5 ms·

When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte, As every child can tell, The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well;

When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte, As every child can tell, The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well; Yet Britain set the world ablaze In good King George's glorious days! (from Iolanthe by Gilbert and Sullivan) Gather a group of the most powerful people in the land; give them ermine robes and manifold privileges; require of them nothing other than that they meet regularly to converse and debate in a prestigious and historical chamber. Allow them only the power to veto or delay legislation. Gilbert and Sullivan were satirising but I think their point stands. It is possible to do nothing and to do it very well. While they're busy doing nothing they're not interfering or messing everything else up, even though they probably could outside the chamber. The fact that heriditary peers are being ejected means nothing beyond the fact that these nobles have lost their inherent power.

alexpotato 7mo ago
To play devil's advocate: Some people argue that the difficulty of passing laws in the United States is "a feature not a bug" b/c it prevents the US from creating laws too quickly. You could argue the House of Lords did the same: by vetoing bills, it acted as a "speed bump" to laws that might cause too much change too quickly.
- post-it 7mo ago
  The House of Lords isn't going anywhere. The majority of the chamber are life peers, functionally identical to Canadian senators.
  - tialaramex 7mo ago
    And for many years now, even the remaining minority of hereditary peers in the chamber are elected to that job, albeit not by the general public. My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers so that they can keep doing the exact same job. Many life peers (who are all entitled to be there) rarely attend, so it would be kinda silly if Lord Snootington, the fifteenth Earl of Whatever is kicked out for being a hereditary peer despite also being the linchpin of an important committee and one of the top 100 attendees in the Lords, while they keep Bill Smith, a business tycoon who got his peerage for giving a politician a sack of cash and hasn't been in London, never mind the House of Lords, since 2014...
    - skissane 7mo ago
      > My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages But that political deal is just an informal extralegal “understanding”, it isn’t actually in the text of the bill-having the bill text grant someone a life peerage would upset the status of peerages as a royal prerogative, and they don’t want to do that
      - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
        > The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.
        mastax 7mo ago
        Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; the deal only needs to be seen as fair enough by the other peers. Or really, it only needs to be seen as fair enough to the House of Commons.
        dragonwriter 7mo ago
        > Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; As I understand it, it was necessary (in order to pass the bill without the delay the Lords can impose) to secure a deal on the hereditary peers (not with them), because the Conservatives (the largest Lords faction) and many of the cross-benchers among the life peers, a sufficient number in total to delay the bill (the Lords can't actually block it permanently) oppose the bill, not just a group among the existing hereditary peers.
        dragonwriter 7mo ago
- kergonath 7mo ago
  > You could argue the House of Lords did the same It can still do the same thing without hereditary peers. A slow-moving, conservative (in the classical sense) upper chamber is a classic in bicameral systems, it is not specific to the House of Lords.
- kiba 7mo ago
  It doesn't really help the United States create good law. You could argue that it worsen the quality of laws by forcing kludges to be built on top of kludges. A sortition panel collecting random people from all walks of life to give feedback on law would probably improve the quality of law more than any amount of procedure and paperwork ever will. We mistaken paperwork with deliberation and quality control.
  - bhk 7mo ago
    "The more laws, the less justice." -- Cicero
  - kennywinker 7mo ago
    I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.
    - canarypilot 7mo ago
      Yes, and, Bush-Cheney were the modern forefathers of pushing the unitary executive theory, building on the work of Reagan after a 90’s shaped lull. Reagan took ideas from The Heritage Foundation, who returned in the ‘24 elections pushing Project 2025. A natural endgame and roadmap for the movement of power to the president, that is being followed as approximately as any political roadmap ever is. Remember that each time you’re tempted to crack a Coors light!
      - kennywinker 7mo ago
        So I should remember that… never? Got it. ;)
      - edgyquant 7mo ago
        Unitary executive is popular and doesn’t have to mean an imperial presidency. Actually the most popular version, albeit not the one you hear about the most, is the libertarian idea that the executive should have little power at all and almost no bureaucracy to command.
- scott_w 7mo ago
