5 ms·
I imagine I'll be thoroughly downvoted, but I like the unelected House of Lords. There's a heck of a lot wrong with it - not least the ease of pushing ex party
by anexprogrammer 10y ago
I imagine I'll be thoroughly downvoted, but I like the unelected House of Lords. There's a heck of a lot wrong with it - not least the ease of pushing ex party members up there in vast numbers, but all alternatives thus far proposed are far worse.
All proposed alternatives will give us more elected politicians adhering to party lines. None of the alternatives will give us better government.
Lords are pretty good at being difficult in the face of bad legislation - yet every time a notable instance takes place there are more calls to abolish the place. Their party allegiance mellows as they age - so you get Tory peers ridiculing some aspect of the current Tory government. Last there are enough independents (usually with long non-political careers) to bring domain knowledge and independent thought to the place.
Most instances of Lords reform have been as a result of them doing their job well, inconveniencing or embarrassing the elected government of the day.
It's not democratic, but it works.
- spoonie 10y agoI mostly like it too, it's a similar model to Canada Senate. Who needs to go are the current hereditary peers: they weren't elected or even appointed by someone elected. At least they abolished the hereditary system.
- kps 10y agoThe current role of the House of Lords (like the Canadian Senate) is to introduce hysteresis into Parliament. It's a smoothing function over the last n elections to limit damage from noisy inputs.