What Does the House of Lords Really Do? - TLDR Explains
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 січ 2020
- Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
The House of Lords has been discussed a lot in recent days with them annoying the Tories and Labour talking about scrapping the House. So in this video we explain what the House of Lords actually does and who the Lords are. In the coming days we will talk about if the HoL has a place in modern Britain and if it could really be scrapped.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Join the TLDR Discord: / discord
TLDR Pin Badge Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-winter
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by one person with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
“It’s not democratic to have an unelected politician running a government department.”
*stares and blinks in American*
They have to be approved by the semate and they don't create their legeslation, they only implement it. Which, considering how often Democrat secretaries implement Republican legislation and vice versa, it works remarkably well.
@@unclejoeoakland Senate approval is basically the exact same level of approval to run a government department as a member of the House of Lords (or really anybody) whose appointment is backed by the UK government which is backed by a legislative majority.
I would consider federal officers to be as good as elected officials, considering they need to be appointed by an elected official (president) and approved by a bunch of elected officials ( senate). Also they only have executive powers
Daddy, when I grow up. I want to sleep in the House of Lords.
✅
The House of Lords serves as a counterweight to the populism of The House of Commons.
At the moment, yes, but the government is appointing peers to fix that problem.
XalphYT Then it’s bad because populism is democracy
In other words a continuation of disgrading the people
Agree, I'd much rather have a bunch of Lords than another batch of elected gobshites.
Some of them get made, others are hereditary, none of them are elected.
People whinge about the Lords being undemocratic, but its pretty clear that all that democracy does is persistently disappoints a significant minority of the electorate.
One way or the other there will be another house. Doing the same job.
Another advantage of an unelected legislative body is that they don't have to worry about re-election. Therefore they can take the long view, and advocate for a policy that is unpopular in the short term, but provides long term benefits.
And also remain unaccountable...
Yes I'm sure a review of history would show that unelected and unaccountable governing bodies lead to long view policies that are purely in the best interests of the country and in no way harmful to public confidence or national viability.
While I undertstand that it solves that short termism problem, I would prefer if it had a tinge of democracy, If say they had to have a new speaker of the house every year, and that person was always given a peerage, or it could just be a group of pensioners that were once MPs. IDM giving the MPs the vote on this one, but the hereditary system and the religious system is just bollocks.
There are Senators here who have served 20-30 years without accomplishing much… I disagree with your statement wholeheartedly…
The fact that senators like McConnell have chosen to do nothing does not diminish the impact that they could have. Only their legacy.
This is the content I love to see, clearly explaining how a system or deal works for the people
What?
The hilarious thing about hereditary peers is that the reason they became hereditary was by way of compensation for the fact that they _couldn't_ make the yearly journey to London to show up at the House of Lords. So in order that Lord X has some sort of continuity to the previous Lord X that showed up five or ten years previously, the title went to the son. Travelling was a bitch back in 1066.
Parliament renovations that start in 2015? 0:27
Glad someone else picked up on this too 😳🙂
@@GavApple. I'm surprised nobody else had already commented on that. Especially as I watched the video pretty late. Don't they listen (carefully)?
0:35 "I am the senate!"
Not yet
@@j-dog7767 it's treason then
FloFloFlowable *dies from spin attack
Canada also has a second, unelected house of government. While I personally think abolishing it is a good idea, I'm opposed to making it elected. Otherwise we might end up with a system like the US, where there's a gridlock with one party controlling one house and another controlling the second house.
You get a lot more passed with either an unelected second house, or no second house at all.
Only having one elected house would also help prevent obstructionism
Yeah exactly.
As an American, I always cringe seeing Canadians or Brits asking for an elected upper house.
I get how its morally wrong that both countries have an unelected head of state and upper house, but having those jobs be elected doesn't always make it better. In the US, we get to elect our upper house and head of state, but they actually use their power and it's why nothing can get done in the US ever. Which is because we have insane gridlock. Not to mention the dumb senate rule that requires 60% to pass almost everything.