  I think a good revising chamber is critical to good democracy, though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act and ignoring the Salisbury Convention (which is that they shouldn’t block manifesto commitments). I do think the USA goes too far, which has led to frustration among the public and contributed to Trump and the resulting behaviour. I’ve said before that I think the US House of Representatives should have a mechanism to override Senate speed bumps, though not without effort. The idea is to encourage the legislature to compromise but maintain the “primacy” of the House if the Senate is being obstinate. Something like the Parliament Act, is what I’d have in mind.
  - hardlianotion 7mo ago
    Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament?
    - scott_w 7mo ago
      > Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament? To be clear, I didn't say they "blocked," I said: > though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act This was a manifesto commitment which, while it eventually went through, it was touch and go for a little bit. Reporting at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f412kJChC6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f412kJChC6g
      - hardlianotion 7mo ago
        Okay, though to be fair to me, you said just after > and ignoring the Salisbury Convention (which is that they shouldn’t block manifesto commitments) which is what attracted my question. Thanks for the link. I haven’t watched it, but I will observe that a lot of the modern legislation that comes out of the commons should properly attract the attention of the Lords, as it doesn’t get nearly enough attention from the commons.
        scott_w 7mo ago
- vkou 7mo ago
  You get something far worse in the US. Which is a government that no longer feels any need to either pass or be bound by laws.
  - nxm 7mo ago
    Hyperbole beyond belief there
  - anon291 7mo ago
    Ah yes, the country whose supreme court struck down its global tariffs and then forced the federal government into refunding all the money back is truly no longer bound by its own laws.
    - vkou 7mo ago
      Did the government pass any laws to steal those 130 billion dollars from Americans? I can't recall that it did. Are there any consequences for the people who did it? The government has long ceased to govern by law. It now governs from the bench, and from executive order, because laws are too troublesome to actually pass.
      - anon291 7mo ago
        America operates on a strong executive common law system not whatever system you are imagining. I took business law more than a decade ago and the professor basically said do what you want (money wise) if you can pay for it. This is the English legal system and is how it's always worked. Liability is purely monetary and the law only applies to those who can show standing to do anything about it.
        foldr 7mo ago
        So no-one affected by illegal tariffs has any legal standing?
- keeganpoppen 7mo ago
  yes. just because it is unfashionable to argue in favor of aristocracy does not mean that it doesn’t have its own intrinsic set of benefits and drawbacks… the drawbacks of ultra democracy (populism, etc.) are all cast aside as the innocent folly of people yearning to be free but not knowing whereof to yearn (“it’s not a system problem, it’s a people problem, but we must no matter what condemn ourselves to people problems because anything else is anathema to “liberty”, or whatever”). but dare utter one word in favor of conservatism in the original, true sense, and it is as though democracy is an unalloyed good with absolutely no downside. like, clearly we should have a direct democracy with no senate and no house, no? anything else is just allowing the Powers That Be to patriarchy everything!
- verbify 7mo ago
  Just in case someone gets the wrong end of the stick, the UK isn’t getting rid of the House of Lords, just the hereditary members (of which there aren’t many).
  - marcus_holmes 7mo ago
    But almost all the remainder are political appointees. It's disappointing that they didn't replace the hereditary peers with some other non-politically-appointed folks. There is a very great need to have people in the House of Lords who are not beholden to any of the political parties. I personally favour a lottery system where random people get given the opportunity to join the House of Lords for the rest of their working lives.
    - AlecSchueler 7mo ago
      > for the rest of their working lives. One of the nicer things about Lords debates is that many members have ended their working lives and are no longer worried about the day to day felicities of their industry.
- thrance 7mo ago
  It's only a speed bump for progressive laws while the most reactionary garbage gets fast tracked with their approvals.
- martythemaniak 7mo ago
  That view is a leftover from a bygone era, when others could look at the US with often grudging admiration. Today? The US itself doesn't think much of itself, and to the rest of us it is a cautionary tale.
  - hunterpayne 7mo ago
    "The US itself doesn't think much of itself" If you ever find yourself wondering why US voters elected someone like Trump...if you ever wondered why institutions in the US are crumbling and experts don't have much credibility, this is why. I assure you, most Americans think very highly of the US compared to the rest of the world (especially if they have traveled). Only the out of touch don't and the reasons why most US voters don't give them much credibility is the absolutely crazy amount of twisting of facts to align to that POV. As people like that are slowly removed/aged out from those institutions, the institutions will magically start working well again and regain public trust. In case you wondered how a potted plant like Trump can somehow perform better than those experts, that's how. Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have. Its also how people who claim to be for peace and democracy somehow end up supporting a religious oligarchy that funds terrorism across an entire region. Ideology makes you dumb to the degree that you are smart. PS Europe is the cautionary tale here. Again, your leaders are far smarter than Trump. Does that seem to matter? Nope, because ideology destroys the effectiveness they (you) should have.
