The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill Explained

[@kevinhardman6237]

Could the house of Lords indefinitely stall the bill by repeatedly sending it back to the house of parliament with amendment recommendations that they won't agree to?

[@matt3719]

not if it's a manifesto commitment. They can only delay it 3 times by convention. There's no constitutional enforcement of this but it has been the convention for over a century.

[@kevinhardman6237]

@matt3719 much appreciated my educated guy. I was genuinely worried about that.

[@andrewharper1609]

No, the legislation was amended in the '80's so that a maximum of 3 times were introduced.

[@BolphesarusMaximusWardius]

They can legally only do so for 1 year-following the Parliament Act 1949

[@Steven-ly9ei]

​@kevinhardman6237 still an issue. Convention isn't law. Though it seems the Lords has had an actual enforceable law added to it. need to get rid of conventions. We saw the torys break convention after convention. Don't really trust tory lite not too do the exact same (but probabaly quieter/more competently)

[@hws3886]

I mean the house of lords wouldn't be as objectively bad if parties did not make people lord from cronyism, nepotism and for political ideology and allies

[@XandateOfHeaven]

Unless hereditary peers are abolished the alternative is the hereditary aristocracy, who IS political and IS partisan, maintains a stranglehold on the country.

[@hismajesty6272]

So they should be hereditary.

[@artificialgravitas8954]

Yeah but you need hard concrete rules or... Well the last decade has been a lesson in how conventions and norms fail to hold society together

[@JulianDulay-m8t]

@@XandateOfHeaven At this point, even the hereditary peers are better than the life peer cronies.

[@SNWWRNNG]

Just get rid of the HoL altogether.

[@simontemplar404]

Highly informative piece. Shame none of the national newspapers or the television companies are not running this piece every other week. If you want a conspiracy theory to blame for how sh1t the country is then you can blame our media for feeding us clickbait headlines without the background as explained in this video. Great job, this channel is a breath of fresh air.

[@xIKieeranIx]

The BBC published an article 5 days ago which has basically the same information as this video within it.

[@aceman0000099]

The reason the country is "sh1t" is because we are not being democratically represented as well as we could be. Because our FPTP system encourages everyone to vote for politicians they barely respect.

[@4m4n40]

They need money to stay afloat

[@KevinHorrox]

Just because it's not headline news doesn't mean MSM doesn't cover it. Also, TLDR have definitely used clickbait titles and thumbnails to draw people in. Unfortunately, clickbait is how people engage and YT algorithms love it because it creates engagement.

[@simontemplar404]

@@xIKieeranIx The BBC is a little hard to watch these days as Hamas seems to be running it.

[@rye-ry5621]

There is no point in having a house of lords if the members are just going to be political appointments.

[@ayoCC]

It should be filled with workers union leaders and industry representatives 35 35, and 30 for experts chosen by citations of their papers, and number of usages of patents or so - or other type of expertise with any type of proven record. It's a mix of worker representatives, industry, academic

[@andrewharper1609]

No argument from me on that one. I think we need active removal of failed Civil Servants from the House.

[@RabidBogling]

@@ayoCC Yeah, that sounds democratic and nonpartisan.

[@Zenkrypt]

​@@RabidBogling sometimes democracy isn't the best answer for everything.

[@rye-ry5621]

​@@ayoCCI agree for the most part but I do think there should be some representation for the landed gentry just to represent their de-facto power and holdings in the UK less to give them influence but tie them to parliament.

[@SirWhig-esq.]

Debates in the HoL are far more interesting than the ones in the commons. Unfortunately no one really watches them because of the nature of the unelected upper house.

[@RabidBogling]

The down side to a reformed, democratic upper house is that we'll see an end to crossbenchers, and less consensus building. The Lords have been a speedbump against some of the worst excesses of successive Tory PMs, thanks in no small part to Tory peers not being beholden to the whip. Soon as they're elected the whip comes into play, and it's just a shite branch of the House of Commons. Might as well ditch the whole thing and become unicameral.

[@manana1444]

Interesting, why is that?

[@vincilo8835]

​@@manana1444 The Lords appointed by the HOLAC (the people's peers) are true experts in their given field and can really provide expertise into legislation. (In contrast to HoC's MPs who are literally rubber stamps under the whip system.)

[@whitezombie10]

Yeah once I saw I clip of one and the speech was very profound and the man speaking used a very elegant way of speaking with high level words, and after 3 months I am still thinking about it 😂. As a non native English speaker it was a very interesting experience and honestly I think one day I might search for more of them just to expand my technical vocabulary, but I don’t know how to find them

[@hisham_hm]

​@@whitezombie10 Speaking well and meaning well are two very distinct things, though. In Ancient Greece, such was the difference between the sophists and the philosophers. One should not be impressed by those with strong command of their words, but rather be exceedingly careful of what is it that they are actually saying.

[@chrissouthgate4554]

Reform of the House of Commons is far more urgent. The Hereditary Peers are mearly the low-hanging fruit. Of more concern should be the political appointees, some of whom (over recent decades) have been extremely dodgy, Lord Frost & David Cameron eventually spring to mind, carefully avoiding some of the really dubious choices made.

[@sjaguartype]

Which bit of reform of the House of Commons are you referring to?

[@lordmashie]

Dodgy Dave!

[@thetntsheep4075]

evgeny lebedev, literal son of a russian oligarch. michelle mone, currently under investigation for fraud and bribery to do with covid contracts.

[@Superfoodcookie]

Lol what? So a democratically elected chamber is more urgent than a hereditary elected chamber? Makes 0 sense. You can't elect house of Lords members. We need a upper chamber like America i.e senate

[@TriangleChloros]

@@Superfoodcookie The commons has a *lot* more power, and the Lords isn't really hereditary. There are 805 Lords. 92 of them are hereditary. Also, under the American system there would be like eight lords.