So in the US, if you want to pass something, you need to control the house, 60% of the Senate, and the presidency, which is all but impossible to do. So, that's why America is always lacking behind every other developed nation on basic rights.
I'm no fan of the monarchy and house of lords at all, and I think they both should be abolished... but replacing them with what we have in the US would even up being even worse for the UK
@@Simon-tc1mc I thought this gridlock is with purpose part of the system? Making lawmaking on federal level
difficult to protect the states from an "all ruling federal government"?
In my country (Germany) it can be bad as well. The second chamber of legislation consists of the governors of the states (and not elected senators).
In contrast to the U.S the german federalism is not a state in state system.
In many cases things must be ruled on federal level because once a
federal law is passed the states are limited in their power to pass own laws (which would contratdict federal law).
So in the end most laws are passed on federal level and the main power of the
states is the second chamber. If now first and second chamber are controlled by different
majorities it can block the whole country. In the U.S at least the states can still make laws on their own. While in Germany that is limited to certain topics like education, gambling or prostitution, state police law where the states have the exclusive right of lawmaking.
Another thing is that the power of the executive branch is limited. The governments (state or federal) can not create own executive order without a law granting the power explicity to do so.
@@Temo990 yeah, the system was designed for gridlock but it's still a bad system. Everyone's opinion differ or not if they want a centralized or decentralized system I guess. I like a government that can actual function and get things done and the US does not have a system like that at all.
I have never been to Germany so I guess I do not know what it is like there, but I assume the regions of Germany are much different than US states. I think its kind of weird that Germany has states within it at all. And it seems you all could be better served with a unicameral government.
@@Simon-tc1mc Well the german constitution is very flexible and can be change (with some limitations) easily (in comparison to the U.S. constitution)
with 2/3 majority in both chambers. So lawmaking power can be shifted and has been. In theory a state in state system could be chosen (although it might make things more complicated with the EU). But I don't think people desire that. Many prefer a cooperative state system with similar living conditions over a competitive state system like in the US. Abandoning federalism would remove a seperation of power. And if we look in a history book we can see that the darkest times in german (and world) history were the times where Germany had a centeral government with all power, no thank you.
In addition the federalism is protected from change by lawmaking (even constitutional changes). The only way to change that would be for the people to pass a new constitution.
I don't think "It's not democratic" is much of an objection. The unstated premise in this enthymeme is, "Nothing not democratic is preferable," but that's obviously false.
This is just the reason I think we made a mistake going to an elected Senate, btw, on our side of the pond, and why moves towards term limiting and even electing SCOTUS judges is a terrible move. There is a place for elected representation. There is a place for direct democracy. But it is just as helpful to check power for certain positions to be non-political/unelected.
Yeh exactly and it's also a great way to keep in check the rise of populism ect.. sometimes a single person can manipulate a large population invoke mass hysteria in a country and cause the Democratic election of a tyrant ie Hitler. Also someone like Trump would NEVER have been able to get into power in the UK system.
@@gorkym8864 Boris Johnson may look like trump / a buffoon but he is actually very intelligent and learned.. he went to Eton and Oxford ect and he has had a long political career leading up to being prime minister.. I dislike Boris Johnson but he is a proper politician unlike trump who had no political background and was basically just a dumb reality tv star.. trump is the kind of man who has not read a book in his adult life he is embarrassingly arrogant and stupid. At least Boris Johnson has a brain as much as I dislike him I will give him that - his ascent to power has been very cunning. .. Also Boris never wanted bbrexit to happen he headed the leave campaign as a way of gaining political power he never actually expected to succeed did u not see him on the day after the referendum he looked completely crestfallen and in shock - everyone knows he never really believed in Brexit he even told David Cameron this and whats more there are multiple interviews of him saying he wants to stay in the EU before.. it is practically impossible for a person with no previous political experience like trump to become prime minister in the uk .. you need to have a long career in politics to ascend the ranks of one of the leading parties (party leadership is not chosen by the voter but by other party members ensuring that only an experienced politician can actually become prime minister.
2 houses are better than 1. Usually the Prime Minister controls the House of Commons. So it’s better to have a 2d point of view from people not directly involved in political quarrels. The Queen should be free to appoint the Lords.