    - anon291 7mo ago
      > Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have. Extremely well said
    - watwut 7mo ago
      Oh yeah, gotta love the "if you dont join our illegal unnecessary war, you support religious dictatorship". Spoken by supporter of a goverment who prefres dictatorships over democrscies, claims does not even want regime change in iran, claims they dont care about targetting civilian infrastructure. That just made it so goverment in Iran is more hardline. And that just gave a lifeline to Russia while being at it.
- trebligdivad 7mo ago
  Note that this change is not getting rid of the Lords; it's just getting rid of Hereditary piers - i.e. those passed down through generations. We'll still have Lords who have been selected by previous governments within their lifetime; so they still provide that speed bump; but do it in a way that means they were at some point chosen by an elected body.
  - hunterpayne 7mo ago
    Not sure how you think this will improve things. None of these people are elected. They likely got these positions by doing political favors. They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate. They are even more likely to make decisions based upon ideology instead of practical quality of life considerations. Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few. And that's the last thing the UK needs right now.
    - dotancohen 7mo ago
      You argue that a lot of things are likely. Why don't you take the time to check instead of slander?
    - Nursie 7mo ago
      > They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate. Not compared to the hereditary peers. In theory these people have proved themselves useful in some way and bring expertise to the upper chamber, rather than just being born in the right family. In practice there is some of that and some political cronyism. > Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few. That is exactly what hereditary peerage is. The few, by definition. The aristocracy.
      - t43562 7mo ago
        Being out of touch with the electorate is the thing they have as a feature over the house of commons. i.e. they're not trying to win the next election. They're also not there because of the favours they've done existing politicians. I don't think this is "great" but it does make me wonder if the people who want an end to herditary peers are really going to like what they get.
- seanhunter 7mo ago
  The Lords doesn’t actually have the power to veto bills thanks to the Parliament act. They also have a principle of ultimate legislative priority under which they defer to the commons in matters where the commons puts its foot down. They generally act as a revising body rather than outright attempting to defy the commons. > Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 it is possible for a bill to be presented for Royal Assent without the agreement of the House of Lords, provided that certain conditions are met. This change was seen by some as a departure from Dicey’s notion of sovereignty conferred upon a tripartite body. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10377/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
  - kitd 7mo ago
    On the other hand, the process of having Commons legislation rejected by the Lords, then amended and sent back can take almost a year. A government looking to push its legislative programme in a single parliament may choose to remove the most controversial elements in return for an easier passage through the Lords. In this way, just the threat of Lords scrutiny can be enough to moderate the output of the Commons.
    - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
      If the Lords can’t veto bills, why does their rejection matter?
- DrScientist 7mo ago
  The idea of a second chamber is not controversial. The argument is how you populate it. Elected - you have the problem of two chambers claiming legitimacy and potential deadlock, and also the problem of potentially having the same short term view as the other elected chamber. Appointed - who gets to appoint, on what criteria, who are they beholden to ( ideally unsackable once appointed - I want them to feel free to say what they really think ). Inherited - Very unlikely to represent the population. No quality filter. Potentially a culture of service built up - and free to say what they think. Random. - More likely to represent the population. No quality filter. You can obviously have a mix of all or any of the above. In my view, the ideal second chamber would be full of people of experience, who are beholden to nobody (unsackable), that represented a broad range of views, with a culture of service. I'm against a fully elected second house - as that's not really adding anything different to the first house. Appointed has worked quite well in the past, but it has become more and more abused recently as the elected politicians have two much control. It's tricky - perhaps some sort of mix.
  - WickyNilliams 7mo ago
