The last of the hereditary Lords - but will they be missed?

[@Clifftop_Studios]

The irony that this man is a direct descendant of Labour’s greatest ever PM… even looks like him a bit!

[@stormyprawn]

More than a bit in my opinion haha

[@r.b6170]

and apparently no less a racist that Hitler, in his own way

[@skylarius3757]

The peerage was created for his grandfather. He has no son and heir so it will most likely die with him.

[@SENEX12]

@@r.b6170 Let he who is without sin cast the first stones.

[@r.b6170]

@@SENEX12 a stone cast by a person in power will do a lot more damage than that cast by a peasant, during the process of and in an attempt to convince people that they are indeed without sin.

[@outsidestuff5283]

Id argue that making a major donation to any political party or government official should exclude anyone from being admitted to the lords

[@iGamezRo]

Exactly. You can still get a title. If you want to cosplay as a feudal Earl and have "The Earl of [name]" written on your drivers licence, it is your money, and no one can stop you, but sitting in Parliament shouldn't be allowed.

[@nameundefinedname5307]

1000%

[@mkokulan]

@@iGamezRo You forget parliament only exists because of the feudal lords in question.

[@buds8423]

Can’t say our American Congress has worked any better… Vote Harris!

[@GrooveSpaceArk]

House of lords members shouldn't have party affiliations

[@rickatatastan2695]

What would you change it's name to, then? Let's not beat around the bush, UK politics is about rich people (old and new money, very distinctively) who don't want to pay tax (and use privilege to prevent it via the Lords and media ownership for examples) vs a declining (in wealth and therefore power) majority. If it's a house of Lords, it's a house of privilege - what's the new name going to be?

[@meme4one]

That's just not realistic though.

[@eddy66t6]

Yes they should because if they didn't they still would we just wouldn't know what they were.

[@gothicgolem2947]

Some spokespeople for parties and the gov need to be but apart from that yeah

[@Kx0195]

Nobody representing us should have party affiliations. Party politics means they put the party before us. We should only have independents and public funding of elections.

[@Jack-dt9nu]

The grandson of Clement Attlee sitting as a Tory Lord? He must be spinning in his grave

[@purple_panther04]

abit of an exaggeration no?

[@jakeastor9867]

You think that Clement Atlee would be a member of the modern Labour party?

[@tinytank6642]

@@jakeastor9867Of course he would . Attlee was a social democrat, naturally he would support the biggest social Democratic Party in the UK, no?

[@jakeastor9867]

@@tinytank6642 lol, pretty sure political leanings don't exist in a vacuum.

[@minui8758]

@@jakeastor9867Attlee would Labour, Green, or maybe something a little further left now. His political life began in social work in the east end. There’s no way a social worker becomes a Tory MP

[@PeppermintPatties]

What should go is the vast honours lists of cronies who get peerages and who are over-populating the upper house these days. As long as there's quality and experience, fine, but recent Tory cronies like Williamson and Owen should be blocked.

[@fatphoca5009]

Blair appointed over three hundred cronies to the Lords. labour are the biggest hypocrites.

[@Racernumber6channel]

True

[@angelalillywhite8418]

We need those in the Lords who cannot be bought. Heret

[@dod4004]

I don't mind an appointed House of Lords. But numbers must be capped and the appointments must be made by committee and on set criteria, not by the parties in the Commons based on donations and political expediency.

[@jannyjan90]

Depends who is doing the appointing I don't want the likes of Johnson being able to appoint who he wants because he knows they will push through whatever he wants them too.... people like that NEED the push back not a room of yes people

[@michaelharding9619]

At least the hereditary peers care about the country as opposed to the appointed peers who are just in it for themselves! The problem isn’t the lords, it’s the Commons and the over centralisation of power where decisions can be made without reference to whether the people want the tax increases proposed by whomever is in power. I’m fed up with electing people who think they know how to spend my money better than I do!

[@Heegooat]

The older I get the more I realize that Aristocracy is better than democracy

[@WaveRider1989]

​@@Heegooatsomewhat.