Same applies to all offices appointed by the monarch. Even in other Commonwealth Realms, like Canada. The Monarch should be charged to appoint these officers (senators, Lords, Governors and Governors-General, etc.) No matter the advise of the Prime Minister (which position shouldn't exist; the cabinet should be elected by the House of Commons and parties should be outlawed.
LOL what a saddo
@@kightsunLOLOL
So the house of Lords is a chamber of unelected experts who review and have a strong influence on the passing of laws.
Yes, apart from the fact it's not a 'strong' influence, as the video states, they can only hold a bill up by 1 year
Well as seen this week, they can be ignored completely so "strong influence" is over playing it, I would say.
But do like the use of "influence" rather than "power". That's a good distinction. Nice way of thinking of things. I'll steal / use that 😁
If Labour had won the election woukd McKluskey have had influence or power over policy (I don't know the answer)?
Strictly speaking, because of first past the post, the house of commoms isn't really elected either.
I would hardly call the house of lords a chamber of unelected experts. Minusing the bishops and hereditary peers, life peer appointments are very often political and partisan
@@danielwebb8402 Well, they sure didn't put much of a fight...
Minus the hereditary peers, I think the concept of an unelected chamber is good. Not being afraid of losing the next election allows members to speak their opinion much more freely and reduces self-censorship. The overblown size and salaries make it way more expensive than it should be, however.
They don't receive a salary
I think the fear of lossing the next election is way to low to begin whit.
It makes communism look like a bitch.
Thats the good thing knowing that you can lose an election is a great motivator to actual do what the people want.
I really like the idea of a relatively impartial group able to review or block (for a time) policies. Not sure how I feel about the unelected part of it, but the idea of a group of experts taking time to review something is really encouraging and interesting.
Elected are out for themselves too . Just co people put em there doesn;t mean they care .
It was videos such as this that had me once subscribe to you. Informative, sharp and most of all, impartial.
I am Danish and I have always been thinking that the house of lords sounded "our of date". But when you say its kinda people who know what they are talking about. I kinda think it sounds like a good idea.
Why do you need them as part of the legislature? You can include experts and advisors in the
process of law proposal. No need to give them power to decide.
And even if you could as well create an elected chamber of experts by require a certain educational degree. Although that still defeats a main principle of a democracy: equal right to vote (and be voted).
I kinda think you kinda right you know.
Progress of what when the house of lord was with 600 hereditary peers Britain was far more stable that it is today
Anyone care to check out baroness boothroyds speech regarding brexit, this is what the lords are all about, people who're able to weigh things up without prejudice or a personal agenda, people who've a lifetime of experience and an ability to assess and evaluate whatever the house of commons throws their way. We need the house of lords, we need them to have more influence not less
I believe and suggest there are several other things of value the House of Lords provides:
1. The voice of intellect and reason - there are no hours of work; standards of performance; education criteria; requirement to know or understand history, the workings of government, law, or economics; or any ethical tests for an MP. At least the Lords excel in these areas. With Brexit and with the last General Election, the commons have shown themselves to be spiteful, accusatory and in breach of Commons decorum resulting in expulsion, ignoring the will of their electors, declaring to have no knowledge of parliamentary procedure, and the speaker has been downright rude, patronizing, discourteous and conceited in his dealings with staff, colleagues, MPs and has been reminded more than once about parliamentary precedent when he should in my opinion have known it.
2. Balance - the elite are often defined as the wealthy, implying that they are somehow preying on their workforce. The workforce outnumber the elite, so the elite, who provide the wealth of the country, need representation. Representation is balanced out by the Lords.
3. Educated scrutiny - before approving any bill, the monarch needs to know that it has been properly scrutinized and is in the ultimate best interests of the realm. This does not always happen, but a best defence is the Lords, otherwise, the time-oppressed, under-qualified, transient, and self-serving House of Commons could further decimate our once-Great Britain.