    Abused is probably an understatement. The Tories made some extremely questionable and bizarre appointments in their recent terms. We have the son of Russian oligarch sitting there! Inexplicable advisors whose appointment is a mystery even after FOIA requests. And extreme partisans like Jacob Rees Mogg and Priti Patel. Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used.
    - DrScientist 7mo ago
      > Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used. You'd get party political trading - we will vote for your pick if you vote for our pick - but perhaps it will help at the margins - the obviously embarrassing would be harder to squeeze through. The problem is the current process relied a bit too much on people being trustworthy - as you say that's kinda fallen away recently - and obviously the election of Trump show how dangerous it is for a process to rely on people being decent and not abuse the trust. Which is a shame as trusting people gives people the leeway to do the right thing. In terms of JRM or Patel - while they are not my cup of tea, I think there is value in senior politicians becoming members of the Lords almost by default ( like senior judges or religious leaders ) - as to some extent it does reflect what people have voted for in the past and they have valuable experience. However perhaps it's too early in their cases. An age limit has been talked about - but normally in terms of upper age - I wonder if it wouldn't be better as an age threshold - you have to have retired and be no longer 'on the make'. Sure that means no young people in the second chamber - but ultimately being representative is the commons role, the second chamber is for experienced people to tell the commons not to be hasty and do more work.
lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
> meet regularly to converse and debate Senators play a similar role. Their aim is heavily weighted toward oversight and advisory. Gov’t in general is weighted in that direction, because governments govern which is mainly about being a kind of referee, maintaining the social order, and aiding human beings in attaining their end as human beings through legislation. Without this function, we have activity with little reflection spurred by politicians pandering to the mob.
jjmarr 7mo ago
The purpose of an assembly is to reflect the actual distribution of power in society, not what we'd like it to be. If interest groups do not feel represented by the system, they will destroy it.
fy20 7mo ago
> these nobles have lost their inherent power The nobles were the land owners, the business owners, the OG entrepreneurs, they were educated, and their children would grow up to be the same. Historically the system made sense. But the last 150 years or so have basically taken their power away. A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much.
- telesilla 7mo ago
  Because 150 years ago the labour to keep the estate running was very cheap. Now that labour is expensive, it costs more in maintenance than the property is worth, unless it's highly productive land. Reminds me of the joke, how to make a thousand dollars: buy a million dollar boat.
  - theshrike79 7mo ago
    Downton Abbey played on this, they had to let people film a movie in their home just so that they could afford to fix the leaky roof =)
  - Ekaros 7mo ago
    On other side my guess is also that net labour productivity of land has dropped significantly. What I mean that same amount of farm land does not produce same amount of excess labour buying power. So even if productivity itself for farming has risen massively. The amount of labour that you can buy with produced production has plummeted.
- tasuki 7mo ago
  > A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much. Entire village? How's that work? What can the new owner do with the village? I imagine the inhabitants aren't enslaved?
DougN7 7mo ago
My father-in-law always liked to see an exact number of democrats and republicans in congress, or congress held by one and the senate the other, for exactly this reason. With deadlock they can’t screw things up more. I’m not sure I disagree.
- cthalupa 7mo ago
  Congress has had one of the lowest approval ratings of anything in government for a long time now because it doesn't get things done. Most Americans are quite unhappy with Congressional deadlock being the norm. It's also directly lead to the continued rise of the powers of the unitary executive - the EO that have become the norm in the 2000s are in large part because Congress has largely voided all responsibility for legislating.
  - troad 7mo ago
    Congress passes tons of laws - just not on subjects on which the country is divided. Is that not a feature? Other systems require 50% + 1 to radically remake the entire country. Would that be better? Or worse? Imagine if <insert your most hated President> were Prime Minister instead, and had control of a truly sovereign Parliament with virtually no guardrails at all. Better or worse? EOs are a problem, but SCOTUS is walking at least some of that back in subtle ways, such as the end of Chevron deference. (Not that you'd get any of this from the media, who desperately want SCOTUS to devolve into the media-friendly horse race they've imposed upon all of the rest of politics.) Congress isn't supposed to decide on social questions. Society is. Congress is meant to represent it. A divided Congress is accurately representing a divided country.
ifwinterco 7mo ago
That particular group of nobles have lost their power, we just now have a different group that are not as obvious. The Iron Law of Oligarchy

