Labour unveil plans to abolish the House of Lords
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- With strikes, the economy, and migration the issues currently dominating political conversation, Labour today tried to throw another into the mix - unveiling a blueprint for constitutional reform which includes the abolition of the House of Lords and devolving more power from Westminster.
(Subscribe: bit.ly/C4_News...)
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the plan, drawn up by former PM Gordon Brown, would 'unbind' Britain from a centre that 'hasn't delivered' - but will it actually win over any voters?
-----------------------
Follow us on Instagram - / channel4news
If labour wants to make the UK more democratic, why aren't they talking about abolishing first-past-the-post?
Because they would lose seats.
Sadly that's unrealistic because neither party would benefit and so it'll never happen.
I think the intention is that the house of lords will be elected by PR. That sets the groundwork to finish the job.
Exactly abolishing FPTP would be proper democracy , all they are doing by removing lords is having more bums on seats for know-nothing politicians. The day labour or the tories abolish first past the post will mark the end of the two party menu. They just won't do it.
They need those seats pal
This would probably be a good thing if the House of Lords wasn't actually functioning properly at the moment; like when it voted against the Government's bill that would allow suspicion-less stop and search at protests by police.
Well said!
Which actually would be a good thing or you may be a fan of complete lawlessness.
Problem is because the lords are unelected, they have very limited powers to halt anything the government wants to push through.
They plan to replace with an elected house
@@Totalinternalreflection Which wouldn't be as effective, I don't think. The benefits of the house of lords at the moment is that they don't need to worry about "electable" issues and can bring light to more broad topics within parliament. If they replace it with an elected house, then they just turn into a weaker version of the house of commons where only "electable" issues ever get discussed.
"Broken democracy? Let's go for the House of Lords, that's an easy one.
But we won't do anything about FPTP. Because we don't want a real democracy, that might hurt us."
Rome wasn't built in a day the proposals involve devolution of power
@@SlowhandGreg The problem is, if they don't get to grips with FPTP, and then the tories win a majority say in 7 or 12 years' time, we're back to square 1. This could be the only chance for a generation. Or more.
@@SlowhandGreg
It's been much more than a day though, unfortunately.
The current dog turd first past the post system has been used since the 1950s. Yes, almost 70 years of it, and not a thing has changed. People seem to forget, that worked in the 1950s because it was right after the second world war, and it was necessary for a single party to call the shots, get the job done and and get the economy rolling. Things have moved on since then, but we're still using the same system.
When cassette tapes first came about, it was great, and it was necessary. It didn't hang about and ceased to exist a long time ago before today. Why? Because it's out of date and no longer suitable. It was superseded by something better. And let me tell you, there are much better systems than first past the post. Many flourishing countries have coalition governments, semi-direct democracy is a thing, and much more. First past the post is like a historical artefact Magic 8 Ball that we've decided is suitable for directing how the country runs, but only happens to have two sides to it. It's simply anachronistic.
FPTP is real democracy, the problem is money and ignorant voters who think we're a two party system.
That will never change as FPTP means that labour at worst will only ever come in second behind the Torys and ensure no other party is ever able to get enough votes to replace them.
Rather have the Lords around, given they have protected us from some really authoritarian laws that the Tories have tried putting through. Labour should focus on the people, not the Lords who will stop them from ruining the country more than what it is.
Yes being unelected magically means you are more effective at that.
@@Krytern see you don't understand a thing about the Lords and their history. The process of people getting in, yes it should be changed, but what they do for the country should not be ignored. Democracy won't fix the problems at hand if there are no rules or regulations, just look at Boris for an example of modern day democracy.
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
@@local9your statement is pointless. You literally just described what labour wants to do. Have an elected chamber. You're acting as if he's going to throw the entire concept out of the window. No? You just agreed with labour. That they need to be elected that's all. He doesn't want it to be the current system which is an undemocratic way. They get to send back bills for amendment while we have no opinion at all? Anyone representing people need to be voted in and challenged regularly. Lords are the complete opposite you could remain a lord for all your life even if your views are extreme while not being challenged by anyone. Labour just wants a elected 2nd chamber basically like America who fought to stay away from the monarchy.
Don't abolish the upper chamber, but get rid of the lords. So far they're heavily imbalanced, it's essentially a private members club.
If the house of Lords hasn't done anything along with rest of parliament for the ordinary people, the country is rank with poverty and nearly no public services.
To be honest, mate. The House of Lords has blocked ridiculous bills MPs put through like the bill that would have put protestors in the same bracket as terrorists.
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
@@Ryanlexz Removing the unelected house of lords is a dictatorship? Surely it gives the power to the government elected and not give a second vote that can stop any policy getting through based on unelected "lords"
@@Ryanlexz they think they need radical ideas to capture the voting base they lost. The problem is, this isn’t radical, just stupid.
I have got to say that even the poorest in this country are a lot better off than they might believe. The problem is housing, because the elite want an overinflated housing market as it keeps them in control. I’m from Bermondsey in London, used to be quite cheap even for London. Nowadays the 3 bed flat I grew up in which would be about £600 a month is 1800 a month and up because the market demands higher prices.
Government could quite easily intervene on housing prices, but they get under the table deals from their mates
The idea of the problem comes from the house of lords is crazy.
If you watch the lords for 1 hour, you see people act like humans. Watch the commons and you will see children who should be questioned about their bank account.
Indeed
That's a small slice of the Lords, it's also stuffed with more cronies than the Commons.
I agree it has a purpose, which is why Starmer wants to purge it, like he's purging Labour.