[@Astra_Divina]

5:02 TLDR News doing a TF2 reference is insane

[@wile123456]

Their editor is a zoomer, there have been minecraft sound effects in videos too

[@goose9515]

I hate the Minecraft objects being used it's deeply unserious, they were talking about rare earth minerals and then I see stupid Minecraft items come up

[@Pioneer_DE]

@@goose9515 Don't be so serious in life, have a little fun in life.

[@mane5471]

@@Pioneer_DE saying life too times? wow what a jokester

[@spcxplrr]

@@goose9515 you must be fun at parties

[@colbypupgaming1962]

If I'm not mistaken, the Earl of Sandwich is a direct descendant of the namesake of the sandwich as a food.

[@willfakaroni5808]

Also Hawaiian used to be named the sandwich isle after the same ancestor

[@originaluddite]

More to the point, some of the English _are_ Normans. :) The sandwich-inventing Earl of Sandwich is amusingly depicted by Mark Gatiss in the recent series version of Time Bandits.

[@blackroseangel123]

Wait, so the 96 unelected lords, getting paid to do nothing, who only got the job because daddy said so. Are opposed to getting fired...... Shocking

[@jgomo3877]

And the rest of the Lords are also unelected, and given seats as rewards for the party faithful. Just as bad.

[@wi-gk7tu]

They only get expenses, they don’t get a salary/paid how your think

[@philthemovies]

*92

[@Mitjitsu]

You only get paid for attending. That's not to say they've been scandals where some have signed in only to immediately leave.

[@jason8077]

UK is still monarchy so.. 😂

[@jodders619]

What's the odds Starmer's clearing out heredity peers so he can replace them with cronies?

[@deutschermichel5807]

100%

[@loveroffunnyy]

You don't need to clear out the Hereditary peers to fill the house of lords with your own cronies. Also, it's spelled hereditary not herdity.

[@mymemeplex]

I missed the reason why there's only a couple Labour lords and so many more conservatives ?

[@KaiAfterKai]

Cause they've had 14 years to jam it with their mates.

[@HootMaRoot]

Because labour was originally the working man's party so they didn't have rich lord families, while the tories used to be all family of the rich upper class and all their grandfather/uncles/brothers had Lord titles

[@yt.personal.identification]

Historical institutionalised nepotism.

[@whitezombie10]

Because centuries ago the Tories used to be the monarchist party, so all the lords were from that party, while labour was the common peoples’ party. This is one of the reasons why the house is very outdated

[@quintuscrinis]

​@whitezombie10 More accurately Labour have only been a political party for just over a century - their first government was in 1924! But yes, ultimately the Conservatives have been around longer and are the party of people like the hereditary lords.

[@Mosern1977]

UK's "democracy" has quite a few interesting quirks to say the least.

[@Dimitrishuter]

The most puzzling part is how many brits can claim to be proud of their democration tradition, and then rush to defend an institution like the lords. Plain weird

[@ryandanngetich2524]

@@Dimitrishuter Nobody is defending the lords, plus its not mutually exclusive to be both proud of your democracy and have the lords,,, the UK is far more democratic than the US on global projections, explain that

[@Matt-yg8ub]

The UK isn’t a democracy, it’s a constitutional monarchy. Look at it like this, If the house of lords had remained truly hereditary peers, those are ethnically British gentry with the long term health and stability of the country as their primary objective compared to the lower house of commons which is elected by manipulating the people, who are more and more day by day becoming foreigners intent on strip mining the country for its resources.

[@senseiadam-brawlstars9465]

@@Dimitrishuter Watch a debate in the House of Lords. A ton of the members are appointed for being experts in their field. Usually good debates instead of screaming matches in the commons.

[@Dimitrishuter]

@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 I have watched their debates. If what you're commending them for is having well-mannered debate then sure, but just because you like that doesn't make it democratic.

[@TB76Returns]

5:04 TF2 Reference

[@georgejpg]

nom nom nom om nom

[@OMacMacca]

sandvich gooooood

[@moravianlion3108]

TA-TA TA-DAAAAAAAAA

[@jamescharlesworth775]

YES!

[@danielmiles4087]

Sandvich and I are coming for you!!!

[@smashwombel]

The king must dissolve parliament at once, if we act fast we can defeat the Roundhead menace once and for all!

[@craigrm74]

Bring back all the hereditary peers and get rid of the crony life peerages.

[@DanteAtropos]

A constitutional monarchy to be a constitutional monarchy must have peers to a monarch otherwise all you have is a Democracy with a King as a figurehead at that point you might as well just abslove the crown and declare a Republic.

[@waly6002]

Explain Japan and Spain political system so... Both Parlamentary Houses are full democratically elected and the King and Emperor is still a figure protected in their respective Constitutions. In Spain there are some cases where the King acts as a political referee between political parties in some Congress votes, specifically after a Congress vote to form government.

[@Alexander-yb1zc]

My question is what reform is best for the house of lords ? If it goes to an elected house like the US senate then at best things function the way they are now at worst we get one party controlling the commons and another controlling the lords creating gridlock. Maybe we should have the lords be kept unelected but have it made up of ex public officals and experts from their fields. Imagime having a body of experts including city planners, architect's, lawyers, contruction workers ect. All able to give sound advice on legislation passing the commons as to what is missing or if it will work.

[@jonevansauthor]

How about to sit in the house, you have to pass a training course, and exam to prove you actually understand how it works? I mean, most of these commenters think the HoL can stop the government doing things when it actually can't. Mostly it rejects bills that are insanely badly written, which is many of them and basically says, 'Are you really sure about this?' because ultimately the HoC can force it through if the HoL keeps rejecting it and they're really serious. Only MPs aren't serious people, they're mostly useful idiots who haven't got any STEM background and also, have no qualification to do the job they're doing. I would love to see more real people from STEM backgrounds, in both houses. And yes, an elected house would just give you the corruption you get in the USA and if elected, they'd probably be given the power to over rule the commons or completely block bills forever. In the US their actual government shuts down if the upper house doesn't feel like ticking the box on the government's budget. Crazy.