alexpotato 7mo ago

To play devil's advocate: Some people argue that the difficulty of passing laws in the United States is "a feature not a bug" b/c it prevents the US from creating laws too quickly. You could argue the House of Lords did the same: by vetoing bills, it acted as a "speed bump" to laws that might cause too much change too quickly.

post-it 7mo ago
The House of Lords isn't going anywhere. The majority of the chamber are life peers, functionally identical to Canadian senators.
- tialaramex 7mo ago
  And for many years now, even the remaining minority of hereditary peers in the chamber are elected to that job, albeit not by the general public. My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers so that they can keep doing the exact same job. Many life peers (who are all entitled to be there) rarely attend, so it would be kinda silly if Lord Snootington, the fifteenth Earl of Whatever is kicked out for being a hereditary peer despite also being the linchpin of an important committee and one of the top 100 attendees in the Lords, while they keep Bill Smith, a business tycoon who got his peerage for giving a politician a sack of cash and hasn't been in London, never mind the House of Lords, since 2014...
  - skissane 7mo ago
    > My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages But that political deal is just an informal extralegal “understanding”, it isn’t actually in the text of the bill-having the bill text grant someone a life peerage would upset the status of peerages as a royal prerogative, and they don’t want to do that
    - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
      > The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.
      - mastax 7mo ago
        Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; the deal only needs to be seen as fair enough by the other peers. Or really, it only needs to be seen as fair enough to the House of Commons.
        dragonwriter 7mo ago
        > Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; As I understand it, it was necessary (in order to pass the bill without the delay the Lords can impose) to secure a deal on the hereditary peers (not with them), because the Conservatives (the largest Lords faction) and many of the cross-benchers among the life peers, a sufficient number in total to delay the bill (the Lords can't actually block it permanently) oppose the bill, not just a group among the existing hereditary peers.
      - dragonwriter 7mo ago
kergonath 7mo ago
> You could argue the House of Lords did the same It can still do the same thing without hereditary peers. A slow-moving, conservative (in the classical sense) upper chamber is a classic in bicameral systems, it is not specific to the House of Lords.
kiba 7mo ago
It doesn't really help the United States create good law. You could argue that it worsen the quality of laws by forcing kludges to be built on top of kludges. A sortition panel collecting random people from all walks of life to give feedback on law would probably improve the quality of law more than any amount of procedure and paperwork ever will. We mistaken paperwork with deliberation and quality control.
- bhk 7mo ago
  "The more laws, the less justice." -- Cicero
- kennywinker 7mo ago
  I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.
  - canarypilot 7mo ago
    Yes, and, Bush-Cheney were the modern forefathers of pushing the unitary executive theory, building on the work of Reagan after a 90’s shaped lull. Reagan took ideas from The Heritage Foundation, who returned in the ‘24 elections pushing Project 2025. A natural endgame and roadmap for the movement of power to the president, that is being followed as approximately as any political roadmap ever is. Remember that each time you’re tempted to crack a Coors light!
    - kennywinker 7mo ago
      So I should remember that… never? Got it. ;)
    - edgyquant 7mo ago
      Unitary executive is popular and doesn’t have to mean an imperial presidency. Actually the most popular version, albeit not the one you hear about the most, is the libertarian idea that the executive should have little power at all and almost no bureaucracy to command.
scott_w 7mo ago
I think a good revising chamber is critical to good democracy, though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act and ignoring the Salisbury Convention (which is that they shouldn’t block manifesto commitments). I do think the USA goes too far, which has led to frustration among the public and contributed to Trump and the resulting behaviour. I’ve said before that I think the US House of Representatives should have a mechanism to override Senate speed bumps, though not without effort. The idea is to encourage the legislature to compromise but maintain the “primacy” of the House if the Senate is being obstinate. Something like the Parliament Act, is what I’d have in mind.
- hardlianotion 7mo ago
  Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament?
  - scott_w 7mo ago
    > Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament? To be clear, I didn't say they "blocked," I said: > though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act This was a manifesto commitment which, while it eventually went through, it was touch and go for a little bit. Reporting at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f412kJChC6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f412kJChC6g
    - hardlianotion 7mo ago
      Okay, though to be fair to me, you said just after > and ignoring the Salisbury Convention (which is that they shouldn’t block manifesto commitments) which is what attracted my question. Thanks for the link. I haven’t watched it, but I will observe that a lot of the modern legislation that comes out of the commons should properly attract the attention of the Lords, as it doesn’t get nearly enough attention from the commons.