[@LeafHuntress]

Of course a government knows better than you how to build a road, school or hospital. Your puny little bit of money would never be enough for that, the money of many people is needed. The problem is when people elect tories, those brigands put taxes up, but collect them for themselves & their crony donors.

[@TheGrenadier97]

"Democracy".

[@user-kb8rc5vq2i]

​@@HeegooatSounds like a clear case of cognitive decline then, you should see a doctor about that.

[@あいはら恆秋]

One thing I think many of our contemporary compatriots forget is that hereditary peers can concern themselves with what is best for the country in the long term. They have an inherent investment in the country's future, as their children and grandchildren will inherit their position as statesmen. They owe their place in Parliament to no temporal interests. Meanwhile, the Commons is all about the short term; members can think only in terms of the period until the next election, and are beholden to the whims of the populace, the party, and lobbyists. There are of course benefits to both perspectives, and I would suggest that both are required to comprise a truly effective system of government. It is a great shame to remove some of the last statesmen in this country who are able to think about the future, beyond the span of their own life. It is precisely this lack of forward thinking that is dooming our country. Our constitution has always been one of the greatest in the world, serving us well and as a model for the whole world. Why do we keep taking an axe to it?

[@lyndacrosfill6340]

The house of lords should remain as is they will be replaced by yes men which will give any party elected total control.

[@damianbutterworth2434]

wow I have to scroll through 50 comments to get to a normal person who can see what is happening.

[@MattStanton1999]

@@damianbutterworth2434 And what if the public vote for a party to introduce a law that will affect the Lords negatively? Do we put up with them blockading Parliamentary procedure?

[@KaiColloquoun-gt7kw]

You don't think the current incumbents are yes men? How do you think they got there?

[@TheJon2442]

​@@KaiColloquoun-gt7kwnormally due to their partners sleeping with those in power!!!

[@fearghal10]

Even to leave it functioning similarly it needs reform: the abolition of hereditary peers, term limits, maximum ages, an overhaul of the appointment system and a capped overall number. However I'm still not sure it should continue as it is. If it were directly elected, via a much more proportional system than the commons and it's role somewhat elevated then the two chambers would admittedly be at odds a lot of the time, but would make the country vastly more democratic and government would be be forced to listen far more closely to the public, rather than just throwing bones to a few key demographics here and there and otherwise doing as they please

[@adamlee3772]

I am more concerned about the sycophants that Johnson put in the Lords, that young woman, the on of a KGB agent, and how about Sunak elevating Cameron so he could be in government. Get rid of them all. And lock up Johnson and Truss.

[@fuzzyspackage]

#BringBorisBack #Jenrick

[@minui8758]

Firmly agree. I love the establishment. I just don’t like the way the social contract at the heart of it has been abused

[@donsharpe5786]

It pisses me off that Labour make these decisions, which are not logical. Many of these Peers have experience which the Labour government lacks. Many of the peers have particular experiences which make them useful members of the Lords. The last thing I want is another elected system like the USA for an upper house. Why are labour picking on Hereditary Peers when they have already been made Life Peers. By removing people who have been made Life Peers, you are making a bad precedence. The most sensible decision would be to wait till all the Hereditary Peers, who have already been made life Peers, to die and not replace them. It is yet another pointless decision by a Labour government. The last time we had a new Labour government was in 1997. They then spent so much time on anti hunting bills producing appalling legislation ( I am NOT pro hunting) that they waved through the worst and disproportionate bill on extradition with the USA.

[@andrewrose7800]

There are some good brains within the Lords, including some hereditary members and have something to give back to the country. They are cross benchers and are not tied to any particular Party. If the Lords is to be retained at the moment, then why not retain the chamber as it stands.

[@paololuckyluke2854]

When so many negative things could be said about the current state of the House of Commons, is it really such a good idea to lose the House of Lords?

[@jannyjan90]

Or loose the ability to have some sembelance of impartiality At least with hereditery peers they haven't been able to pay their way or just be friends with a politicina just to get there

[@ronanwaring3408]

@@jannyjan90 And they have an actual personal stake in the country rather than some half russian doner

[@Racernumber6channel]

True

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Lose? No Reform? Yes They BOTH badly need electoral reform. Long overdue.