[@BolphesarusMaximusWardius]

Exactly-the House of Lords following the Parliament Act 1911 has never been an equal partner in law-making. It has become a non-partisan chamber, in which law is properly discussed and debated. Anyone who has heard both the Houses debate knows that the Lords are far more professional. Another elected house just extends the problems of the House of Commons to the Lords (Senate probably if it was elected).

[@whitezombie10]

@@BolphesarusMaximusWardiusdo you know how I can listen to one of their debates? (I am not from the UK and I don’t live there, I don’t know if it’s an issue)

[@BolphesarusMaximusWardius]

@@whitezombie10 You can probably find it on the UK Government website as well-but they also have a KZbin Channel (House of Lords).

[@whitezombie10]

@@BolphesarusMaximusWardiusok thank you

[@stevejohnson3357]

Hereditary peers introduce a randomizing factor but that could be done through other means as well. Like jury duty.

[@IainFrame]

It's the political appointees who should be abolished. It's a shoddy pay-to-play operation for politicians' mates, financial backers, and mistress 6.

[@JimBanksy]

The total cost of the House of Lords is around £120 million per year, covering a wide range of expenses including staffing, maintenance, and the daily allowances peers can claim for attendance, which are up to £323 per day​ However, hereditary peers, who make up about 11% of the House, account for a fraction of this. Over the last decade, based on this proportion, their share of the costs could be roughly estimated at £13 million annually, adding up to around £130 million over ten years. This estimate includes attendance allowances, travel, and administration costs, but the exact figure isn't broken down publicly by the UK government.

[@JimBanksy]

/

[@JimBanksy]

,

[@jonevansauthor]

The US senate - according to themselves - has an annual budget of $1.2 billion and only has 100 sitting members. So anyone who thinks this is expensive, is flatly wrong.

[@thalesvondasos]

@@jonevansauthor Tbf, just because another thing is more expensive doesn't mean something isn't. The £500 wagyu steak with gold leaf and truffles doesn't make the £80 ribeye cheap.

[@Ahad-bj1cz]

13 million annually is a rounding error for the budget. This commitment is the Labour version of the Rwanda scheme. Something to get attention while we’re busy getting fucked. At least it doesn’t cost a fortune though.

[@h1ccup2000]

Peers should not be chosen by prime ministers. Should be selected by local governments/ councils

[@jonevansauthor]

Ummm. I'm not sure you know how councils are selected. There's not nearly enough people willing to do the work, so voting isn't always involved... I appreciate you want a system that somehow involves people less corrupt than the average PC, such as drug barons, or assassins, or homeopaths, but this wouldn't be as democratic as you think. Plus you want the best candidates. But your solution would raise up populists, party faithful people, and from weird little counties, weird little people like JD Vance. Also if you want to get into council work, there's very often spaces available for any mug who'll do it.

[@Trevor_Austin]

You are kidding. Local councils can’t even get the bins emptied. You might as well let randomly selected 8 year olds into the House.

[@RedXlV]

Nah, just abolish the House of Lords entirely.

[@richXPT707]

That might be an improvement

[@Davi_Vilhena]

Like a senate?

[@chandlerblachut3878]

I no longer feel bad about how weird American laws are

[@Matt-yg8ub]

The house of lords makes sense because it is the hereditary peers that have a stake in the country functioning long-term…… Traditionally these were the highly educated, knowledgeable individuals with a vested interest in the long-term health of the nation.

[@Nick-ru5so]

we're in 2024 now.

[@Wmuthoni]

I can understand an advisory committee or a department of hereditary peers but a chamber of non elected but appointed officials passed down from one generation to another is out dated and out of touch with today’s society.

[@deutschermichel5807]

Gay ​@@Nick-ru5so

[@johnnyappleseed3608]

@@Wmuthoni do you think Britain is better under commons rule? Has the sun not set on British greatness?

[@quintuscrinis]

Ironic that Labour are now pushing for Lord's reform given how aggressively they were against Lord's reform about a decade ago when the coalition (alright really the Lib Dema) were trying to make these sorts of reforms!!

[@gothicgolem2947]

The coalition iiirc wanted elected lords tho which goes even further

[@davidioanhedges]

The Lib Dems wanted an elected house of Lords, but the Conservatives didn't so it was never going to happen

[@0w784g]

They're not pushing Lords reform. They're pushing getting their people the balance of power in the Lords.

[@Trevor_Austin]

It’s called hypocrisy. Starmer and his friends are experts at that.

[@quintuscrinis]

@Trevor_Austin to be fair to Starmer, he first became an MP in 2015 so after the Coalition's attempts at Lord's reform. A lot of his colleagues and activists are hypocrites but we don't actually know what his position was at the time.

[@xyloz69]

I was NOT expecting a tf2 reference @ 5:02

[@jozefcyran2589]

In my opinion only hereditary peers should sit

[@archockencanto1645]

Right! Wasn't that the whole point of it existing? Either keep it as it existed, modify it to suit the intended purpose (by giving it to billionaires or landowners which is what the Lords were) or abolish it all together.

[@seamusoneill99]

Why don't they just abolish the House of Lords altogether? Didn't Starmer say he wanted a "Senate of the Nations" where England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland would hash out their issues?

[@rubber3dduck252]

I wish they never touch the House of the Lords. Having a body that does not have to give in to political pressure or views is the only way to keep things moving.

[@aliceinshadowrealm7155]

Hereditary peers opposing the bill to eliminate hereditary peers These truly are shocking times

[@LastLune]

> "Naked attempt to disable opposition." > Outnumbers the direct opposition in this arena 20 to 1.