It should be much smaller, but comprised of peer appointed experts. Bodies such as the CBI, TUC, BMC, RCN, scientists, senior military....
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
I don't think they should abolish it or make it democratic
I think they should reform it
The Monarch not the ruling government would appoint life members to the lords while keeping a smaller amount of Hereditary lords as well as Lords Spiritual and Temporal
The Monarch should instead appoint people who have great expertise and experience in many fields to act as the voice of experts.
Leading scientists, economists, experts in immigration and education, in health and in business therefore the parliament could be comprised of a democracy and meritocracy.
The Lords being a sort of legislative version of the Order of Merit or Order of the Companions of Honor
Give them some more power but still less than the commons and that's that.
The House of Lords should be where experts on a given topic, scrutinise proposed legislation.
It is hypothetically, but in practice, it's people who donated money to the government or former Ministers of State and they don't even show up.
I don't think it necessarily needs to be elected by the public, but they need to be proposed based on what expertise they can bring to the chamber and confirmed by maybe, a cross-party committee.
It's the House of Patronage go ask Lord Ledvedev of Siberia
The members of the house of lords should be Religious and Community leaders selected by their said communities. As for so called "specialists" that is why they set up select committees, to hear the views of of "specialists".
It absolutely cannot and MUST NOT be elected. Simple fact of life: Subject matter experts are not electable people. They don't have the charisma, the charm, or frankly the energy to do all the campaigning and win an election.
The HoL membership should be determined by the entire house voting to present _nominees_ to the Commons to join their own ranks, and those nominees must fulfill certain criteria, such as having expertise the house is presently lacking (due to death, retirement, new tech, etc). Those nominees should then be voted on by the Commons to approve/deny their membership of the Lords.
@@icedreamer9629 We do not need elected "experts" that is what select committees are for. If you want a true and fair, egalitarian democracy then all branches of the legesture MUST be elected. If you want a selective plutocratic elitist style democracy that serves the middle classes and above then your idea is perfect. And if you belive that the current lords if full of "experts" using their expertise to scrutinise bills then you will belive anything. It is mostly full of powerful millionaire plutocrats that know very little about anything except how to make money.
How can we call ourselves a democracy when 800 + non elected can overrule a government, its jobs for the boys (and girls).
The House of Lords debates are so much better than in the Commons
I’d have to agree.
Commons debates are just each side trying to discredit the other.
Nothing ever gets properly discussed!
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
@@Ryanlexz because you don't vote for the house of lords. The house of lords are a dictatorship organisation and established to be controlled by Queen and king. He wants to make it similar to US which is house of representatives or the senate. He wants it to become a chamber where u do have a say in it. House of lords however elect eachother. So idk why you want to keep that
@@gman8796 UK is not a republic! How labour party gonna do that? also there no way u can remove the house of lords without the royal family approval. No way UK can become USA it impossible
@@Ryanlexz exactly lol who the fk wants an anti democratic system. Idk why people are obsessed with the whole king and queen stuff in 2022. I would prefer a democratic system where we elect all people in power or have atleast some say in it. House of lords literally don't. They're anti democratic get rid of them i say too
Good luck to him. It took the last labour government years just to get rid of hereditary peers. Think Starmer is forgetting that they can currently vote against these proposals.
True. However, last time the conservatives were not as despised. With the current climate anything can be pushed and it will get accepted as long as the conservatives go.
They can't vote against things that are in a manifesto
In fairness if Labour promise it in their manifesto and win a majority in the commons the parliament act and historical convention means their legislation will have to get through eventually
Can house lords take over from the commons.
I`d think that the Lords act as a check and balance to the Commons.. People have the power to elect the MPs who choose the PM, but when it comes to bills most people can`t do anything about it except to plead to their MP that they vote against it. I think that they should not try to abolish the Lords. They need a force that forest them to reflect on what they do.
This is the type of change people need.
Edit- can Tories stop commenting and Corbyn fan boys do the same. I’m not interested in the opinions of either groups.
😂😂😂
@Dominion Philosophyoh do shut up you silly Tory Boy 🙄
@@StokieStokie oh look a Farage lover 🤣🤣🤣
@Cosmo || Anime Analyst what?
@@MishMash22 how would this fix the British economy?
The House of Lords is, and always has been, an important check on the House of Commons and has prevented bills like the stop and search bill. Let us not forget that it's powers are limtted. It is not broken, so do not fix it. I know it is not perfect and i do not agree with everything it has done, but making it an elected body is not the answer and I doubt it will change much.
Yes, the abolition of the House of Lords was in the Labour Party's 1912 manifesto and in many since. As soon as they get in power they then send their own to the HoL (e.g. Alistair Darling) They talk a good game.
Yeah, and in Starmers election statements for Lsbour Leader he said he would have a second Referendum for staying or leaving the EU. Now not interested... I no longer trust the man. Go back on one important policy and what's left! I eont be voting Labour until the man's gone!
@@seang2700 Yes I know, I voted in both, what's your point or are you out to just splitting hairs! .
@@seang2700 Thanks, admiral then that it has always been the principled policy of the SNP to not send anyone to the House of Lords
And they didn't win in 1912, did they? To my knowledge, no Labour manifesto after 1935 and prior to 1983, nor any Labour manifesto after '83, has called for abolishing the House of Lords. (And no, calls for "reform" in '97 or vague threats to the Lords not to get in the way in '45 don't count as promising abolition.)
