“all are white men”, uh yeah that’s because their family line in the UK is hundreds of years old. I’m not sure what the guardian’s point is except for racism. Removal of hereditary peers is good, racism isn’t.
PODnoaura on
Labour removing hereditary peers (who lean heavily anti-labour) but leaving bishops in place (who lean heavily pro-labour) seems like outright rigging.
Getting rid of one but not the other is indefensible IMO….the only feasible position for it would be if you were an actual honest to goodness Anglican-Theocracist.
The democratic arguments for removing the Hereditary Peers are obvious; not removing the Church Peers at the same time kills those arguments stone dead, rendering the actions pure hypocricy.
Nulibru on
Remove some of the others too. Like the Russian cunt and the photocopy girl.
Curryflurryhurry on
I mean, cool, but honestly the problem is the life peers. Dodgy Russians, grifting “businesswomen”, anyone who ever gave the Tory party fifty grand.
TBH the hereditary peers are probably the least crooked of the lot.
Scrap it all.
EwokSuperPig___ on
This is a great stops and the first positive systemic reform in my life time. This is a necessary change and hopefully eventually this second chamber gets reformed completely one day. My guess into why there is no complete reform in the table is that they don’t have a plan. Making it a completely elected house would lead to political gridlock and having it being appointed by the prime minister is rife for exploitation. Who should sit there and by who is not an easy question
piyopiyopi on
Eleni writes ‘all are white men’ but she should say ‘all are Tory’s’ as they’re letting the lefties stay
Exact_Umpire_4277 on
The Lords should stay unelected, but it should be like an appointed syndicalist House where leades of industry/’experts’ are in post, rather than political appointees, hereditary peers and priests
LemmysCodPiece on
Why not just go the whole hog and turn it into a fully elected house? Get rid of all of the cronies and sycophants that currently sit there.
SchoolForSedition on
Astonishing to see any defence of political power for hereditary anything.
sbs1138 on
“The earl marshal and the lord great chamberlain, who had been expected to keep their seats because of their ceremonial functions, will also be removed.“
RedofPaw on
You know what? Good.
It’s probably way too little, but it’s something.
Better some progress than none.
FirmEcho5895 on
Given that the House of Lords is supposed to spot potential contradictions between new laws and existing ones, we should mostly have high quality lawyers in there. It is also supposed to forewarn of other problematic implications of new laws that the House of Commons may have overlooked. For that we need a balanced range of experts in various other fields. We don’t need any other categories of people in there, do we?
To get the expertise we need, maybe we could define the numbers for each category and design a very objective recruitment process.
12 Comments
“all are white men”, uh yeah that’s because their family line in the UK is hundreds of years old. I’m not sure what the guardian’s point is except for racism. Removal of hereditary peers is good, racism isn’t.
Labour removing hereditary peers (who lean heavily anti-labour) but leaving bishops in place (who lean heavily pro-labour) seems like outright rigging.
Getting rid of one but not the other is indefensible IMO….the only feasible position for it would be if you were an actual honest to goodness Anglican-Theocracist.
The democratic arguments for removing the Hereditary Peers are obvious; not removing the Church Peers at the same time kills those arguments stone dead, rendering the actions pure hypocricy.
Remove some of the others too. Like the Russian cunt and the photocopy girl.
I mean, cool, but honestly the problem is the life peers. Dodgy Russians, grifting “businesswomen”, anyone who ever gave the Tory party fifty grand.
TBH the hereditary peers are probably the least crooked of the lot.
Scrap it all.
This is a great stops and the first positive systemic reform in my life time. This is a necessary change and hopefully eventually this second chamber gets reformed completely one day. My guess into why there is no complete reform in the table is that they don’t have a plan. Making it a completely elected house would lead to political gridlock and having it being appointed by the prime minister is rife for exploitation. Who should sit there and by who is not an easy question
Eleni writes ‘all are white men’ but she should say ‘all are Tory’s’ as they’re letting the lefties stay
The Lords should stay unelected, but it should be like an appointed syndicalist House where leades of industry/’experts’ are in post, rather than political appointees, hereditary peers and priests
Why not just go the whole hog and turn it into a fully elected house? Get rid of all of the cronies and sycophants that currently sit there.
Astonishing to see any defence of political power for hereditary anything.
“The earl marshal and the lord great chamberlain, who had been expected to keep their seats because of their ceremonial functions, will also be removed.“
You know what? Good.
It’s probably way too little, but it’s something.
Better some progress than none.
Given that the House of Lords is supposed to spot potential contradictions between new laws and existing ones, we should mostly have high quality lawyers in there. It is also supposed to forewarn of other problematic implications of new laws that the House of Commons may have overlooked. For that we need a balanced range of experts in various other fields. We don’t need any other categories of people in there, do we?
To get the expertise we need, maybe we could define the numbers for each category and design a very objective recruitment process.