[@briansmith5938]

Not to worry Labour will never get back in after this shit show.

[@ausername9190]

​@@briansmith5938hopefully they will get there act together soon before it's too late, they still have over 4 years until the next election

[@rye-ry5621]

That's only showing hereditary peers if labour gets rid of them and stacks the elected they will have a majority.

[@alexvlkvkna]

AFAIK the Earl Marshal handles coronations and funerals of the royals, while the Lord Great Chamberlain used to be (still kinda is?) the property manager of the Palace of Westminster itself. Feel free to correct me, if I got something wrong.

[@johncole7533]

We should repeal the 1999 House of Lords Act, along with all the other New Labour “reforms.”

[@uplink-on-yt]

"Law passed by Lords with 92 votes against."

[@kasnickijakub]

I think the Lords shouldn't have any political affiliation and should be entirely selected by a third-party non bias organisation.

[@joshuaswart8211]

And, pray tell, how will you find this mythical organisation?

[@harrisonshaw5180]

​@@joshuaswart8211in my opinion it would be a house of experts to give opinion of the actions of the commons. The question then arises "who chooses these experts" and "who chooses those who choose the experts" probably a silly idea but maybe the monarch would be the one who is apolitical enough to make these suggestions

[@whitezombie10]

@@harrisonshaw5180giving power back to the king is dangerous and it would cancel centuries of revolutions

[@joshuaswart8211]

@@harrisonshaw5180 I actually find that kinda funny, because these days, all the powers of the British monarch are defacto just powers of the executive government. I can easily see a scenario where this devolves into the Prime Minister choosing the entire second house, which to be fair, isn’t all that far from the current system.

[@adrianduggan4739]

The senate in Ireland works this way, 11 are nominated by the Taoiseach (irish prime minister), 6 are elected by the national universities of Ireland, and 43 are elected according to five sector panels - 1. Public Administration and the Voluntary Sector, 2. Agriculture and Fisheries, 3. Cultural and Educational Sector, 4. Industrial and Commercial Sector and 5. Trade and Labour Unions. They serve five year terms before re-election concurrent to the Dáil (Irish House of Commons) Each representative can have a party affiliation but because Senate members aren’t elected on a mandate like a government is, things tend to be less party political for the most part.

[@scottmcginn2169]

I think it's comical that the House of Commons, the branch of government that has caused 99.9% of the mess that the country is in, want to debate reform to the other branches.

[@donny1960]

I think it's comical that you have no idea how any of this works. The UK government is really the Commons. The Lords and the Monarchy are just for "show". Anything good or bad that is the responsibility of Government sits with the Commons. It is how the system works.

[@zachm2331]

What about the Lords Spiritual? Like the Rt. Hon. Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury. Aren’t they sitting members of the House of Lords? And wouldn’t that make four categories, then and not three?

[@repentmaster2842]

Perhaps Proportional Representation at the House of Lords, to balance against the Winner-takes-all first-pass-the-post system at the House of Commons

[@Ufgbja]

This is the right way! One house by region and one by popular vote.

[@bilgeconcerto-eh4yi]

This idea is worth exploring. We would need a way to still have (independent expert) cross-bench lords.

[@whitezombie10]

That should be a third new house honestly

[@tom.2900]

This would probably actually be a smart idea. When the popular vote and FPTP votes do not align - grid lock, slow progress, (small c) concservative approach to change. When the popular vote and FPTP votes align, indicating a strong mandate from the public, lots of ground could be covered.

[@AndrewRTurvey]

That's sort of the way the system has been going. The idea has been that new appointments would be split by party according to their latest vote share - however this has been done by convention rather than by law and whilst Cameron and May agreed to it, Boris rode roughshod over it.

[@AlphaHorst]

The entire purpose of the House of lords is to give a chamber taht is not bound by any party and party goals. They are also meant to represent buisness ranging from Industry down to idependent healthcare. Any proposal which makes them into permanent party representation is to be cut down, the issue with that is already visible with the current form of teh house of lords due to the last change, drastically increasing the house of lords political bias and effectively turning them into a conservative "yes man" in close votes. The change to a fully "politically appointed body" will only make this worse and might lead to a HoL voting along party lines until they die. Labour voters seem to forget that it was the HoL who stopped the worst kinds of Brexit deals from going through and that even the current deal only got through because of the Conservative majority in the HoL in a close vote. In recent history the HoL has had its fair share of controversties, but from a purely political standpoint it operates far more like a democracy than the HoC does whenever it discusses and votes on an issue. I understand how people want elected people in the HoL but that will only recreate the US system of Congress and Senate where the Senate no longer functions as a Bipartisan control for the Congress but votes soely along party lines. There is much misinforation being spread about the HoL by its "critics". Stuff like "Lords being paid while not elected" despite the fact that they are only entitled to receive compensation and never pay (e.g. they need to show receits for their costs and then request comopensation) or that "Lords regulary block reform and public interests in favour of oligarchs" while in reality the Lords rarely if ever blocked reforms, especially to taxation, and if they blocked it they always cited judicial complaints and questions which need to be answered arguably saving many governments from having to defend their laws in courts (sth the Taxpayer has to pay for) While the system is not perfect, is far better than the alternative systems we have around the world. So either they leave it, or abolish the entire chamber and have only the HoC left. Having a dedicated chamber with the sole purpose of checking lawmakers proposals is impossible if you turn it into a chamber fully aligned with party goals.

[@whitezombie10]

Thank you for this deep analysis, I can only imagine how long it took to write it. I just have one question: since most hereditary peers are conservatives, wouldn’t removing them make the house less of a place for “conservative yes men”?

[@BolphesarusMaximusWardius]

Exactly my thoughts-I am glad someone agrees

[@AlphaHorst]

@@whitezombie10 that depends on the replacement. It could ofcourse also turn into a labour "yes man" Chamber.

