory systems are largely dominated by unelected bureaucrats of one type or another. And at least you are familiar with the faults of the system you have now. May not be worth trading those familiar faults for a whole new set that are not so obvious.

[@lukealadeen7836]

The Earl of Selborne came to our high school in South Africa. I remember him well. Great man indeed.

[@אוסטרוסומליה]

Democracy has no pong Place in Britain