4. Reliability - apart from the House of Commons, the British political system and legal frameworks have been the model for the world to admire. Strong leaders with the best interests or Britain who can legislate in a way that promotes peace, health and prosperity with good international trade will probably regain some of the respect they have squandered in good time.
Rabid lifetime pro-EU evangelist Betty Boothroyd doesn’t have an agenda? You prat!
@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda did you even watch her speech? As she herself pointed out, it doesn't matter a fuck if we're in the EU or out... she's gonna be quite comfortable enough either way that it's not likely to disrupt her sleeping at night for the few years she has left in her, to quote her directly "I'm alright Jack!". So yes I'd say she doesn't really need an agenda at this point, its not like she draughted up two opposing arguments for the brexit referendum and backed one of them because it offered better career prospects.
LOL
What do common British people think about The House of Lords? (I am not British so please excuse my ignorance)
Keep them as advisories, with no legislative powers?
DEVANG LIYA I think it should either be elected or abolished
I just dont like the hereditary peers. I would quite like a senate as well as the house of lords. The lords should only be advisory and i like how they help hold politians to their manifesto with out sneaking in laws thats were never promised
And I think they should just stay the way they are.
They're great. Keep them.
6:21 ~ “LEGILATURE”? Oops!
In my honest opinion having an unelected upper house of a parliament, made of people recognised as experts or exceptional talents in their field doesn't sound half bad.
Question is only who gets to decide about ones being an expert or an exceptional individual?
One of the issues can be that in reality a lot of those appointed to the Lords are largely picked by the serving government. So what ever they have done to distinguish themselves is more often than not that the either previously served as part of that government or donated a large amount to governing party.
Why not have an elected one or a senate where you can also have people of great talent.
@@dennispremoli7950 because with an elected one you're bound to have both houses dominated by the same side of the political scene.
The whole point is to have better scrutiny over what the government is doing.
When you have both elections happening at a similar time the results would also be similar. So the proportions of seats would also be similar.
then you have government presenting a bill.
commons just accepts it, as the ruling party has a majority
senate accepts it, as there is the same majority there.
queen ain't allowed to scrutiny bills so suddenly bill is a law - without any scrutiny.
There is also one major benefit from having an unelected house - these people are not afraid of losing their seat. Like it or not sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made - elected politicians tend to stay away from them as far as they could, as they fear backlash from the electorate. But if something has to be done then it has to be done, whatever it's popularity.
@@michazajac5881 Obviously don't have your elections matching. At least in Italy senate elections run less frequently and you have life senators which can be nominated by the president of the republic or may be distinguished members of society. These will be senators for the rest of their life.
@@dennispremoli7950 well, even if initially they're not matching it gives you no guarantee how long it would stay so
do remember the last 2 general elections were quite a bit earlier then they were supposed to.
Tonga has 8 lords in the 25 member Legislative Assembly of Tonga (it used to be a 50%-50% split).
I have mixed feelings about the HoL. It's obviously worrying that many are hereditary, but it prevents situations like the one going on in the US right now - the Senate and the House are equally partisan and prioritise election and therefore party above the people.
You can ensure that people vote beyond partylines by hiding who voted whom and by not telecasting parliament functioning.
@@nandi7772 the issue with that is that there is no accountability to the people
@@zachw566 You can say that. But here in India, when they discuss bills in parliament, opposition opposes literally every bill, even the most non controversial ones. But when it comes to parliamentry committee, all MPs from all parties work with each other and they do good review of the proposed bills. Many times they suggest huge changes and many times they give clean chit to the bill. And all MPs try to be productive there and not shout for no reason just to appease their voters.
Reminds me of Billy Connolly's comment that "the desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one".
Maybe he's a fan of the House of Lords (not very likely, but you never know)
Great video, helps this American understand the UK system better.
LOL
Makes sense to have an unelected house basically error checking things, but it's flagrantly ridiculous that it's hereditary based instead of merit based. As is it that religious figures from a specific religion hold actual political power by virtue of their religious title.
Randomly selected (like a jury) could be a better way.
Well no, because they're working a very specific field which they have specific expertise in. Which any random person will have the know how to do. It's just a fallacy to assume only people of a certain blood type can do it.