[@whitezombie10]

@@AlphaHorstcould there be no replacement? Could the house just have less members?

[@drag0n_rage682]

I don't mind the HoL being unelected sofar as their position isn't gained from inheritance. As I see it, a technocratic upper house would be the ideal counterbalance to the democractic lower house.

[@nationeer]

House of Commons is already more busy with party politics than solving national problems, now they want the House of Lords to do the same?

[@johnnyappleseed3608]

bean counting bureaucrats are not suited to rule

[@lighting7508]

I don’t care about any of this, I want election reform. In fact I’m actually kind of worried about shaking an institution that has functioned for hundreds of years. Our biggest issue right now is FPTP

[@Max_m]

Charles should refuse royal assent

[@Harderanger]

Great, informative video again, thanks TLDR!

[@aaronjones8905]

I'm of two minds on this. 1. It seems clear to me that the UK would benefit from an upper house that reflects the increasingly federal nature of the United Kingdom. Making the House of Lords look more like a Senate makes a lot of sense to me. 2. If you aren't going to fully ditch the current House of Lords, then it seems like the hereditary peers deserve to be there the most. Their families were granted this privilege long ago for service to the nation. It's a unique aspect of British history that deserves some respect. Randomly appointing Life Peers seems much more dodgy.

[@Kosovar_Chicken]

It will be renamed to the house of Sheikhs soon

[@ryanfrederick3376]

I'm sorry, but i actually think the House of Lords is one of the most brilliant innovations in western democracy. So much better than a senate (I'm an American, by the way). I am perhaps a bit backwards-sounding, but I think Lords Reform '99 should be repealed, not expanded upon.

[@HagiaFantasia]

Oh please do darling and go after the land lords next 😊

[@WaitUpBrett]

Strange to me that Britain with its ancient parliament that has seen and survived the rise and fall of many great states and their systems of governance, chooses to pick at wounds that are not there so that it might bleed ever faster.

[@JoseGomez-n4k]

Britain is being judged by God

[@aegisofhonor]

I find it ironic that a Hereditary Lord of the House of Lords will call an act to abolish his posh position as "high handed".

[@jesseberg3271]

So what are they going to rename The House of Lords to when there aren't any actual Lords in it?

[@S3Cs4uN8]

The House of Chairs.

[@TasTheWatcher]

The house of commons is still called that, despite not having any commoners in it

[@aymonfoxc1442]

​@@S3Cs4uN8I like that.

[@brandonwalker5011]

Mate no one cares what Australia is doing.

[@dlscorp]

@@brandonwalker5011 don't be a prick

[@LordCommissarLex]

More and more England is starting to look less like England.

[@B1_66ER]

Why would Blair have felt the need to compromise over hereditary peers when their abolition was a manifesto commitment and thus would've been waved through due to the Salisbury convention? Also, why would retirement age need to be a separate bill as opposed to a sentence added to this one?

[@AndrewRTurvey]

1. Prior to the 1999 Act the Lords was Conservative-majority. They had an ambitious agenda of new laws and knew abolishing most of the hereditaries would give a balanced house, less likely to block other legislation. Leaving 92 hereditaries didn't really affect the maths. 2. Yes easily, but it's more contentious so might prevent or delay this Act from passing.

[@B1_66ER]

@@AndrewRTurvey 1. 92 may not have affected the maths but that would be true of 0 as well. 0 would have fulfilled Blair's manifesto commitment. 2. Given that they said they'd do both it seems that in total Labour would save more time overall by passing it in one bill.

[@ArifKhan-rd3vo]

What about life peers, of March 2024, there are 670 life peers eligible to vote in the House.[77] Life peers rank only as barons or baronesses, and are created under the Life Peerages Act 1958.

[@PeakVT]

The HoL should be abolished entirely and a new chanber created comprised of members elected by proportional vote in each of the 4 countries.

[@jonevansauthor]

Says someone who literally has no understanding of what it is they do for us, and why not electing them prevents a government from riding rough shod over the country and forces them to think about things they'd rather make knee jerk reactions to. Really valuable to ask people who rarely vote, to do some more voting, because they're clearly doing such a good job of turning up to elect the more important representatives, and many of them voted for Brexit so are clearly super clever people, qualified to select people to sit in an upper house.

[@lordyhgm9266]

That’s just a HoL rework, and makes it just a US style senate. The whole push for the Lords in recent decades has focussed on making it a body of experts of various disciplines able to review bills. Sure it has its abuses, especially in appointments (see the Tory appointments recently, absolutely shocking corruption/incompetence) but in general the Lords don’t have the same political motivations as the commons. Fewer short term decisions since they aren’t focussed on re-election

[@undead_corsair]

​@@jonevansauthor elitism breeds disenfranchisement, which breeds exactly the sort of populist grifting that caused Brexit.

[@Maksimszz]

@@jonevansauthor So basically you want rich people and privileged people to contribute to the decision making in the UK? That's the same as saying we should allow the upperclass to go get the best jobs and go to the best universities (which already happens by the way). I'm not discriminating against privileged people but you should realise that you should give *EVERYONE* a chance....

[@nothereandthereanywhere]

@@jonevansauthor Sounds like they are very important.. And now think of Nadine Dorries being a part of the lot and sharing her expertise - I know she didn't make it, but a hairdresser did.

[@juniorspencer8203]

Any change in UK customs that the Labour Party puts forward always comes back to bite the country on a whole in the end.

[@ruud9761]

I always thought the House of Lords was mostly an advisory body. Guess they do actually hold political power. Personally, the idea of people gaining political power based on family name seems very outdated. Well, I'm not from the UK so I doubt I got the whole picture.

