6 ms·

Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords? The elites don't control enough of the government?

by iopq 12y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
> Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords Why would the House of Lords stop existing? Not changing things is a tradition.
- iopq 12y ago
  Because it's appointed elites deciding how the government should be run?
  - inclemnet 12y ago
    The standard argument is that it turns out appointed elites doing this works fairly well (they quite often block bad legislation), in principle partly because they don't have to pander directly to the electorate. I don't think it's an optimal system, but I can't deny it does have some advantages of this sort. The concern with changing it is that you could simply make things worse, even if on the surface more meritocratic. For instance, if it just ended up filled with the same career politicians as the commons and just agreed with everything they said. Of course it could end up better as well, in principle, but I'm not sure the government could be trusted to implement things that way.
    - calgoo 12y ago
      Well, at least they could rename them!!!! House of Lords really sounds like they are supposed to be above everyone else. And while you are at it, remove commons as well, as it sounds really degrading. Suggestions for new names anyone?
      - coherentpony 12y ago
        There's already a term, and we (the UK) uses it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house Edit: And the Commons is called the Lower House<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_house> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_house>. In a parliamentary system, the lower house actually has more power.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 12y ago
    You could call them appointed elites, or you could call them a distinguished technocracy, many of whom are not career politicians, but instead respected scientists, military officers, artists, composers, former heads of public bodies, business leaders, sportspeople etc. They bring an insight to government that many politicians cannot. When you look at it from that angle I think it makes a lot of sense and is actually rather progressive.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      respected scientists, artists, composers I can't actually think of anyone in that category in the Lords. There's Doreen Lawrence, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, though. I do wonder how she gets on with Lord Blair.
      - chrisseaton 12y ago
        Surprise yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_House_of_Lords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_House_of_Lords. There's at least two composers on there I recognise, I can't actually see artists at the moment, but there are several people from the art world, and several scientists. Also: people from human rights organisations, nature conservation organisations, farmers, medics, bishops, atheists, lawyers, spies, bankers, people who work in child protection, housing for low income people, people from elite sports, people from popular sports, social workers, and lots more people without the notes to immediately say what they do. (Yes there's also quite a lot of retired career politicians).
        arethuza 12y ago
        I'm never been a Lib Dem voter but I can hardly grudge the likes of Paddy Ashdown a place in the House of Lords. Marine, SBS, MI6, parliament, helping sort out Bosnia... quite an incredible CV.
      - estel 12y ago
        > I can't actually think of anyone in that category in the Lords. The two that immediately spring to mind are Lord Robert Winston and Lord Andrew Lloyd-Webber.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
    > Because it's appointed elites deciding how the government should be run? Yes, and? I agree; but you asked "Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords?" - why would that make the House of Lords vanish? The point that I am making is that the British establishment has a very strong bias in favour of the status quo; i.e against change. Especially change that doesn't benefit them. Something that has existed for centuries doesn't just stop existing even if you and I don't like it. Adhering to tradition is a tradition. Something has to happen to make it stop, and that thing has to be strong enough to overcome the establishment's inertia.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
pjc50 12y ago
Sadly there have been times recently, especially under the Blair government, when the Lords stopped the Commons for doing illiberal things. Including watering down some of the previous surveillance bills. Obviously it's a system that nobody would design, but the fact that they're still there is more of a symptom of inegalitarianism running deep than a cause of it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords? The elites don't control enough of the government?

by iopq 12y ago

Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords? The elites don't control enough of the government?

> Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords Why would the House of Lords stop existing? Not changing things is a tradition.

iopq 12y ago
Because it's appointed elites deciding how the government should be run?
- inclemnet 12y ago
  The standard argument is that it turns out appointed elites doing this works fairly well (they quite often block bad legislation), in principle partly because they don't have to pander directly to the electorate. I don't think it's an optimal system, but I can't deny it does have some advantages of this sort. The concern with changing it is that you could simply make things worse, even if on the surface more meritocratic. For instance, if it just ended up filled with the same career politicians as the commons and just agreed with everything they said. Of course it could end up better as well, in principle, but I'm not sure the government could be trusted to implement things that way.
  - calgoo 12y ago
    Well, at least they could rename them!!!! House of Lords really sounds like they are supposed to be above everyone else. And while you are at it, remove commons as well, as it sounds really degrading. Suggestions for new names anyone?
    - coherentpony 12y ago
      There's already a term, and we (the UK) uses it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house Edit: And the Commons is called the Lower House<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_house> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_house>. In a parliamentary system, the lower house actually has more power.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- chrisseaton 12y ago
  You could call them appointed elites, or you could call them a distinguished technocracy, many of whom are not career politicians, but instead respected scientists, military officers, artists, composers, former heads of public bodies, business leaders, sportspeople etc. They bring an insight to government that many politicians cannot. When you look at it from that angle I think it makes a lot of sense and is actually rather progressive.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    respected scientists, artists, composers I can't actually think of anyone in that category in the Lords. There's Doreen Lawrence, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, though. I do wonder how she gets on with Lord Blair.
    - chrisseaton 12y ago
      Surprise yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_House_of_Lords http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_House_of_Lords. There's at least two composers on there I recognise, I can't actually see artists at the moment, but there are several people from the art world, and several scientists. Also: people from human rights organisations, nature conservation organisations, farmers, medics, bishops, atheists, lawyers, spies, bankers, people who work in child protection, housing for low income people, people from elite sports, people from popular sports, social workers, and lots more people without the notes to immediately say what they do. (Yes there's also quite a lot of retired career politicians).
      - arethuza 12y ago
        I'm never been a Lib Dem voter but I can hardly grudge the likes of Paddy Ashdown a place in the House of Lords. Marine, SBS, MI6, parliament, helping sort out Bosnia... quite an incredible CV.
    - estel 12y ago
      > I can't actually think of anyone in that category in the Lords. The two that immediately spring to mind are Lord Robert Winston and Lord Andrew Lloyd-Webber.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  > Because it's appointed elites deciding how the government should be run? Yes, and? I agree; but you asked "Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords?" - why would that make the House of Lords vanish? The point that I am making is that the British establishment has a very strong bias in favour of the status quo; i.e against change. Especially change that doesn't benefit them. Something that has existed for centuries doesn't just stop existing even if you and I don't like it. Adhering to tradition is a tradition. Something has to happen to make it stop, and that thing has to be strong enough to overcome the establishment's inertia.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

pjc50 12y ago

Sadly there have been times recently, especially under the Blair government, when the Lords stopped the Commons for doing illiberal things. Including watering down some of the previous surveillance bills. Obviously it's a system that nobody would design, but the fact that they're still there is more of a symptom of inegalitarianism running deep than a cause of it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]