You may think they should've, but the fact is they didn't; you may find them feckless on this issue, but that hardly makes them deceitful. Labour has never won a majority of seats in the Commons while running on abolishing the Lords. If I'm factually wrong on this, feel free to point out any example to the contrary. But they quite clearly *didn't* talk a good game on this, and you can't break promises you didn't make.
If they actually include abolition in their next manifesto and win a majority, I have no reason to expect that they wouldn't try to go through with it.
@@seang2700 it's a shame not a single party in the UK respected the "Vow" made to the Scottish people.
It's a red herring from an opportunist that never believed in democracy anyway. Remember the referendum. Parliament needs reform. Ordinary people should be called up to moderate it - like jury service, if you please.
Simple way to fix HoL and HoC. Force them to work from home, saving money on the building upkeep. No longer can claim pay just for turning up, have to clock in and clock out like the serfs.
Do away with personal expenses. None of us get it in our jobs, why are we paying for the Gov to have them. If it’s related to their office, it’s slightly different, as in they do need certain foods for obvious reasons. no buying 100 Apple iMacs because you can flog ‘em off later.
No more donations from private companies unless it is split among the districts, and if the business is solely in that district they receive the lion’s share.
The bars in parliament are to be ripped out or entirely funded by an external company, like a donation. MPs should be made to take sobriety tests and any who fail are stripped of their job immediately, no pay.
No more legacy wages for MPs and Lords.
No second homes, should have to live in their constituency. (As if that’s a big ask -.-)
HMU for more ideas 😂😂😂😂
Unpopular opinion, in the corrupt reign of Tory government, house of lords were the voice of reason
Yet unelected. Unforgiveable in a democracy.
Ironic that the same demagogues who sold that the "undemocratic unelected bureaucrats of the EU" were stopping the UK from being a paradise didn't peep when even UK's own undemocratic establishment pushed them back on their exploitative greed and incompetence.
Both sides are one of the same. Just watch them in HoP. Their all meant to be the face of our country but like children with BOOOOO YEAHHHHH its embrassing and such a cringe. Thing is there are rich billionaire foriegn lobbyists who buy out certain members in government and not just ours but every western governement. Its a much bigger problem and something on a much bigger scale needs to happen to tackle this but we wont see it in our life time.
That's a function of the house but not of the actual Lords themselves. In a country that's minority Christian and almost more people are atheist the Church should not automatically get seats in the House of Lords. Particularly not in light of the Equality Act or how they are responsible for commenting on Law yet the church makes its own decisions on things like sexual abuse. The HOL should be representative of wider society - councillors, experts from their field and not party donors. No one should have the right to inherit the title.
@@rhobatbrynjones7374 rubbish
The new elected chambers could be in geographical areas and mean an expansion of local government and local democracy. Not just one elected second chamber which would doubtless fall victim to what the first chamber falls victim to already, cronyism, corruption, kissing Tories etc. If Starmer intends to do a consultation, can he make sure he doesn't 'fix' the questions so that they restrict the feedback.
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
I am from the US and I will tell you that a Senate would GUARANTEE that nothing gets done!
Why bring in replacing or abolishing the House of Lords at this time? It’s not a public priority and is a distraction from any plans to improve the public welfare. Labour should have just left that out. Its leadership won’t talk about rejoining the single market, let alone the EU, something that would significantly improve the UK’s economy. Its leadership is maddening.
The Wef need them out of the way 👍
It's almost as if the government has many MPs so they can do more than one thing at once. Its almost as if only focusing on one problem at a time would get hardly anything done. How weird.
No to abolishing the House of Lords. Those who are unelected speak from the heart, not worrying about their next campaign. Wake up UK.
But it doesn't represent the majority opinion of the country, and the general public have absolutely no control over it! Literally the opposite of a democracy!
@@AnsnduznYes and?
@ab-fi6ks the government should be representative of the people. Do you not agree? The house of lords flies in the face of that. If those in power were only ever elected by the people, that gives motivation to act according the best interests of the people.
The one thing the UK doesn’t need at the moment is more politicians. It needs the politicians we have to communicate, work together and do what’s best for the country, not the party. Why can’t they leave the House of Lords alone to safeguard UK people from the party dictatorships
Indeed!
1:40 - I hate this "Logic" people apply to politics... like, "our situation is terrible because of the policies that currently exist, but we don't trust the politicians not in power to make a change, so we'll continue to elect the politicians who are already in power who are actively preventing change." When the situation is getting worse and you keep doing the same thing, what do you _expect_ to happen?
Remember when Boris met the Russian Spy off the record in Italy and not long after he was made a Lord 💁🏼♂️
As if all Labour Lords are squeaky clean. And the look at the non-entities that get appointed. Next up will be that most useless of speakers of the HoC who simply enables deflection by the PM such that PMQ is really PM not answering questions and getting away with it.
Boris isn't a lord
Labour party is desperate yo! Lost election since 2010. Now they want to get rid of the British democracy system. Bruh! 😂😂
Maybe someone should tell Kier that all the problems recently have been at Government level and the House of Lords have had no part in it?
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
@@Ryanlexz hey it's you copying pasting the same bs stuff?
@@gman8796 labour are so desperate yo! Lost popular vote since 2010 but now they acting like trump tryna change and attack democracy system 😂
@@Ryanlexz seek professional help immediately
@@Mike_5 why u mad?? 😂😂
I can see why that’s a good idea
You clearly haven't thought about it for more than 5 seconds nor looked into the nature and intellect present in their debates relative to any other second chamber in any other government... anywhere.
Labour Party : buggered if they do , Buggered if they dont :|
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
Learn from America's mistakes. More Democracy doesn't automatically mean better government.