      - scott_w 7mo ago
vkou 7mo ago
You get something far worse in the US. Which is a government that no longer feels any need to either pass or be bound by laws.
- nxm 7mo ago
  Hyperbole beyond belief there
- anon291 7mo ago
  Ah yes, the country whose supreme court struck down its global tariffs and then forced the federal government into refunding all the money back is truly no longer bound by its own laws.
  - vkou 7mo ago
    Did the government pass any laws to steal those 130 billion dollars from Americans? I can't recall that it did. Are there any consequences for the people who did it? The government has long ceased to govern by law. It now governs from the bench, and from executive order, because laws are too troublesome to actually pass.
    - anon291 7mo ago
      America operates on a strong executive common law system not whatever system you are imagining. I took business law more than a decade ago and the professor basically said do what you want (money wise) if you can pay for it. This is the English legal system and is how it's always worked. Liability is purely monetary and the law only applies to those who can show standing to do anything about it.
      - foldr 7mo ago
        So no-one affected by illegal tariffs has any legal standing?
keeganpoppen 7mo ago
yes. just because it is unfashionable to argue in favor of aristocracy does not mean that it doesn’t have its own intrinsic set of benefits and drawbacks… the drawbacks of ultra democracy (populism, etc.) are all cast aside as the innocent folly of people yearning to be free but not knowing whereof to yearn (“it’s not a system problem, it’s a people problem, but we must no matter what condemn ourselves to people problems because anything else is anathema to “liberty”, or whatever”). but dare utter one word in favor of conservatism in the original, true sense, and it is as though democracy is an unalloyed good with absolutely no downside. like, clearly we should have a direct democracy with no senate and no house, no? anything else is just allowing the Powers That Be to patriarchy everything!
verbify 7mo ago
Just in case someone gets the wrong end of the stick, the UK isn’t getting rid of the House of Lords, just the hereditary members (of which there aren’t many).
- marcus_holmes 7mo ago
  But almost all the remainder are political appointees. It's disappointing that they didn't replace the hereditary peers with some other non-politically-appointed folks. There is a very great need to have people in the House of Lords who are not beholden to any of the political parties. I personally favour a lottery system where random people get given the opportunity to join the House of Lords for the rest of their working lives.
  - AlecSchueler 7mo ago
    > for the rest of their working lives. One of the nicer things about Lords debates is that many members have ended their working lives and are no longer worried about the day to day felicities of their industry.
thrance 7mo ago
It's only a speed bump for progressive laws while the most reactionary garbage gets fast tracked with their approvals.
martythemaniak 7mo ago
That view is a leftover from a bygone era, when others could look at the US with often grudging admiration. Today? The US itself doesn't think much of itself, and to the rest of us it is a cautionary tale.
- hunterpayne 7mo ago
  "The US itself doesn't think much of itself" If you ever find yourself wondering why US voters elected someone like Trump...if you ever wondered why institutions in the US are crumbling and experts don't have much credibility, this is why. I assure you, most Americans think very highly of the US compared to the rest of the world (especially if they have traveled). Only the out of touch don't and the reasons why most US voters don't give them much credibility is the absolutely crazy amount of twisting of facts to align to that POV. As people like that are slowly removed/aged out from those institutions, the institutions will magically start working well again and regain public trust. In case you wondered how a potted plant like Trump can somehow perform better than those experts, that's how. Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have. Its also how people who claim to be for peace and democracy somehow end up supporting a religious oligarchy that funds terrorism across an entire region. Ideology makes you dumb to the degree that you are smart. PS Europe is the cautionary tale here. Again, your leaders are far smarter than Trump. Does that seem to matter? Nope, because ideology destroys the effectiveness they (you) should have.
  - anon291 7mo ago
    > Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have. Extremely well said
  - watwut 7mo ago
    Oh yeah, gotta love the "if you dont join our illegal unnecessary war, you support religious dictatorship". Spoken by supporter of a goverment who prefres dictatorships over democrscies, claims does not even want regime change in iran, claims they dont care about targetting civilian infrastructure. That just made it so goverment in Iran is more hardline. And that just gave a lifeline to Russia while being at it.
trebligdivad 7mo ago
Note that this change is not getting rid of the Lords; it's just getting rid of Hereditary piers - i.e. those passed down through generations. We'll still have Lords who have been selected by previous governments within their lifetime; so they still provide that speed bump; but do it in a way that means they were at some point chosen by an elected body.
- hunterpayne 7mo ago