The mantra that the House of Lords is undemocratic, is not true. It would only be true if it were a branch of government that could approve laws or defeat laws against the will of the people, that is, the elected representatives. But this is not the case. The way the House of Lords functions is almost like that of a focus group, examining some issues laid before it to get its feedback. They make suggestions (amendments) that the elected representatives can accept, if they are good, or reject, if they are bad. At the apex of its exercised power, all the House of Lords can do is cause something to be delayed for a year, and that is very very rare. So, the House of Lords, Isn’t democratic or undemocratic, it is an advisory group which by definition doesn’t have to be democratic, as it make no final decision, can pass no final laws... what it can do is to provide its expertise (life peers), historical memory (hereditary peers) or spiritual / philosophical insights (Lords spiritual). The House of Lords is the non-political House; it does not deal with elections and passing laws, it deals with input. Anachronistic, perhaps; needing to be changed into some God awful Second Chamber with even more politicians, I don’t think so.
You guys are brilliant! Been watching your channels for a while now and I appreciate how factual you attempt to be. It's clear you also attempt to keep your biases to yourselves. Very rare in today's media landscape which is dominated by clearly 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' coverage'!
Keep up the good work TLDR!
Keep educating us, make Britain a better place (and hopefully a more united nation)
As an american i can say a bicameral system is costly and ineffective as if 1 party holds one side and another party the other nothing happens, personally britain should just get rid of the lords and give all power to parliament like how america should do the same getting rid of the senate and giving all powers to the house.
Can you do a video on Irish and French government systems?
I got to talk to the EU select committee in 2017 due to an essay in on of my classes called Britain and the EU (it was a great class, as brexit had happened the semester before so it was 'this is what was normal, now this is what brexit has done), which was hilarious as I was a pink and purple haired Australian, studying overseas for a year, talking to a group of lords and ladies on how parliament has no ability to scrutinise the brexit negotiations as technically it falls under a treaty and they have no say in those, also that they dunfuckedup.
also had one lovely lady come up to me, tell me she loved Australia 'i have a summer house that overlooks the opera house!' ... that's nice lady, i have 500 pounds to my name...
You’re Aussie. Where did you learn that southern phrase?
Nothing .
Duties of a Lord:
1. Oppress serfs
2. Drink Tea
3. Oppress peasants
4. Drink Tea
5. Plot against other Lords
6. Drink Tea
7. Plot to get invited to drink tea at Buckingham Palace
8. Drink Tea
9. Hunt Foxes on your Estates
10. Drink Tea
11. Hunt pheasants flying on your Estates.
12. Drink Tea
13. Hunt peasants poaching on your Estates
14. Drink Tea
15. Count your wealth
16. Drink Tea
Onerous responsibilities indeed😂
In Thailand, appointed Senators can elect the Prime Minister together with MPs(most powerful than your).
And sadly many people who wrote this rule often referred to your Lords when they talk about "Why we need this Senate".
For Comparison germany.
The seats in the Bundestag are elected by 299 direct candidates from the municipalities. The other half by the percentage of the parties in the election (there are 2 votes) plus some extra seats because it does not sum up properly. There is talk to reduce it to 250 municipalities to reduce the number of seats since more small parties without direct candidates made it to the Bundestag in the last decades.
The second Chamber, the Bundesrat, is the representation of the 16 states. The 16 parliaments send representatives according to the parties in their parliaments to the Bundesrat. Sometimes they block a law from the Bundestag, especially when the Bundesrat is dominated by another political direction than the Government. Most laws the bundesrat has to officially agree upon, some they can call a stop but that can be overruled after some additional hearings. The bundesrat can even initiate a lawmaking process with a proposal. There are some more points so as a role in choosing the judges in the supreme court and some more things.
As an American, I am utterly fascinated by the UK's system of governance, and I guess the differences between a republic and a parliamentary system in general.
You have nearly the same system, with some more power for the president than any queen since Victoria!
You could look into the changes throughout Germany from 1848-1960.