Instead of having a Senate of elected officials, the UK should think about having a meritocracy.
I would love to replace the U.S senate with doctors, economists, engineers, successful business owners, experienced farmers and blue collar workers. in equal proportion, and appointed by the state's, instead of the professional politicians and lawyers we have now that are elected.
What is coming across is that the Labour Party is willing, capable and demanding to undo the damage the Conservatives have inflicted on our nation for nearly 13 years. GENERAL ELECTION - NOW!!!
All jokes aside, when is the next election as I’m turning out to vote after regretting not voting previous times
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 in two years time. The Tories will not want to face the music until then and have the numbers to survive. Labour can bleat all it wants about appointing a fourth PM without an election. But remember May and Johnson did call elections to give themselves mandates, in just electoral terms May failed and Johnson succeeded. Brown was also appointed but, hiding behind the idea of fixed term Parliaments, did not call one until he had to.
Labour will not fix anything. They’re just diet Tory
If people truly believe in not being ruled by unelected bureaucrats, it's a no brainer.
First this, then proportional representation.
how about at the same time abolishing anyone who went to private school from ever being an MP? maybe make 20 years working a real job and paying full tax for 20 years a minimum?
Nothing wrong with private school.Dumbing down education is not working. Never will.
why? stupid
So in ur opinion if ur parents decided to send u to a private school when u were a young kid u should lose ur basic rights to stand for election no matter how educated or well intentioned u are
@@maxmcpetrie Aye, he's an idiot.
So you prevent University students who studied things properly too
Radical Idea: A second house of parliment should be selected RANDOMLY. Have wards/counties/councils get an allotment of candidates that they nominate. Candidates must meet certain requirements and take challenging civil service exam. Across the UK these candidate lists could add up to tens of thousands, but only 200 are in the chamber. Every year new members selected at random from the list, and they stay for a single 10 year term.
Why random? No political parties, no campaigning, no financial donations, hyper-local selection process without the debasement of a political campaign that turns many people off.
Greek style, like it!
Ah, more arbitrary know-nothings flitting in and fiddling with the law, willy-nilly? You really do understand checks and balances on power, via the separation of institutions, don't you? I'd rather have a strictly hereditary, independent judiciary fine-combing through all the devils-in-the-details of measures the sly Commons try to ram through, without fear or favour or political pressure. And I wouldn't give officious mega-council stooges another ounce of "regulatory" power, personally. Also, more voting by the electorate puts more blood on our hands... when they perpetrate their dastardly deeds.
@@laurisafine7932 Literally nothing you say here addresses sortition. Did you read the comment you replied to?
Two had been desperate for power. I remember another Labour leader saying this and then he joined the House of Lords
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
@@Ryanlexz Spam = cringe...
@@artistbervucci1716 labour party mad they can't win election since 2010 😂😂
What there should be is three houses.
The house of commons - the lower house, that deals with the day to day of the issues.
The house of nations - The middle house; A proportionally represented, democratically elected house that reflects the issues of the nations and the bills sent from the House of Commons.
The house of lords - The high house, a reformed, small sized, non elected house where after the bill has passed both houses, the lords scrutinise the bill for any constitutional violations. The House of Lords Appointment Commission must have the power to keep potential appointments relegated to it and not at the whims of any Prime Minister.
Oops, accidentally invented the american system.
House
Senate
Supreme Court
Guess after 250 years you guys still can't keep up
Sounds like bicameralism with extra steps.
You're along the right lines but the middle house is unnecessary and nonsensical. Would drastically drag out the law-making process which is long enough as is.
There is nothing wrong with the lords itself beyond the method by which lords are appointed (through the PM which is stupid).
@@JeffersonLeeEng Indeed - at this point, the house of lords would be just the same as the supreme court (looking over some constitutional loops and mistakes). Which should be elected (the supreme court, I mean)...
The House of Lords is an anathema in this age of so-called democracy. A slap in the face of the ordinary working person.
BS. Starmer says people are untrusting of politicians, then states he's going to make even MORE of them.
IMO the upper house should be filled with non-politicians. Let's have experts in multiple fields appointed; engineers, academics, scientists, doctors, manufacturers, transport specialists, senior officers from police & armed forces.
Have each one sit for five years only, to ensure a continual fresh outlook & prevent the forming of long lived, cosy alliances.
One thing I DON'T want is yet more 'professional politicians' with their degrees in PPE & eyes on financially rewarding directorships.
So is being a subject of a racist and paedophile family. Try explaining that to the Russians or Chinese.
@@GARDENER42 absolutely agree, also I would add his plan is to not have centralised power in Whitehall but instead have this central power with the devolved administrations. You are just making 3 Whitehall in different areas. Give these powers to councils instead
Delusional, the lords are the only reason the government can't lock you up for breathing. without someone to oppose government it would be draconian times in the UK my friend
@@mrsillywalk Which racists & paedophile families might those be?
IIRC that's more of a local government & racial issue than one in the HoL
I suspect next it'll be the monarchy that's abolished.
Do NOT look to the US as an example of anything worth emulating
Not necessarily true but i will say that unelected positions of power are necessary for functional society
You have a monarch and hereditary political offices. Please, spare us the condescension.
Many countries have monarch and hereditary political offices, but them better than USA and other Republic.
Leveling up the nation and region. I remember Boris Johnson using that slogan and many other slogans. Was it another slogan used by the Brexiteers? What does it mean? People actually voted for simple phrases that does not say anything. It does not state anything specific. But people voted for it, simple and ambiguous slogans. No wonder the British people got nothing when they voted overwhelmingly for Boris Johnson in 2016.