  Not sure how you think this will improve things. None of these people are elected. They likely got these positions by doing political favors. They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate. They are even more likely to make decisions based upon ideology instead of practical quality of life considerations. Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few. And that's the last thing the UK needs right now.
  - dotancohen 7mo ago
    You argue that a lot of things are likely. Why don't you take the time to check instead of slander?
  - Nursie 7mo ago
    > They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate. Not compared to the hereditary peers. In theory these people have proved themselves useful in some way and bring expertise to the upper chamber, rather than just being born in the right family. In practice there is some of that and some political cronyism. > Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few. That is exactly what hereditary peerage is. The few, by definition. The aristocracy.
    - t43562 7mo ago
      Being out of touch with the electorate is the thing they have as a feature over the house of commons. i.e. they're not trying to win the next election. They're also not there because of the favours they've done existing politicians. I don't think this is "great" but it does make me wonder if the people who want an end to herditary peers are really going to like what they get.
seanhunter 7mo ago
The Lords doesn’t actually have the power to veto bills thanks to the Parliament act. They also have a principle of ultimate legislative priority under which they defer to the commons in matters where the commons puts its foot down. They generally act as a revising body rather than outright attempting to defy the commons. > Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 it is possible for a bill to be presented for Royal Assent without the agreement of the House of Lords, provided that certain conditions are met. This change was seen by some as a departure from Dicey’s notion of sovereignty conferred upon a tripartite body. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10377/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
- kitd 7mo ago
  On the other hand, the process of having Commons legislation rejected by the Lords, then amended and sent back can take almost a year. A government looking to push its legislative programme in a single parliament may choose to remove the most controversial elements in return for an easier passage through the Lords. In this way, just the threat of Lords scrutiny can be enough to moderate the output of the Commons.
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    If the Lords can’t veto bills, why does their rejection matter?
DrScientist 7mo ago
The idea of a second chamber is not controversial. The argument is how you populate it. Elected - you have the problem of two chambers claiming legitimacy and potential deadlock, and also the problem of potentially having the same short term view as the other elected chamber. Appointed - who gets to appoint, on what criteria, who are they beholden to ( ideally unsackable once appointed - I want them to feel free to say what they really think ). Inherited - Very unlikely to represent the population. No quality filter. Potentially a culture of service built up - and free to say what they think. Random. - More likely to represent the population. No quality filter. You can obviously have a mix of all or any of the above. In my view, the ideal second chamber would be full of people of experience, who are beholden to nobody (unsackable), that represented a broad range of views, with a culture of service. I'm against a fully elected second house - as that's not really adding anything different to the first house. Appointed has worked quite well in the past, but it has become more and more abused recently as the elected politicians have two much control. It's tricky - perhaps some sort of mix.
- WickyNilliams 7mo ago
  Abused is probably an understatement. The Tories made some extremely questionable and bizarre appointments in their recent terms. We have the son of Russian oligarch sitting there! Inexplicable advisors whose appointment is a mystery even after FOIA requests. And extreme partisans like Jacob Rees Mogg and Priti Patel. Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used.
  - DrScientist 7mo ago
    > Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used. You'd get party political trading - we will vote for your pick if you vote for our pick - but perhaps it will help at the margins - the obviously embarrassing would be harder to squeeze through. The problem is the current process relied a bit too much on people being trustworthy - as you say that's kinda fallen away recently - and obviously the election of Trump show how dangerous it is for a process to rely on people being decent and not abuse the trust. Which is a shame as trusting people gives people the leeway to do the right thing. In terms of JRM or Patel - while they are not my cup of tea, I think there is value in senior politicians becoming members of the Lords almost by default ( like senior judges or religious leaders ) - as to some extent it does reflect what people have voted for in the past and they have valuable experience. However perhaps it's too early in their cases. An age limit has been talked about - but normally in terms of upper age - I wonder if it wouldn't be better as an age threshold - you have to have retired and be no longer 'on the make'. Sure that means no young people in the second chamber - but ultimately being representative is the commons role, the second chamber is for experienced people to tell the commons not to be hasty and do more work.