[@Matt-vj3nb]

@@jannyjan90hereditary peers a majority conservative, not independent. There are plenty of appointed cross bench lords

[@K4rmaRules]

Any person who wants to be an MP or peer must have done at least 10 years in a normal job.

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

I agree. Career politicians is a terrible idea.. people who have 0 idea about reality but are given the most responsible of tasks..

[@mnj640]

​@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579same as academics

[@paulgibbons2320]

Agreed

[@CB-rv9kb]

'...be an MP or peer must BE GOOD AT IT'.

[@paulgibbons2320]

@@CB-rv9kb MP's performance is not something you can measure. Why a great many get away with very little.

[@paralogregt]

As ex REME, the museum is looking very sad. I was just at the Tank museum and its a gem.

[@peterfeeney721]

This will bite back. Why have cronies or even an elected 2nd House? It is replication, not reform. We all know what the agenda is, but no-one has ever explained the motivation of their plan

[@davidoldboy5425]

They'll be missed more than the lackies that replaced him.

[@eyeyayayay]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable hearing about which motor vehicles he has known "intimately ".

[@eyesopen1850]

Adding Kier's peers to Tony's cronies?

[@mikedc]

The color part was kinda funny....nothing you can do about that

[@jonh9561]

Agree, and what is the point i.e. how does someone's skin colour qualify them to play a role in running a country?

[@Kwippy]

If he really is a good parliamentarian, and has value to offer the country, then he should run for MP.

[@paddydaley6808]

Good parliamentarianism in his DNA, he'll no have trouble getting elected!

[@sociobiologist5141]

Not everyone who would be good parliamentarians would be good at winning elections.

[@FHIPrincePeter]

You fail to understand the role of the upper chamber.

[@andyf4292]

nailed it!

[@seanphurley]

Amen

[@kb4903]

I’m guessing he never drove a lorry full time.

[@sheyhughes5222]

He just equivocation that women couldn't be hereditary peers because they're not strong enough to drive a tank? And that was met with no follow up or push back? Great reporter. 6:25

[@GrooveSpaceArk]

@@sheyhughes5222 it's not really a journalist's job to give their own opinions

[@stevebobhorace]

Some hereditary peers are female, it depends on the rules of the patent which creates their title. They were banned from being members of the House until the 1950s.if there are none currently it's probably because there are more than 92 hereditary peers but only 92 are allowed to be members. The journalist may have been right and done his research about current members or have been wrongly assuming hereditary female peers don't exist

[@GreetlyGTS]

@@stevebobhorace Hereditary female peers do exist, however currently there is only 1 on the register if a by-election should take place. What Earl Attlee meant is that it is difficult for a woman to become a hereditary peer (he says fixable) as it requires change in legislation to allow inheritance of certain titles if they are the eldest - hence the low takeup of titles.

[@garethaethwy]

@@GrooveSpaceArk no, but it is a journalist's job to challenge the opinions of others, and a very good journalist can challenge proponents from the whole of the political spectrum irrespective of their own personal opinions...

[@chadimirputin2282]

Tell that to all mainstream media outlets. ​@@GrooveSpaceArk

[@cornbeef]

Personally I like the house of lords. I like that they're not affiliated with any party and can think for themselves. I do also believe though that for them to survive, they need to change. They need to accept that they all need to be experts in something, such as science, military, law, engineering etc. so that they can bring something to the table. If they don't have that, then I don't see why they should be allowed to vote on things that they know nothing about.

[@billsmith5109]

So why heredity? Have a lottery of thirty year olds, pick three or four a year. At sixty, draw straws, one steps down. Same at sixty-five. And seventy, well last one is out. The mere quote that parliamentary skills run in DNA perfectly shows Attlee’s lack of qualifications. Daft, ignorant.

[@petermoore9504]

451 peers over the age of 70 - 154 of whom are over 80. Perhaps a 70 yo limit not 80 would be a start

[@JoshMathewsofficial]

Clement Attlee despite being a good PM did more damage to the UK than any recession we’ve ever had by introducing the town and country planning act.