[@taylanchilders3613]

Hi from the uk no yeah very very oudated some can become lords but none are elected in kind of like the supreme court in America but with way more people

[@thegeekhome8933]

Thats simply not how it works

[@ruud9761]

@@thegeekhome8933 Didn't they just say in the video that there are x amount of people who “inherited” their position in the house.

[@Thunkedmypants]

It is an advisory body; it doesn't have any power to make law, it has the power to scrutinise laws, and to reject, approve or amend the bills that are formulated in the HoC. e.g. let's imagine the HoC voted to pass a bill banning dogs, the HoL could vote to approve this bill, vote to reject the bill, or vote on amendments to make the bill better, like an amendment to allow police dogs and guide dogs. When bills are rejected or amended by the HoL, it goes back to the HoC for further consideration and the HoC can vote on amendments etc before voting on the final bill, then this goes back to the HoL. The HoL can only reject a bill 3 times so far as I am aware. Scrutiny shouldn't be political, however, given that most of the Lords are now political appointees, it's maybe become more so. IMHO the HoL should be reformed to include only appointees from experts in their fields, have their numbers capped and expenses recalibrated.

[@Jay_Johnson]

By convention they don't block manifesto commitments meaning if the government says it is going to do something prior to an election they cannot block that however they can delay the passing of laws by several years which is often enough for people to forget about them/ another election to happen/ the government get distracted by other legislation. Despite this the hereditary lords are 92/805 total meaning they are rarely decisive in votes. This is more a matter of principle on the part of labour which has been opposed to the house of lords since the 19th century and a practical effort to reduce the size of the House of lords which are second biggest legislature in the world after the National People's Congress of China which represents 20 times as many people

[@Rod-bp8ow]

The House of Lords are not to be abolished. It is founded and established by the Word, 14 Generations left and right.**********NON AI standards of Excellence in Private and Public sector Administration*****

[@dallasoleary187]

This seems like if the U.S. were ever to introduce a bill to eliminate pay raises for Congress. Is Congress really going to vote yes to eliminate pay raises for itself? No, it's not.

[@senseiadam-brawlstars9465]

The House of lords can't really veto a bill though, only delay. They're basically just an advisory body.

[@XandateOfHeaven]

@@dallasoleary187 thats not actually a good idea. Legislators should be paid decently well so that people other than the wealthy can do the job. You have this problem in US states where legislator is a part time position.

[@comradecat5057]

Congress did, by supermajority vote, pass a constitutional amendment to ban pay raises for Congress in the same session (i.e. pay raises only take effect after the next election). Admittedly it was in the 18th century, but it was only fully ratified in 1992.

[@rwall514]

@@XandateOfHeaven Plus, federal employees legally can't make more than a Representative, because some fucker in Congress got pissed his staffers made more than him. It's gotten so bad that, with cost of living adjustments, some people in San Fran on the SECOND-highest tier of the GS pay scale are hitting the limit. Meanwhile, our current Congress full of rich assholes sees no reason to raise their 'own' pay.

[@Fredy_The_Yeti]

The hereditary members make up only about 12% of the house of lords, so it's not exactly the same

[@ivanivanovic5857]

The l Hereditary peers system worked better. Not saying it was perfect, but there was definitely an element of their motivation that was duty bound. "This position was held by my forefathers for centuries. I have a duty to do what is best for the country lest I disgrace the honour I have been entrusted with." Blair just made it so they're appointed by the government. So anyone who donates a big chunk of money to the winning party gets a peership. Therefore their motivation is entirely out of cronyism. "Well, I sank hundreds of thousands into the labour party. And I owe them a favour or two because they made me a lord. Im gonna vote exactly how they want me to."

[@Garfie489]

Seems a lot of channels with little to no history are very opposed to the current government on this video.

[@kb4903]

Yeah crazy how many bots have appeared.

[@FuzzyRiy]

@@kb4903 Look up dead internet theory, talks a lot about this, involves a lot of AI. But going to the original point that @garfie489 mentioned, this current government is very unpopular, they only won by default due to how shit the Tories have been. But labour since Tony Blair has just been another side of the same shitty coin of the Tories. Labour have fucked up so badly in such a short time I promise you it will be a very long time (again.....) for them to ever get a chance at being in office in future.

[@dc1842]

I think until we can sort out getting competent people in the commons we don't even have to care about the house of Lords at least they are likely educated

[@oakstrong1]

I think HoL wouldn't be a bad idea if the people there were chosen because they are experts in their field. Now you have pundits who don't know what they are doing, making the laws. Lords are no experts either, neither areintelligence or expertise inherited either.

[@jonevansauthor]

Most of them do actually have all sorts of political experience, and come from a wide range of backgrounds. Hereditary peers are a small fraction of overall numbers, and bishops should be your only real concern.

[@davidioanhedges]

This is how it supposed to work now ... but the appointments are done by the current PM, and so are often political

[@LordDim1]

What’s always seemed the most sensible solution for the House of Lords to me would be to keep it unelected, but capping its membership to for example 500, and then dividing those 500 seats between 5 appointments commissions: an English appointments commission, a Scottish appointments commission, a Welsh appointments commission, a Northern Irish appointments commission, and a Union-wide appointments commission. That way, you’d retain the house’s useful feature as a chamber of review with members who don’t need to be concerned with re-election, while also representing all parts of the UK equally and bringing more balance to the union. It would also remove the cronyism currently affecting it, with PMs no longer able to nominate whomever they want. Simultaneously I’d say strengthening the lords’ power over constitutional matters would be smart in such a scenario, making it able to block bills fundamentally affecting the British constitutional settlement

[@charliecrome207]

Genuine question, why do so many hate the house of lords?

[@perlasandoval7883]

the tories filled it with a lot of political appointments, and since the monarch has been declawed by the parliament, the king can't dismiss them

[@alistairmonro]

​@@perlasandoval7883the King can do anything in this area but chooses not to buy convention

[@perlasandoval7883]

@@alistairmonro as doing so would mean the abolition of the monarchy

[@alistairmonro]

@@perlasandoval7883 how do you come to that conclusion?