I hope Keira Starmer and Labour can help the UK. Trade in the UK needs to increase. Trade increases when the British people working in their respective field comes with new and innovative ideas that enhance the benefits of their product or service so other people would want to buy more. The governments cannot do this. I am alarmed when Keira Starmer supported by Gordon Brown claims that Labour will "grow the economy." The Communist Party of the Soviet Union planned out the Russian economy. It did not work very well. In a free-market economy it is the individuals within the market that come up with new ideas that increase trade or "grow the economy." It seems Labour still believe that a command economy or planned economy works more effectively.
Ian Murray MP and the Labour Party wants to do away with appointing members in the House of Lords, and have them elected just like the House of Commons. The House of Commons are elected by the people. The Commons create new laws or remove old laws. The House of Lords are appointed by the Prime Minister. Their members are people with experience in business, science, or government. The purpose of this House is to have members with proven experience and expertise in specific fields who can evaluate laws proposed by the House of Commons. The MPs in the House of Commons are elected by popular vote and do not necessarily have specific knowledge nor experience to create law in a specific field. MPs must do what is popular, not what make sense, or they may not get reelected. So the appointment for the House of Lords help balance out the political reality of being elected. As far as the US Senate is concerned the low number of representatives in the Senate is to due the historic establishment of the Institution. When the 13 independent colonies came together to form a unified nation state, states with low population did not want to join because in the House of Representatives each state's representation was determined by population. So densely populated states like New York got more representatives and more representation in the Federal Government. Likewise states like North Carolina with a sparse population had fewer representatives and less representation in the Federal Government. In the US Senate each state gets 2 representatives so sparsely populated states got equal representation in the Federal Government. As a result, small states were willing to join the union.
House of lords play a crucial part of safeguarding democracy.
I’d agree, but the PM could flood the HOL with as many life peers as he desires.
BS
Absolute poppycock!
Wot democracy?
bullshit its undemocratic, hereditary and life peerages are completely antithetical to what democracy is
If Labour is serious about change then this is what they should do. All just my opinions of course.
1. Establish an English parliament in London.
2. Move the UK parliament to Manchester
3. Get rid of the house of Lords
4. Devolve everything apart from foreign policy and defence to the 4 nations of the UK.
5. UK PM is FM of one of the 4 devolved nations on a 5 year rotating basis.
6. Every nation has power of veto over any foreign policy or military decisions.
7. Radically reform politics in the UK and establish an independent inquiry to fight corruption.
8. Nationalise all essential services including energy, ensuring the energy needs of the individual nations are met first before selling on international markets.
Good Luck with that. 😂😂😂
It was labour who destroyed the independent function of the lords by removing hereditary peers and making it more of a place where people owed their position to money or politics. The hereditary peers were beholden to nobody because they held their position from way back in history
"The politics of failure have failed, we need to make them work again." - Kodos
Unlimited immigration will really help community's Starmer.
The House of Lords could use improvements. But unelected bodies like the House of Lords and the Canadian Senate have far less power than the Houses of Commons and they are places of sober second thought.
But it is up to the British to decide how their government should be run.
To the House of Lords and all of its members, respectively:MPs, 1st ministers accordingly of U.K, Scotland, the EU, that voted for the exit, it is to refresh thy records and so as thy tablets respectively, wherein the EXIT, signified TRUTH in the Houses of the Parliament, the lords and all of its respective members, as the exit restores the trade practices and ties, reminds of its agreements that it has, that it continued to do, as attested in its yearly export and imports amongst the EU, the realm-sovereign, worldwide. Currently, trade practices and reports still account the significance and purpose of identification, registration, as well as documentation, and customs administration requirements. The EXIT is not removal of EU membership, it is strengthening its ties in businesses, exports, imports and trading standards and practices, wherein it is to reconcile the measures, per Health and sanitation procedures, details of filing, sorting as well as recognition of the efforts completed, in completion amongst MPs and respective jurisdictions as well as practices of quality and quantity management, it is to identify and further develop the standards through the exit, where it is founded and established businesses overseas/abroad and that it is to continue to regard the standards of excellence of the Conservatives, respective MPs, the Tories that accounts the inventories of trade practices, both domestically and overseas, as well as the lory drivers and its system, it is given issues and tests, yet waiting time has developed, since organization of TIME has improved, per Customs declaration, declarants and administration support and standards in filing and dispatch/logistics support and system, this pertains to Health Codes, designed for businesses, improvisation of transport sectors through the exit as well as the delivery of reports, attested by the Parliament, the House of Lords, and so as the Houses accordingly, as the purposes of restoration are to account, to restore, and distribute power and authority accordingly. SMEs..General practices/././././businesses development officers/Merchant declarations-supplies/suppliers support/Staff/Managers/Area/Regional/Area/Country/VP/EVP/C.O.O/C.E.O/ accounted reports and signatories of the board, association of trade union/association of health practitioners/medical Engineers/Civil/Electrical/Safety/Structural/Chemical/Geodetic/Computer/Physicist/Business/ENGRS, to account statistics/demographics:efficacy of the EXIT and BRICS for further growth, cooperation measures and standards/expertise both legal and businesses acumen. Respectively certain:/././././.RHD/G.M Industries. DON'T DELETE, this is IMPORTANT. Thank you.
After all do you want a king that can't even dress himself? I don't think so
We have a HoC speaker who cannot or will not do his job and he expects promotion to the HoL where he can continue to be useless.