[@mildlydispleased3221]

If he's such a brilliant Parliamentarian, he would be reappointed as a Life Peer the normal way.

[@douglasherron7534]

By donating a large sum to one of the main political parties you mean?

[@jonathaneffemey944]

thanks for posting

[@SENEX12]

More dismantling of our constitution - We will regret this. Look up Starkey and Hitchens to find out why.

[@Bobbob-qe7pf]

No we won’t it’s a farce of a place.

[@paulgibbons2320]

Two privoliged sickophants.

[@thesmithersy]

I'd rather have hereditary peers over appointed political ones any day of the week.

[@AAAskunk]

yes we do need them!

[@danielwhyatt3278]

I actually want to keep some of the hereditary Lords. It’s a part of our tradition and seems to have served us pretty damn well. It feels refreshing sometimes to not have to worry about who was elected by who and they are actually still able to be there with their personal experience in life. Talking to nothing but party politicians has got to be so tiring. We don’t exactly need to become completely like America. In fact that would actually make me sick to my stomach. Also, I know Channel 4 likes to be more biased than many of the other channels, but this one was ‘openly insulting and hostile’ in its language towards the House of Lords and it was quite uncomfortable to say the least. Certainly not something we need in today’s news, which are already very openly more biased than they should be for just ‘one side’.

[@GreetlyGTS]

I do agree, I think they dismissed the "all at once or not at all" argument too quickly. I would much rather see reforms to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) to make it genuinely binding and remove the power of the executive to appoint whoever they like. Adding increased scrutiny to the application process would prevent cronyism (mostly). The hereditary peers do have considerable knowledge in highly specialist areas, often due to their aristocratic nature, out of reach for the majority of the public. They are also regulated much more heavily than other peers, and are required to be more active and participate more than other peers. The hereditary peers are the only members of the house of Lords who are elected (using the STV voting system, although very small voter base). There are much more important issues in the House of Lords such as HOLAC reform than removing the Hereditary peers - who are outnumbered almost 9-1.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

@@GreetlyGTS I agree. Appointments to the chamber should not be in the gift of the government of the day.

[@andybrice2711]

Perhaps there should be an opportunity for MPs to nominate a few of them who have proven their worth.

[@erik_griswold]

I love the fact that Christopher Guest of Spinal Tap could sit in the House of Lords under the current system.

[@tri-clawgaming7682]

should just have experts in the house of lords thats it. proper experts

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

How do you define an expert? I could argue that Liz Truss is an expert. She’s a chartered management accountant, a former economic director of a telecommunications company, chief security to the treasury and international trade secretary. She’s also authored several books on maths. But I think we can all see the flaw with that. Her on paper expertise didn’t translate very well to actual economic competency. But in mid 2022 you could have easily argued she was an expert. If you made all lords experts, then people like her (though less famous) could end up appointed and speaking with the authority of an expert to the public, simply be virtue of their position.

[@NeilOB9]

@@HALLish-jl5moan independent commission or council could decide, or industry leaders could nominate someone.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

@@NeilOB9 That's just pushing the can down the road. Bernie Madoff would probably count as an industry leader. Trump would probably count. Certainly someone politically motivated might want to nominate him to your council. And if you literally defined industry leader as some objective measure, you'd end up with Elon Musk. And you still might get Trump. (Yes, those are American examples, but they are the easiest examples to demonstrate the problem, think Philip Green for a more British example). Who would they appoint as experts? Bernie wouldn't know because he didn't actually know what he was doing, and Musk and Trump... Might not be entirely objective.

[@jbjaguar2717]

​@@HALLish-jl5mo Firstly, having a bachelor's in PPE and being a chartered accountant does not make you an 'expert' in economics or mathematics - it makes you a person with the absolute bare minimum qualifications sufficient for a mid-level office job involving numbers. Secondly, the experts in the House of Lords should not just be 'people who can demonstrate expertise in any subject area'. They should be the absolute TOP expert in a subject area who is available for the role. So for economics, e.g. the head professor of the economics department at LSE. We wouldn't need further experts in the same area - other experts should be in other subject areas.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

@@jbjaguar2717 So you'd appoint Arthur Laffer as an expert in economics then?