[@perlasandoval7883]

@@alistairmonro because the monarchy relies on legitimacy to exist, while the armed forces swear loyalty to the monarch, the people actually controlling them are the members of the government. Unions never really liked them that much. And the political parties have very little to lose if they went with a republic.

[@shournharber4772]

The deprivation of hereditary Peers will come to be viewed as a grave mistake, pushing us further along the path to an Upper House ruled by the party whip. Constitutional change of this scale must be carefully scrutinised by Parliament, not “fast-tracked.”

[@KelticStingray]

I'm happy for hereditary Lords if my family get attend as one...

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Constitutional reform should certainly be measured and thoroughly interrogated before passing into law.

[@senseiadam-brawlstars9465]

Nah. Just remove them and increase the number of expert peers.

[@XandateOfHeaven]

@@shournharber4772 this continues to push the insidious lie that hereditary aristocrats are somehow apolitical instead of inherently pro-aristocracy.

[@wolfganggugelweith8760]

It’s time for a total change in GB!

[@kb4903]

When did TLDR become such a cesspit for comments?

[@mihangelap-williams9871]

You mean the internet in general

[@ricequackers]

How so? They seem alright, some I agree with, some I disagree with. Fairly standard and healthy discourse.

[@whitezombie10]

Most of them seem ok to me. I actually learnt a few things from them

[@MG35826]

Great so kier is paving the way appoint his mates!

[@Kruhn]

Okay. Labour should amend the House of Lords Reform bill to make The Earl of Sandwich the only hereditary peer. I didn't know that family was still around, but for their contribution to the gastronomical progress of all humanity, we should make that one exception.🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

[@davidioanhedges]

The Current Earl of Sandwich is still around, and his son Orlando is in Business with Robert Earl in running a Sandwich Shop in Disney Orlando, named Earl of Sandwich ... !!

[@Kruhn]

@davidioanhedges More reason for The Earl of Sandwich n Amendment to the House of Lords Reform Bill. Lord Robert is keeping with the Sandwich family tradition and opening a sandwich shop. This must be applauded and commended.

[@LastLune]

House of Sandwiches.

[@peterfireflylund]

Don't forget the Earl of Cardigan and the Duke of Wellington, given the weather on those shores. Cardigan is unfortunately not a hereditary peer but Wellington is.

[@Dendarang]

@@davidioanhedges Still not as weird as the heir of deposed Italian Royal House of Savoy running a food truck in Los Angeles.

[@adam346]

"The police have investigated their usefulness to the community and decided that a combination of community supports, food-banks, out-reach centers, mental health professionals as well as a few police officers to deal with violent interactions or individual are the better use of resources" - is what they are expecting the house of lords to do...

[@ellydavis2066]

I really hope so. They'll fight it tooth and nail as it's a cushy number and the French we ain't so it will probably fizzle out followed by a serious amount of tutting from the public.

[@hismajesty6272]

Monarchy is a good thing.

[@MoonatikYT]

5:02 had to check i hadnt accidently opened TF2

[@andrewflindall9048]

The fact that things have got worse since 'they' started diluting the proper peers with political appointees suggests we should be going backwards, not forwards. I have more faith in the nobs we had than the knobs we've got...

[@handle_unknown]

We had a first chamber of parliament in Sweden before. One reads quite little about them, only hearing it was a bad, old system, moving ones thoughts to the English House of Lords. However, I've later read our old constitution (including the Regeringsform and the quasi-constitutional Riksdagsordning) and found the system to be somewhat preferable to the perfectly equally represented democracy we have today. I won't try to explain the electoral system perfectly, but one could say our upper chamber was elected on the basis of regional equality (representatives for smaller cities and such were also easier to contact when you had issues, as I belive is the norm in the UK) and had a term limit double or triple (on some more unfortunate occasions even four times) that of the lower chamber, making it more stable than the lower chamber, whilst the latter had shorter terms and equal representation for every citizen, making it perhaps more democratic, but less stable if you will. Every new law then had to be supported by both chambers and each could propose new laws. They also shared parliamentary committees (which I believe your chambers don't?) and budget propositions were debated in pleno. I would suggest you try to implement something similair in Britain, and perhaps return the Lords' legislative authority if it were elected in a similar manner. Otherwise you could retain first past the post for the Lords and make the House of Commons elected on an equal basis. Eitherway I'd suggest you try to find a good translation of our old constitutions, even if it's a boring read.

[@jacobjones630]

“Constitutional” monarchy

[@greenjacket6305]

You forgot 'the Lords Spiritual ' - bishop's of The Church of England also have the right to sit in The House of Lords.

[@abhinavbharadwaj4629]

Hold up.......2 hereditary peers from Labour and OVER 30 FROM THE CONSERVATIVES????

[@RamblinPhoenix]

Not sure if you have them in the UK, but there is a sandwich shop here in the US called the "Earl of Sandwich" and the owner is the actual Earl of Sandwich, which I always found neat.

[@sanctamachina]

The Monarchy is important and the House of Lords should remain as a bulwark against radical national changes. Unfortunately the House of Lords is in the hands of Parliament and not in the hands of the King as it should be.

[@hismajesty6272]

The king should abolish the bloody House of Commons and their parliament.

[@AlexThomas-hq1dn]

My suggestion is that they reduced the number to 300 Lords and have them elected through proportional representation every 5 years

[@Tinil0]

Searching for more information on this subject led me to find out there is literally a "Monarchism" subreddit and actual real life people that think monarchy (and, relevant to this discussion, hereditary peerage with actual power) is a good thing and should be strived for. It's blowing my mind. They are, of course, deeply offended.