All corruption and corruption is to the top level is who is going to steal more money. Corruption and corruption
No accountability-£300 a day- and an ermine cloak - they won’t go quietly.
Get the bailiffs in to move them!
Carry them out while they are asleep.
@@saxglend9439 it's all of the 🍺🍺🍺🍺 they knock back, nice work if you can get it ? go to work claim £300 a day and hit the bottle, then keel over and fell asleep, they won't go quiet the bastards will have to be carried out.
It’s £300 per session attended. Not per day.
@@tinfoilbottle5943
Per day !
The U.S senate is a good example of why it wont be a good plan. Have fun getting anything through when conservatives have a majority in the lords and labor in the commons. To quote Robin Archer on the Australian experience with senate composed of representatives of states:
"The third lesson concerns the effect of relying on conventions to limit the power of an elected upper house. The most dramatic example of this can be seen in the 1975 constitutional crisis, which brought down the Whitlam Labor government, despite the fact that it had just been reelected the previous year and still demonstrably commanded a majority in the House of Representatives. When the (conservative) Liberals and their allies, led by opposition leader Malcolm Fraser, acquired a majority in the Senate, they used their numbers to block the government’s budget. In the stand off that followed, the Governor-General - acting with what he said were his ‘reserve powers’ as the Queen’s Representative - dismissed the government - acting contrary to the advice of Prime Minister Whitlam and an express resolution of the House of Representatives - and called early elections, which, amidst great turmoil, the Fraser-led Liberals went on to win."
It was one AUSTRALIAN Labour prime minister who called Australias upper house
Unelected unrepresentative SWILL
Been hearing Labour say this since the 70s.
They've been saying this since the 1910s 😂😂
Since 1887, I got proves! :V
Only Gordon Brown could come up with the idea of getting rid of a group of experts in their fields who work for expenses only and replacing them with a bunch of non-experts that will milk the taxpayers for generations. And this while we all stare at humungous energy bills thinking, 'Look at this bill - I really want to abolish the House of Lords.'
Seems you have no idea what the lords actually are. They are mostly millionaire plutocrats that no very little about anything other than linguistics and how to make money for themselves. Aristocracy has no place in a democracy.
the people in the HOL arent experts FFS?!? they are donors to the tory party.
you seem to have this the wrong way around
@@lee9650 as opposed to the totally benevolent working class HoC members who never look out for themselves only.
What fucking experts lol
@@johnseppethe2nd2 What ever your point is you're going to have to enunciate it a little more clearly if you want it to get across.
Ironically, The Lords is the only part of parliament that is working properly now
He can first propose to constitute a panel which grants life peerages to actual experts and not just party donors.
Then they can reduce the lords membership say to 300 and introduce proper attendance.
Half of it can continue with the current composition. Hereditary and Life peers can be given 60 seats or so each and can decide among themselves who gets to be seated in lords for 6 years and the retire. The remaining 30 can be for the lords spiritual (representing even more religions) and the official posts of earl marshal and lord great chamberlain.
The other 150 can be chosen by the local councils of England and the devolved 3 government parliaments from among the life peers with a said amount of members in each specialty (arts, literature, health, defence etc).
The most important point should be that all Peers should renounce party membership and sit as crossbenchers
Ideally any elected second chamber would be elected for a longer term than the House of Commons and not all members would be up for election at the same time. IMO a set term of 8 to 10 years with elections for half the chamber every 4 to 5 years would work best. It’s really a best of both worlds solution in that you still have an elected chamber but it isn’t filled with members too focused on winning the next election.
currently 3 million quiid buys you a place in the house of lords even if your dads KGB surely that needs to stop
This is a good example of partisan reporting. First 2 minutes dedicated to presenting an issue, next 5 minutes dedicated to muddying the water with other issues, which have their proposed solutions too but those are not presented, then 2 minutes of someone clearly interested in supporting the house of lords, and the last 2 minutes of muddying the water some more with Scottish specific issues and a bit of badly delivered support at the end to make the argument seem very flimsy. It's incredible how the UK media, even after 17 years of the current party doing a really garbage job, still manages to spin it like somehow the alternative would still be worst. In normal countries, in 17 years you would get new parties by now, new options but no, you brits have tradition and you can only pick between 2 main parties and because one of them makes money for the owners of the news you consume, you end up picking the same turd.
I seem to remember another Labour Leader promising to abolsish the House of Lords back in the early 80's , now he's a lord , and he also promised to pull Britain out of the EU , and his wife was made a Euro MP
And his son.The family gravy train.
Don't worry plans have been made already,all the corrupt traitors in the UK have and are being removed & replaced where necessary.
Sources?
@@stellar_x Neil Kinnock former Labour leader and now a Lord with a life peerage
Great idea. Next the monarchy.
Thy're lying, telling you what you want to hear, Labour have no intentions of scrapping the Lords, last time they swelled them with labour peers.
@@rozzgrey801
Sounds a bit conspiracy theoryish.
Anyhows I'm from Australia where we WILL get rid of the monarchy eventually.
How would getting rid of the monarchy help?
The House of Lords is important in UK parliament they make the government in balance. The House of Lords should not be politicized. Look what happens to many upper chamber that being politicized. Stopping Bills and Laws.
They are not tackling political reform they are simply tickling it. The abolition of the House of Lords is a most certainly welcome proposal. However, if Labour really want to create an united United Kingdom, then they should really be proposing that the House of Commons becomes the English Parliament (a devolved Government for England) and the House of Lords becomes an elected body that is as Labour have sort of mentioned a Council of the United Kingdom with equal representation from each country of the UK. Failure to give England its own Government and not reform the House of Commons will just continue to emphasise that England is in control and will never relinquish this. Just abolishing/replacing the House of Lords is NOT enough.