[@theoldplankwoodworks2415]

The Lords is in desperate need of reform…and not just the hereditary peer issue…

[@raider7966]

He’s paid how much????😂😂😂

[@thedave8097]

The Lords is literally the last good thing about Parliament. Now they want to abolish it because they can't be sold lol

[@dylancarter1831]

The WHOLE Lords should be abolished and replaced by a Canadian style senate. People from all walks of life appointed until retirement but they must be people who actually do things in all sectors.

[@davidcope5736]

Sure, but call it the Lords and keep the pomp. The best way to pass change is under the guise of continuity.

[@adrianaspalinky1986]

True, but there's worse in there, We don't need replacements, we need to shrink the house of lords

[@wollondillyargyle281]

The value of hereditary peers is that they are independent. Starmer wants to get rid of them so that he can appoint his cronies, party donors, yes-men, et al, as life peers. He wants to control the House of Lords so that he can get his legislation through.

[@Matt-vj3nb]

Around 180 cross benchers in the lords. Lots of the hereditary peers are not independent. Conservatives outnumber labour in the lords.

[@boringlyawesum]

the fact that none of them are people of colour is such a plus

[@TarlachOakleaf]

Short answer: "NO".

[@TheLukeLambert]

Cash for honours and the absolute joke it's been turned into with PMs just putting in randoms (thank you conwoman Michelle Moane and Boris' hairdresser, I mean honestly!) are we even trying anymore? People are so willing to believe such tripe coming out of both houses, they both aren't worth their weight, Lords have had their day and now they should be leaping into the new year straight into retirement.

[@Matthew-bj6ct]

He's clearly got an inflated view of his own importance. I don't see why he should vote on our laws, just because he's Clement Attlee's grandson.

[@carlosgravil3325]

Will they be missed?...............by who? ridiculous!

[@watzon151]

Small minded. If labour put in Lords who support them, they will pass every law they want. Meaning we will live in a dictatorship. You need neutral people in lords

[@baron5747]

@@watzon151 You're never going to get uniquely neutral people though. By human nature, everyone is a little bit biased. We don't like to admit it, but it's true. Whilst Labour, and Conservatives are drastically different parties. Underneath the name on both sides, there are drastically different types of Conservatism and Labourism.

[@oelruof5816]

@@baron5747let them be bias towards Britain, I don’t want a step towards sharia :/

[@baron5747]

@@oelruof5816 Fella it's 2024 for crying out loud. There is no such thing as 'sharia law' in the legal system within the UK. The only reference to Sharia Law in an official capacity, is within secular Muslim communities. Which act as advisory councils. These councils are not formal courts but act as advisory bodies that deal with civil matters like marriage, divorce, and inheritance, particularly under Islamic law. Stop perpetuating hatred, based on absolute rubbish.

[@oelruof5816]

@@baron5747 no hatred here Baron. Out with Britain’s history and in with the Labour cronies it seems, they want no opposition.

[@IvanIvanoIvanovich]

He sure knows a lot of vehicles "intimately" doesn't he?

[@ag8313-i4m]

His grandfather should be deeply disappointed in him

[@anthonycheaford1962]

I spent a few hours with Mr Attlee in the REME museum back in 2010 or 2011 - changing a motor in, I think, that Conqueror tank. I'd just wandered in for a look around while on a training course and got chatting to him. He was very welcoming, civil, and although he referenced 'the red or the green seats' (House of Lords or Commons) I didn't find out who he was till later!

[@2511dhall]

We have women who are hereditary peers.

[@Toby4929]

Removal of the hereditary peers is an absolute must. Atlee is breathtakingly arrogant in his opinion of himself and that is reason enough to get rid of them. But the whole chamber needs desperate reform to make it representative, democratic and accountable. A number of Lords are idle $%£@s who only turn up for their daily allowance and clear of for a leisurely lunch and a matinee. Get rid and start again with the first order question: "Is an Upper House necessary?". Let's face it, other countries just have one chamber................

[@ryantate6447]

And the replacement will be technocrats no one wanted. Labour will change our constitution

[@brettonsmith8534]

We already have the commons. What’s the point of a twin?