[@johnnyappleseed3608]

One need only look at the results - Britain today vs Britain 100 years ago. Commoners are not suited to rule.

[@sdpearshaped831]

Based if true.

[@supersuede91]

Unfathomably based - only the Monarchy should be birthright in this country

[@praguepersona9624]

@@supersuede91 Why should they?

[@mycodingchannel9690]

@@supersuede91 lol the Monarchy only has 50 years left at best

[@thegeekhome8933]

@@praguepersona9624 Learn your own history

[@thegeekhome8933]

If you mean idiotic, yes

[@NovajaPravda]

Instead of electing the house of lord, we should start putting union representatives in the house instead

[@hotpointlil]

As the House of Lords, unlike the Australian Senate, cannot block legislation it's pretty much redundant. It's basically an institutionalised 'jobs for the boys' scheme that should be abolished. Experts can pulled into give submissions to a parliamentary committee if required-. There is a precedent to abolishing an appointed upper houseunder the Westminster system. Queensland did it in 1922.

[@ConnorCocoas]

Coincidentally I’m from Queensland and honestly that was a disaster for us it brought in decades of gerrymandering that culminated in a one party state deeply involved with organised crime and corruption. It’s good to have a house of review. Out of curiosity though since they can’t really block is it really worth the effort to get rid of the hereditary peers

[@jonevansauthor]

@@ConnorCocoas yes. Although the House of Lords does not have the right to completely over-rule the House of Commons, they can put the brakes on really stupid laws the Commons wants to happen, and make them debate them again. Which often leads to a better law. It's not like we have any big holes in our legal system. Murder and theft are illegal. We definitely don't want to import gerrymandering, that's extremely bad.

[@XandateOfHeaven]

@@hotpointlil Unicameral legislators is fine for regional level, but national level should have mechanisms to balance regional interests with the interests of the majority. (Obviously this is not what the house of lords does)

[@catt_]

was not expecting that TF2 sandvich reference at 5:02 hahahah

[@gfseoefjsfow]

thought i had tf2 open 😭

[@RiteMoEquations]

The House of Lords should pass a bill abolishing the House of Commons.

[@anthonywatts2033]

Reform of how the HoL is filled is a very small part of what the reform should be. Start with its role. That would then clarify who should populate it.

[@moravianlion3108]

Dislike. Not enough TF2 references.

[@donaldlee8249]

Reform of lower house is much more urgent

[@SwordQuake2]

How about you stop filling the House of Lords with randoms from the former colonies and keep it for actual Britons?

[@hydra7427]

Labour has no mandate for such drastic “reform”.

[@jackshaftoe1715]

It's crazy that you've let them keep this for so long.

[@kidsrock91]

As an American, I understood about 10% of this video

[@thedreadtyger]

if you read the Constitution and look at how the 17th Amendment changed our government for the worse (by robbing our States of their voice in the Federal Government) you'll see an analogy. the Senate in the US and the House of Lords in the UK both act originally as deliberative bodies to counteract the impetuosity of the House of Representatives/ Commons.

[@user_Esq]

Years ago I read an article, that hereditary peers represented the social mix of the nation better then the House of Commons- because over centuries many families lost their wealth, but not their seat in the House of Lords

[@undead_corsair]

Even if that is true (I have my doubts) that does not change the fact that they are unelected and that their continued presence in the House is inherently anti-democratic.

[@2adamast]

2 elected by labor, 38 elected by conservative, sure social mix is all there

[@user_Esq]

​@@undead_corsair The replacement by party cronies over the last decades was also not democratic.

[@undead_corsair]

​@@user_Esqyeah, so much for that 'social mix' eh?

[@alexwhinnie274]

Lmao what's the ethnic breakdown too laughable comment ​@@2adamast

[@timogul]

The House of Lords, when people call the US Senate "kinda silly."

[@northstar6920]

Good luck... the "nobles" wont be removed esily.

[@andrewharper1609]

Only on technical grounds, legally everyone has the right to live although executions are legal in extremis, but you would have to justify it to the Court in the Hague.

[@Snp2024]

They got removed decades ago billionaires are already new nobility. Land bound nobles are not serious force for last 70 year's if not more .

[@whitezombie10]

These people don’t sound like nobles to me honestly. They are unelected, but they aren’t necessarily rich

[@nothereandthereanywhere]

France had some good ideas..

[@manana1444]

The house of lords has been getting weakened for the last 150 years. They quite literally have already been removed, as only an eight of all members are actual nobility and not political appointees that got handed a title.

[@ant5963]

both partys will just put people in the house of lords that suit their agenda.

[@jonevansauthor]

Getting rid of the hereditary peers means there'll be zero young people in the house ever, by the way. Your elderly parent dying is the only way people get in as young people. I'd rather see reform on that front. Find a way to put forward potential life peers who have STEM backgrounds and are under 40 for instance.

[@maszlagma]

Why not just fill the house of Lords with none political figures who are experts in their fields?

[@jod125]

The age limit should be the age of retirement. If someone is enough to retire, they're definitely too old to be affecting policy

[@jablot5054]

Rubbish. Your brain doesn't switch off at 55. We need experienced experts and lay people in the Lords.

[@louisurquhart9466]

@@jablot5054 have you checked the retirement age recently?

[@RuthvenMurgatroyd]

66? I think most people are still far from dotage by that age.

[@harrisonshaw5180]

An interesting sentiment but the people we really need in the HoL are experts in their field and unfortunately that expertise doesn't come without years in their respective fields

[@duplicitouskendoll9402]

Ridiculous idea. With age comes wisdom, experience and pragmatism. There needs to be representation from all areas of society to achieve balanced outcomes. You shouldn't just write-off and forget about anyone old enough to draw a pension!

[@TheMagicCardTraderUK]

"TheWeatherillAmendment" 😁 How many times did you have to retake those bits !