It's a step forward though, drastic reform rarely goes well so smaller steps like this are always welcome
Interesting concept I must say.
If the house of lords was abolished parliament would rain down hellfire on us, they would not replace it with something better it would be an outright tyrannical dictatorship with powers that even China would look twice at
Put them all on minimum wage!
Don't, "throw the baby out eith the bathwater". There are some excellent people in the House of Lords who have expertise. Equally. The House of Lords has saved Labour's back a number of times when Labour lacked power, influence or interest. In a new version they should keep some seats for specialist groups such as representatives from the Medical Council, A Trade Union Representative, CBI representative, Science, Art, Representative for Education etc. (similar to what the Bsrroness is ssying). Then the rest elected on a Proportionsl Representation vote and an election half way through Parliment or General election.
However. I think if Starmer gave a federal state to the UK and defiantly England. That would allow the North. West or East have more control for the regions and spread the monry around not just the majority spent in London and the South.
Get the crooks and thieve out!!!
I waiting to hear about labours immigration policies..... still waiting. Also what happened to the labour MP caught accepting money from the Chinese government? Still waiting....
We have two elected houses in Australia. They’re not rivals, system works very well indeed. Perhaps you could pick up preferential voting while you’re at it
Does the House of Lords work like our Senate?
Are they merely advisory or essential for passing legislation?
@simon B They can veto legislation making the house of commons debate on it again but they can't stop it. House of commons gets the final say.
Unfortunately, the current British (especially English) political elite is reluctant to make any changes which potentially reduce their power and influence.
Being English and living in oz, its not any better than here. Just as bad, if not worse.
Australia totally different. It's a federation. The states have significant autonomy.
Who does this guy think he is, a King? The House of Commons definitely needs the House of Lords with some ability to reason to check and examine policies and bills. This weight of expertise goes way beyond elected M.P. sensibilities. Upgrade the parameters of who enters but never abolish checks and balances! Such decisions are for the people to decide, not elected PMs! This is not an autocracy!
This is a really positive start. The next step would be for the elected upper chamber to include Councillors. This would then increase decision making power at local level and ensure that local politics factors into the national picture. The golden thread would then be to replace first past the post with something like preference votes, i.e. you vote for your first and then second choice of local MP. The part with the most 1st preference votes wins, if there's no outright majority, then its the party with the most 1st and 2nd votes combined.
I disagree keep fptp but if no candidate wins 50+% then have a 2nd round with the top 2 or any candidate that wins more than 33% then who ever wins that wins the seat. Many countries have 2 rounds of elections
Why labour party acting like a dictatorship?? Dude tryna change British democracy system Bruh! 😂😂
@@Ryanlexz Changing for good
@@Al3ixhoveutot more like changing for dictatorship. Labour wanna make UK senate more like USA Congress who doesn't even have term limits 😂😂
@@Ryanlexz
1. "UK senate"? UK does not have senate.
2. "More like congress"? You mean, more like House of Senate, right?
3. Stop spamming, it's cringe, and it shows where you're at (you look like a snow-flake).
Bring Brown (gulp for air at the end of every sentence) onto the scene. Labour are not doing themselves any favours. Why not bring in Blair too?
The last Labour government unde BLair / Brown brought us devolution that is bringing about the break-up of the UK. Now it’s BLair Part 2, the break up of England. Vote for Starmer, get BLair.
If Starmer get rid of the lord's, it won't be for our benefit
You’re saying that like it’s a bad thing, the “uk” is a bad joke that needs to go, independence is the only option
Blair was a sudo-Tory, something that's been admitted many times.Common knowledge.
@@dxcpt Blair was a Pro-EU Marxist, to this day praises Trosky-marxism and was leader of Fabian Socialist Society.
If anything devolution helped quell the shouts of the separatists.
No, she's right. we don't need another elected chamber. WE DONT NEED A CHAMBER AT ALL !!!!
Can they actually do it though?? It's apart of the government infrastructure...how would they go about doing it.
A Câmara dos Lordes é importante para revisar as leis, bicameral é sempre melhor, abaixo a ditadura e o superpoder da Câmara dos Comuns.
I think if you have a mandate (i.e. it is in your manifesto, you can force policy through the House of Lords. This is why they are mentioning it now, so that they can push it through and so that when it comes to their manifesto launch before the election this isn't all that's talked about).
Correct me if I'm wrong!
It’s called democracy, a foreign concept in the uk but it might just work given a chance!!!
They won't scrap the lords, it's a trick they always use every election.
Labour needs new leadership
Tony Blaire/Labour said the same before. And all that happened was they kicked out hereditary peers and replaced them with Labour party donors.
I love how old woman gaslights by pointing out the positives of a second chamber, and tries to make that synonymous with the appointment system. When in reality, an elected chamber can also do all the positive things she pointed out, and would eradicate the one issue she brought up, being the appointment system. Great deception attempt by a person who will lose income if the appointment system is removed. If she wants to stay in the second chamber, she can put her name in for election when reform comes.
If Labour were serious about this they would be talking about PR.
Unfortunately the only way to abolish the house of lords is for the lords themselves to vote for it, it's how the British constitution is written. Maybe Starmer should talk about things he can actually do.
The house of lords can only delay a bill for a year, not block it.
@@kubalak3107 don't know where you got that from but it's not actually true.