[@gothicgolem2947]

Unicameral chambers are not as good imo as there are less checks than two chambers will give

[@Toby4929]

@@brettonsmith8534 It's a fair question, for sure.

[@InsoIence]

Many other countries have bicameral legislatures, they are not a bad idea in itself. Checks and balances, you know. From my observations corruption will always be there (duh) and we can never rely on a stagnant system to sort things out. We need to put hoops in front of positions of power, with ability to veto at different points, as not to allow anybody to fully take over governmental bodies. What we put in place is never enough, we need to be vigilant and on our toes, always researching ways we can get screwed over. Virus vs Antivirus way.

[@alingard1]

I don't like lords and I don't like monarchy but they do work. Be careful what you wish for...... More elected representatives? And how exactly do we think of our current elected reps? Exactly. Lower than the lords and monarchy. Be pragmatic. It's not ideal but what is.....

[@user-ww4ub9uq2l]

He wont be missed.

[@thehighlander6770]

I'll miss him!

[@JamesMargetts-y2n]

Reform of the Lords will allow who ever is in power at the time to fill it with their own, Some need to loose their titles, Blair, Starmer, Cameron.

[@williamlloyd3769]

After 30 years, reform of the House of Lords has not been worked out?

[@cjryan88]

we have musilms that are peers thats so wrong

[@superfly1321]

tank driving is a pretty cool hobby ngl

[@JCL-n7y]

Not only the hereditary Lords must go the political appointees also need to be removed and the populace should have a voice on who sits in the second house.

[@hotttt28]

You might as well replace the monarchy!

[@stephenburris3543]

Strengthening the Lords politically diminishes the Commons.

[@KS777-h1w]

It should be a lottery that every citizen is automatically entered into so that everyone could have an equal chance to become a peer.

[@danielwhyatt3278]

Honestly, nooot the worst idea.

[@JRH2109]

You'd end up with all sorts of bellends in there though.

[@JelMain]

@@JRH2109 So what's new? Cummings wanted intelligence, but the intelligent laughed in his face.

[@mintblackbeard3715]

Been my position too for a long time. It's got the best merit of all systems. Truly representative without being beholden to a party. But it is too good. It doesn't benefit any of the parties so they wont do it. They'd rather an elected chamber as it gives them more power.

[@andyf4292]

that's an excellent idea!

[@Omnipotent-Q]

If there are hereditary peers that add value currently then that’s ok. Remove hereditary peers and retain these individuals as normal lords. That way it becomes a position on merit and ability to add value only.

[@patrickgray8368]

Without a wholly elected upper chamber, the abolition of hereditary peers simply adds power to Prime Ministers who can select people in there only for their perceived loyalty or financial assistance. As Michael Foot put it, they would simply be a "seraglio of eunuchs". Better to have a house which is made of people who have achieved some distinction in the civil service (Permanent Secretaries), Military (Brigadier/Commodore or above), or other fields (Mayors of major cities, medal winning Olympians, heads of major charities) in which success has been achieved through exercising some responsibility to the nation over a long period of years.

[@andyf4292]

what a strange old man

[@Hanking-Warry]

Perhaps starmer wants to be rid of the lords to replace it with a military council.

[@jacobprice2579]

“He’s one of 92 people who have a say I making our laws, just because of who his family is.” Errrrm… we all have a say in the making of our laws. That’s kind of what the definition of a democracy is.

[@davidoneill9244]

If hereditary peers are abolished the House of Lords will effectively become a true second chamber of Parliament & thus can be used to reinforce the Commons. To prevent this, as in the USA, the Upper Chamber should be elected (probably by resort to election by overall votes)

[@erik_griswold]

Better yet get rid of the upper house like Denmark and Nebraska have.

[@robertpatrick3350]

Needs resolving as does the political appointees….. the lords needs to be purged of appointees who’ve been political donors

[@HoratioChinn]

If a hereditary peer is deserving to be in the Lords, they can still be made life peers and go back in

[@keith8609]

There are no doubt some good ones but i agree with the principle that they should not be lords just because of their heritage

[@lenrichardson7349]

Oh dear I think they are some ladies who could very well drive that tank. I was with him till that point.