@@fionafiona1146 well at a very quick glance, yes, though it worth noting that the structure is pretty different. like how our executive is an entirely separate branch, the supreme court being separate from the start , both houses of the federal legislature being elected. but also a multitude of smaller things in practice that admittedly I was largely unaware of until recently, for example I never realized that in the UK the PM is not elected separately from the MPs, in that whichever party wins the largest share just asserts their leader as PM. or that until very presently parliament did not have set terms and they just decided when to have an election. the two systems seem more or less the same until you look closer, almost like a fun-house mirror, a sensation I sure wouldn't be uncommon when looking at it closely from the other direction
@@andrewemerson1613
Obviously I am not aware of the in and outs of both but the relative freedom of the branches and states/kingdoms under them without a constitutional separation of their " topic "-authorities (in Germany the states are responsible for education, no federal law may refer to it, while no state may execute a death sentence for example).
The two party, first past the post system was uncommon with the post war democracys our social studies class focused on too.
@@fionafiona1146 yeah, I suppose my underlying feeling is that their relative similarity amplifies the differences to the point of fascination for me. and from my admittedly very limited understanding of the topic, Germany seems to have the closest relation between it's national government and state governments to what is typical in North America, that said things like that are by nature interesting to me, the deeply boring man that I am
£350 a day for showing up to sign a book. And you ask what do they do? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
in the Netherlands our higher chamber is elected (although in a strange way) but i would like to see that being replaced by a body of experts. Now sometimes a bill needs to go through the political process twice. And when the coalition has a majority in both chambers the effect of the higher one is pretty small.
The idea of having an unelected chamber with experts on various topics in it (not counting the hereditary peers and lords spiritual), who don't have to worry about reelection, doens't sound so bad actually
Problem is most Brits hate experts.
To you, maybe
Arya1999 Only you and your cronies hate experts.
@@starlinguk Classic strawman arguments
Helpful video...but the word LEGISLATURE is misspelled toward the end (as LEGILATURE)
0:29 what do you mean by 2015...?
He meant 2025
Not everything that is democratic is good, and not everything that is non democratic is bad.
Take a look at the history of the House of Lords medling up to even the 2000s.... like gay marriage for example.
Brexit is just another example of them having private interest$ in these affairs.
A good idea to have some sort of chamber, but it has become so top heavy it is more of a burden on the coffers and a nice trough for many to get their snout in rather than work for a living.
I didn't know Lesotho was so modern.
0:07 I mean, it's the government, shouldn't it be in the news all the time to keep people informed of what they do?
The members of the House of Lords used to sleep during their sessions and this can be seen as a great service to the Nation, showing the virtue of quick snaps ... 😁
Nothing much
I’m suprised at the positivity in the comments. No one seems to care much that the Lords are unaccountable and have every reason to protect their own interests. They have a vested interest in preserving their wealth, unearned status, and a vested interest in non democratic systems. They aren’t ordinary people, they live in huge estates - so they aren’t going to feel the consequences of most of their policies .
South Africa has a National House of Traditional Leaders, but it is pretty much just an advisory body.
I’m going to say it. I like the lords
You have got to be joking
Same. It's so easy to drool out a "lords = bad" comment on the internet, that I'd rather not have /those/ kinds of people holding power over another part of government.
There's some value in having a chamber that isnt completely beholden to party politics.
Just look at the US senate to see how letting partisan systems take over completely can be bad.
@@jordanreeseyre The Lords (including most of the Tory peers) are beholden to the EU. Better to have elected representatives who are accountable ('beholden' to use your anti-democratic rhetoric) to British voters.
@@ProudZionist12 Im not sure who informed you that the house of lords budget came from the European Union but Im afraid you are mistaken if you think they are beholden to a foreign power.
*explaining* UK politics is an ambitious goal 😁
Just "describing" it results in madness.
Democracy isn't always about asking for a raise of hands.
6:30 legislature? legilature?
6:30 *Legislature
Would really love to see a video looking at the various proposals/ideas for an elected senate that are out there and what that might look like (e.g. longer terms, more representation for Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales)
There are only 60 Senators in Seanad Éireann while Dail Éireann has 160 members
What does it mean, when the House of Lords "ping pongs" legislation?
