Keep the hereditary peers!

[@JaenEngineering]

My biggest issue with an elected upper house is it basic becomes a mirror of the lower house. What is needed is an unbiased, non partisan house appointed on merit that explicitly is NOT subject to party politics

[@ManForToday]

Sounds very much like the US Supreme Court, which in practice, as we all know, the process and arena leading to the appointment of judges is totally partisan.

[@cestlextase]

we can build an adult size playground for you to play kings and queens in if you like.

[@nomuraryo1]

Remove all the life peers and restore parliamentary seats to all the hereditary peers who lost them under Blair. That is what the House of Lords is for.

[@nomuraryo1]

And the king should create an Earldom or something for Daniel Hannan so he can remain.

[@ManForToday]

Am I not right in thinking (and remembering something David Starkey said) that if we did move to a fully elected upper chamber that we would inevitably have to directly elect the Prime Minister? Such is the presidentialisation and republicanisation of the modern British state.

[@thesmithersy]

I agree with you to a point Daniel. I'd much rather have hereditaries over life peers. The genuine independent voice in Parliament is sadly about to disappear. 😢 I fear this is a slippery slope into an American style elected Senate where nothing will get done since they'll have to give the veto back. That's why I don't want an elected second house. Plus another load of elected politicians will be another great expense to the country as they'll be wanting salaries too.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

If you had to choose, you'd keep a wholly appointed house?

[@thesmithersy]

@@HannanOfKingsclere If I had to choose, I'd rather have all the hereditaries back. But since that isn't on the table, I'd prefer the appointed house with no veto so the Lords can continue to mostly work the same as they do now, albeit without the genuinely independent voices.

[@anonanon5878]

Absolutely, this is dishonest by Labour, Lord Hannan is spot on. Purely hereditary Peers is preferable to this kangaroo court , as they have a vested interest in the success of Britain.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

Thank you.

[@pickaxingoneuropa8457]

For a layman like me, Hannan says in closing "Pacta sunt servanda," which translates to "Agreements must be kept." This principle is fundamental in contract law and international agreements, emphasizing that parties are bound to honor their commitments. TY Chat GPT👍🐋

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

Apologies. A bad habit of mine. Consuetudo altera natura est.

[@Coherers]

Very persuasive. I really had no idea about the nature of the bargain that New Labour struck but it makes complete sense. And now, of course they don't want a rival chamber that also has democratic legitimacy.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

Thank you.

[@cestlextase]

we can build an adult size playground for you to play kings and queens in if you like.

[@just_another32]

so if I understand correctly, they want to get rid of the hereditary peers but to be able to continue appointing non hereditary ones? And that doesn't make sense if the argument is that the upper house needs to become democratic?

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

Well put.

[@rat_king-]

A legislature, who is gains position and tenure via the executive, is dependant upon the executive. Thus the laws of a country become, Via favour, bribary and deception. The dishonest claim of "let us vote, it is democracy", removes: who or whom, is going to do the voting, and operates sole upon the implication, that yourself will have a chance.

[@zch2439]

I would be happier if I felt that the Government had thought this through. I don't think it's dishonesty, I think it stems from a head long rush to deliver, that haste, for many of us comes across as arrogance. But more importantly it comes with a huge side order of unintended consequences. So many of the problems they have tried to fix recently have turned out to be wicked problems, in fixing what seems simple, a great many things get a great deal worse. You have quite a job to do. This was a brilliant start.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

Their manifesto promised to abolish 1) Bishops; 2) Peers over 80; and 3) Hereditary peers. They then realised that 1) and 2) would remove more Lefties than conservatives, so are implementing only 3). It's flagrantly partisan.

[@funkyanimaltheearloffunkdo1871]

Things seemed to go to hell when they changed the House Of Lords. Best thing to do is change it back.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

And forge anew the link in the chain that leads us back to the Great Charter.

[@gusmlie]

Oh no, Labour breaking a deal, come back to the HOC and see how many they have broken there.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

May not be the most serious breach of faith, but one of the most blatant.

[@Alexroberts666]

If we remain a unitary state, abolish the chamber.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

Denmark and New Zealand manage to be pretty successful unicameral democracies.

[@heli0s101]

If an American asked you to provide arguments to replace their elected Senate with a House of American Lords and Bishops, with members either picked by the President for Life or just inheriting it from their fathers, what arguments would you give them?

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

I'd tell them to keep their elected Senate. I'd be very happy to have an equivalent Upper House in Britain.

[@JaenEngineering]

​@@HannanOfKingsclereI wouldn't. The value of the lord's is that they aren't subject to party politics. That's the danger of an elected upper house, it just becomes an extension of the lower house with all the same politicking

[@ethanmackler1160]

America doesn't have any lords from whom to choose. The Constitution forbade titles of nobility, and the only (disputed) Lord who supported the American cause, Lord Stirling, died in 1783. But just because a House of Lords is totally foreign to us doesn't mean it's foreign to you guys. We're not similarly situated. As an American I can try to understand the British particularity of the House of Lords and the history going all the way back to the Magnum Concilium. I can understand wanting to emulate us or the Australians or whoever and have a serious bicameralism. I can understand wanting to have a neat unicameralism. What I can't understand is having a house of political appointees in fact being treated as a house of lords in name.

[@matthewmullen2303]

Here's an idea: how about NO PEERS?!? We the people are not as stupid as you think we are; we can make our own choices, we don't need to our hands held by former MPs and hereditary peers who think they know what's best for us all. Abolish the House of Lords and let the people have the power to reign over our own nation through duly elected members of parliament like the representative democracy we strive for all over the world

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

I'd prefer that to a wholly appointed upper chamber. But there is at least an argument that bicameralism, when properly done, serves to temper the often transient moods of the popular house, and so works as a constraint on the tyranny of the majority.

[@matthewmullen2303]

@@HannanOfKingsclere we already have a check on the tyranny of the majority, its called representative democracy. If we need another check on it, let us have the power to usurp the MP in our constituency with a vote of no confidence, that way the MP will rightfully be afraid of ignoring his/her constituents in favour of his/her personal interests. The idea of the House of Lords is outdated and became obsolete when the aristocracy collapsed

[@Siegetower]

The Labour peers there don't care at all.... They remind me of your opponents in the EU 'parliament'. They didn't even know what they were voting on, just voting as they were told. Hello Soviet Britain.

[@HannanOfKingsclere]

It does feel that way sometimes, yes.