[@KevinDoyle-r1w]

The only good thing i learned from this is there is a REME museum, I will visit it one day with my grandchildren

[@PaulNizinskyj]

I really think that the royal prerogative of appointing life peers ought to be deferred to an independent commission.

[@Treedodger]

Permanent lords permanently tied to land in the UK should be better for us. They cant leave and they always need to make the best choice for their land so as to sustainably use the land into the future. We need lords and we need more!

[@aaronjones8905]

I take a middle view. I think it's quite obvious that the UK needs a proper federal structure and House that represents that. Yet, I think it's wrong to abandon the unique honor and tradition that hereditary peers bring. First, have something like 25 peers each for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, plus another 10 or so for overseas territories like the Falklands. Have the 25 awarded according to proportional representation with a 4% threshold. They sit for five years even if the Commons calls a snap election. The parties fill the seats with whomever has been granted a peerage and is a member of their party. That way no one loses their honors. Second, grant the hereditary peers 40 or so seats according to the Blair rules where they vote amongst themselves. Simply require that they sit as independents. That's a total of ~150 peers who represent the whole of the country and provide a more deliberative check on the Commons.

[@stephencunniffe823]

He doesn't sell himself very well. Especially compared to the person he inherited it from.

[@carrickrichards2457]

The appointment of CEOs of FTSE 100 former Prime ministers and chancellors and people at the top of their (many and varied) fields does enable scrutiny of complex legistlation that an elected body would not. Hereditary peers, nonegenarians and young illegitimate daughters of politicians, not so much.

[@1101millie97]

I think I get what is being done here -get rid of everything that makes the House of Lords worthwhile (remaining hereditary peers who have specialized knowledge that they can apply to legislation), setting the stage down the road for its complete removal and replacement once people see there is nothing left of redemptive value in keeping the institution. Cynical, but potentially effective.

[@thehighlander6770]

The problem with the House of Lords is the appointees of the Prime Ministers, not the hereditary peers.

[@michaelweeks5858]

House of Lords should purely be a chamber for people with expertise, who serve at most 5 year terms and are elected by their peers to represent/ champion the interests of their industries. A section for those with parliamentary experience is reasonable, but, that should be limited, any found to have serious political affiliations should be removed/ prevented from being in the lords. It does feel like change needs to happen, but, things will have to happen slowly

[@PLuMUK54]

I would favour a House made up of 50% appointees and 50% elected. The appointments would not be by the government, but by a non-political organisation following clear guidelines. The appointees would come from all walks of life and would be nominated by professional groups. There would be a certain number of representatives from education, law, health, the military, and so on. When one of these appointees left the House, they would not be replaced by a random person currently in the favour of the government of the time, but by a person with the same expertise. For the elected members, the country should be divided into regions. In the elections, a specific number of representatives could be chosen for each region ensuring that the majority of the country would feel that they were actually represented. Hopefully, the influence of party politics would be reduced and the people would feel some sort of ownership of the system. With the current House of Lords, I feel that I have no connection with political appointees and hereditory peers. A new name is also needed to break with the idea that if you are in possession of a title, then you are somehow fit to rule.

[@samaale7381]

He is having a dig at females at the end 😂. What a lovely chap.

[@marciabaldwin2506]

Would be totally fascinating to find out what his grandfather thinks about what's happening over here now. And Winston Churchill, too, what would he make of it?

[@eddy66t6]

Has anyone in the UK even considered...shock, horror...looking at how other countries do it?

[@liambeevor1696]

Non political appointments based on merit. Range of academics, lawyers, ex generals, doctors, entrepreneurs etc.

[@GeorginaJett]

High time we got rid of all this institutional nonsense...

[@Racernumber6channel]

Hereditary peers bring continuity, tradition and an impartiality to the lords, with this change the government seeks to appoint those who can further its ambitions. The simple truth is this, anybody who wants power is not fit to have it, those hereditary peers do their duty as their family did before them. This brings with it a determination not to let down your ancestors and to uphold the values they taught you, this country is changing for the worse and changes like this only hasten our fall from greatness.