@@philbarnes6678 I got it from the official parliament website and Wikipedia, you should probably read up on the Parliament Act of 1911 which created a 2 year delay and then the Parliament Act of 1949 which reduced it to the current 1 year. (There are bills that aren't subject to this like private bills and bills that prolong a parliamentary session beyond 5 years but they're extremely rare and would pass anyway)
@@kubalak3107 I'll do that very thing.
@@kubalak3107 I admire people like you who back up their comments with facts, keep up the fight against disinformation my friend! 👌
It's proportional representation that we need! First past the post keeps throwing up these minority governments and with the gerrymandering of the tories it's why we keep getting these destructive far right governments that have completely ruined our country!
We need PR now!
This, and proportional representation. Please.
You're about as daft as they get. Hence your lack of likes. Look at other comments and think to yourself long and hard about why your incorrect. Perhaps if you looked into this for more than five seconds and set aside your petty Hollywood biases you'll come to a reasonable conclusion.
He's honestly wasting his time. Tony Benn wasted his time on the 1000 House of Lord plan, frankly no. Solve the employment and resolving income, that is the goal.
And frankly is the House of Lords that bad? It has been around for a thousand years, how long has Labour been around?
I wouldn't mind an appointed House of Lords so much if they had to attend so many sessions just like a normal job. It's the clocking in for expenses and then turning around and walking straight out that I object to.
The House of Lords is primarily a house of specialists and experts, whose opinions and expertise aren't always relevant to the matter at hand, so why would you want them all attending sessions that aren't applicable to them or their expertise? The Commons already has enough blowhards for that. Lords turn up to debate and vote on bills they actually care about; why would you want to force them to turn up for bills they don't care about?
@@michaelheliotis5279 I don't expect them to turn up to a single vote or make a single speech. What I expect is that when they do clock in to claim a full day's expenses, they at least hang about to do a day's work. I don't think that's too much to ask...
Good idea. Doubt it’ll happen.
It's interesting from an stranger's perspective.
The House of Lords seems to be one of the few structures that still work properly in the UK.
Abolish the monarchy next
Abolish the monarchy? What benefits ?
Imagine being in opposition, unable to implement anything like this kind of policy, but still pretending like anything you're doing is at all relevant or likely to happen.
Great distraction from their lack of any competent plan on inflation, fixing tax revenues, closing the budget deficit or fixing services though.
Thanks
The Bishops in the house of Lords were instrumental in stopping the most draconian cuts to benefits etc. Therefore getting rid of the HoL is a stupid idea.
That's backwards. Abolish the Commons first.
Just have an upper chamber elected via Proportional Representation. If Lords and Ladies of the realm want to stand for election to it, let them stand. If people want them, they'll vote for them; if not, they'll vote for other candidates. Simple, surely?
Then you have the issue that the upper house has more of a mandate than the lower. The commons would lack all legitimacy. If this forces the commons to adopt PR longer term then great
@@beanoboy62 Are you sure? The senate could maintain its predecessor’s job of only approving, not proposing, bills. Besides, representing underpopulated regions on similar footing as populated regions would mean that people living in the former would not be silenced by the sheer fact that there are few people living there. If the representation is the same as it is in the House of Commons, then I may see no reason as to why the existence of the upper chamber should even be a thing if it is elected.
Actually, the Rule of Law protects us from the whimsy and caprice of "successful" glamour-pusses who fib during their slick political ad campaigns. And it protects us from the "Get Me Out Of Here..." public, too. What's more, it keeps the blood of the innocent off of our hands.
Welcome decision .
Meanwhile the royal family is eating with golden goblets and diamond encrusted silverware
@@hithere981yeah the ancient 2022 plate Rolls Royce’s are so old 😂
First them , then the king
The king do more things more than elected.
Sir Keir has already been appointing people to it....
not true he may have reccomended a few though
Im sure the house of lords will agree when the bill to abolish the house of lords arrives at their doorstep
General Election needed..
Possibly you could get a government like France has it seems to be working for the people
Because the French can stand up for themselves. The British people always submit to their government.
@@bitten4life very true but also very sad 😔
@@bitten4life why is this true? I remember reading about something to do with speed cameras on highways orvwhat not and cause people disagreed the people destroyed like 80% of them.
Overall pretty chadded people. Les personnes français c'est chadded
France is a Republic there a huge difference
So you interview the Shadow Governor of Scotland and not the SNP who a mind-blowing 45% of our 2019 voter base chose to govern our country. Our new Scottish citizenship act will end external foreign powers running for Scottish public and political high office. England's days of taxing and ruling Scotland and exploiting our natural resources are over. Scottish Labour only has ONE MP, and your 2019 18.6% Labour share of the Scottish vote is over now you are a hard Brexit Labour party. Both Labour and Conservative are finished across Scotland, and those votes are going to the SNP, Greens and ALBA alliance.
England's days of taxing and ruling Scotland and exploiting our natural resources are over.
England don't rule Scotland. Your ideas.
How England exploiting Scotland natural resources ?
Well that's one thing that I agree with labour.
The big reform needed is proportional representation.
The folk of the land are still being ruled by a "Lord"
What a surprise, the Lord doesn’t like democracy 😂
I’d be more impressed if he said he would do something about the NHS and the dentists, no doctor or dentist appointments is appalling and more pressing to the public than abolishing the House of Lords.
When did any of the politicians do anything that didn’t serve themselves hence why I doubt the motivation of this.
Political parties have more than one policy. This is just one of many.
@@GonzoTehGreat Indeed they do, but I’m far too polite to list them except for one. Their self serving policy, hence my original statement.