lo_zamoyski 7mo ago

> meet regularly to converse and debate Senators play a similar role. Their aim is heavily weighted toward oversight and advisory. Gov’t in general is weighted in that direction, because governments govern which is mainly about being a kind of referee, maintaining the social order, and aiding human beings in attaining their end as human beings through legislation. Without this function, we have activity with little reflection spurred by politicians pandering to the mob.

jjmarr 7mo ago

The purpose of an assembly is to reflect the actual distribution of power in society, not what we'd like it to be. If interest groups do not feel represented by the system, they will destroy it.

fy20 7mo ago

> these nobles have lost their inherent power The nobles were the land owners, the business owners, the OG entrepreneurs, they were educated, and their children would grow up to be the same. Historically the system made sense. But the last 150 years or so have basically taken their power away. A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much.

telesilla 7mo ago
Because 150 years ago the labour to keep the estate running was very cheap. Now that labour is expensive, it costs more in maintenance than the property is worth, unless it's highly productive land. Reminds me of the joke, how to make a thousand dollars: buy a million dollar boat.
- theshrike79 7mo ago
  Downton Abbey played on this, they had to let people film a movie in their home just so that they could afford to fix the leaky roof =)
- Ekaros 7mo ago
  On other side my guess is also that net labour productivity of land has dropped significantly. What I mean that same amount of farm land does not produce same amount of excess labour buying power. So even if productivity itself for farming has risen massively. The amount of labour that you can buy with produced production has plummeted.
tasuki 7mo ago
> A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much. Entire village? How's that work? What can the new owner do with the village? I imagine the inhabitants aren't enslaved?

DougN7 7mo ago

My father-in-law always liked to see an exact number of democrats and republicans in congress, or congress held by one and the senate the other, for exactly this reason. With deadlock they can’t screw things up more. I’m not sure I disagree.

cthalupa 7mo ago
Congress has had one of the lowest approval ratings of anything in government for a long time now because it doesn't get things done. Most Americans are quite unhappy with Congressional deadlock being the norm. It's also directly lead to the continued rise of the powers of the unitary executive - the EO that have become the norm in the 2000s are in large part because Congress has largely voided all responsibility for legislating.
- troad 7mo ago
  Congress passes tons of laws - just not on subjects on which the country is divided. Is that not a feature? Other systems require 50% + 1 to radically remake the entire country. Would that be better? Or worse? Imagine if <insert your most hated President> were Prime Minister instead, and had control of a truly sovereign Parliament with virtually no guardrails at all. Better or worse? EOs are a problem, but SCOTUS is walking at least some of that back in subtle ways, such as the end of Chevron deference. (Not that you'd get any of this from the media, who desperately want SCOTUS to devolve into the media-friendly horse race they've imposed upon all of the rest of politics.) Congress isn't supposed to decide on social questions. Society is. Congress is meant to represent it. A divided Congress is accurately representing a divided country.

ifwinterco 7mo ago

That particular group of nobles have lost their power, we just now have a different group that are not as obvious. The Iron Law of Oligarchy