[@GuyM-hp6in]

The Lords needs reform for sure. It shouldn't be larger than the Commons, as a check and balance, it's hard to see an argument for a Lords that has more than 325 members. In parallel it's arguable whether we actually need 650 MP's (that debate is for another day). Removing hereditary peers makes sense, they don't need to be replaced, that would at least be one step to reduce the bloated numbers. However, those remaining are nothing more than political cronies of those who put them there, they're not removable by the electorate let alone even remotely accountable. That can't be right in a country that claims to be a functioning democracy. If the Lords is supposed to be a place of 'experts' make it place whereby people are seconded into the Lords for a fixed term on the basis of their expertise, knowledge and experience. All members being subject to background checks, CRB, political affiliations, significant financial interests etc etc. ensuring the representation remains balanced and as neutral as possible. How on earth this could be made to work I have no idea but Labour are currently doing no more than re-arranging the deckchairs in what feels like an ill thought through PR exercise.

[@fredyyfredfreddy]

One advantage is that they don't have to conform to the party lines. As he says.

[@andyanderson5326]

Wish I could play all day in the garage. Get rid of people like this from hereditary titles, they need a reality check.

[@edbop]

It is a hard one because on the face of it we should get rid of them; but then you see the appointments of the last government, for instance, and you have to question the logic of government appointed lords. As for what race they happen to be, you'd have to be a racist to care about that. Perhaps elected by parliament as a whole in a free vote would be suitable compromise.

[@Arya-cf7vu]

Hardly serving an 'obligation to society' if ur getting paid a Peer's salary with all the perks.

[@Mr_Mgun]

way too many foreigners in the UK.

[@SimonSmith-yd6tt]

Hereditary peers are from all over the country? What argument is that they are the guardians of privilege, class based rights, and from his comments on female tank drivers misogynistic chauvinism.

[@purple_panther04]

bot

[@SimonSmith-yd6tt]

as in Bradford's Opinionated Tyke? then yes I am a BOT🤖

[@Sheev8435]

If this guy is such a good politician like he claims, he could stand as an MP for the house of commons.

[@supalew]

We need a House of Lords where each member is an expert in their field and where all areas of British life are represented. Each should be appointed for a limited period. Unfortunately I do not know how to fairly choose them. Any ideas?

[@blackbeard6423]

Honestly, as a generally conservative person, hereditary lords can go. It's a bit ridiculous in 2024.

[@KrisHughes]

Interesting. I'm left of Starmer and think they should stay. Simply because they are not politicians or appointed by politicians.

[@grahamcampbell8297]

The fact is the House of Lords needs to reflect a democratic society. It needs to transition to a Senate chamber with members elected for lengthy periods of time so they can have an independent voice and to avoid pandering to short term demands. If they ran a form of proportional representation with members elected for each region then minor parties would be represented, independents would be represented, and regional voices or parties would be represented. It needs reform, root and branch. Appointments have got to stop.

[@PCDelorian]

We need some upper chamber, but how we go about it I don't know. Perhaps having an independent appointments council, to abolish it entirely gives Commons unlimited power. The Lords being reformed also means that the limits on their powers under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1945 might need to be removed.

[@droof100]

He certainly thinks a lot of himself. The Lords is a mess. If it is to remain an appointed house, then the means of selection needs to be taken away from PMs. We've swapped one kind of grace and favour for another.

[@LONDONiNVESTORTiPS]

I think people should be appointed on merit but not by governments. The public should vote who they want. That’s the only way it could work.

[@LONDONiNVESTORTiPS]

If for the people must be by the people

[@KrisHughes]

the public we've got, it'd be pop stars and sports figures.

[@stigmontgomery7901]

Rubbish! You'll just end up with the usual load of Abbotts, Lammys etc. Its not who the people want, it's who the country needs!

[@jannyjan90]

Sooooo just the house of commons then You want the likes of the tories to have free unvetted abilites to do what ever they want and pass any laws without challange then?

[@NeilOB9]

I don’t think the public can be trusted to vote based on merit, it will just become a popularity contest, it won’t be about actual skill or expertise.