The government comes up with a new bill, it gets passed to the Lords who might disagree with an aspect of it and send it back to be amended, and it goes to the Lords again who send it back and back it comes and so on until everyone is happy(ish).
Think of it like handing in an essay at school and your teacher hands it back pointing out issues and you rewrite it and hand it in again and so on until it's done properly.
WRONG.
This report is more balanced and informative than the one made by Channel 4.
Seanad Éireann is a unelected house Senators are elected in 3 different ways 6 are elected by Graduates of certain Universities 43 are elected by TD's TD is short for Teacta Dàla which in Irish means Member of the Dail also known as the Assembly of Ireland in Irish and also outgoing Senators and Councilors and 11 are nominated by the Taoiseach which means Prime Minster in Irish
They get paid out of the public purse, they get paid to turn up, then they have a sleep. What other place in the world do you pay people to sleep. It should be screened only expertise allowed.
An elected Senate is no guarantee of better government than the current setting chamber OR all heredity peers. Be careful what you wish for. It works, perfectly no, but it does work - leave it alone.
This is out off date one lord went to prison for claiming money they shouldn't have another did time for perjury, ie Jeffery archer ,both men returned to the house after serving half their time
You misspelled "legislature."
Why is it progress to have 94 instead of 600 noble peers?
Because now there's less of them and the number is still going down
@@TheBackslash1 No shit sherlock. Now explain.
The "Senate" in Canada is much like the House of Lords, except none of the seats are hereditary, the seats are divided up according to region rather than party and the Senate, and qualifications for Senators, is defined in the British North America Act 1867.
I find it weird that Uk parliament has more members than the entire US legislative branch
As an American who has recently been learning a lot about British government and politics, I actually like the idea of the House of Lords. Being able to hold significant political sway without being a career politician is a really good idea, and given the somewhat (from an American perspective) volatile nature of the House of Commons, this is a really good countermeasure
Exactly why is that a good idea? It is more stable for sure. But what it keeps stable is the power of those already in power.
Whaaaaaaaaaat
6:46 Zac Goldsmith 👀
And Nicky Morgan who is actually a Secretary of State from the Lords!
The House of Lords was not born to be a democratic chamber, precisely the objective was to reflect the balance of power between the voice of the people, the commons and the aristocracy. In a while, you will want a democratically elected king, ridiculous!
I’d rather have a dead king.
Rather have no King
What happens to the EU Committee after Brexit is finalized.
As an american with an elected senate, NEVER elect your HOL. A democratically emboldened upper house is part of why were such a shit show right now. Keep it neutered!
How?
If you don't like your elected Senate, how is it going to be better if you put inside just unelected random people?
@@ChristianIce because unelected people are afraid to be bold about what they do. They understand that their popular support is weak and stay out of the way. Elected people will feel they have a popular right to interfere with the process, and thats how we got Moscow Mitch, the Grim Reaper of legislation, deliberately halting the democratic process, and all the enablers. A light touch from a humble assembly is better for the system.
@@awesomelyshorticles
Nonsense.
Unelected people are by definition not afraid of not being elected, so they have all the reasons to do what they like.
What are you going to do if you don't like their decisions?
You literally have no way to remove them.
@@ChristianIce Except they're not random people. Appointed lords are top experts in their particular field, be it economy, law, culture, international relations, etc. They are the mostly-non partisan voice of the people that serves as a counterweight to the "I'M SHOUTING LOUD! REELECT ME!" House of Commons.
@@owlman_
And for some reasons you can't elect "top experts in their particular field", you just have to hope that their qualities goes from father to son.
Yeah, makes sense, that's why nobody else does that on the entire planet :D
You, on the other hand, could be the biggest expert on any field, but you don't have blue blood, so no house of lords for you :D
And still, you can't avoid them being there, so they can't be afraid of not being elected, and they can "be bold about what they do" as much as they please.
Simple logic.
Can sombody explain what is the reforms and has its progress i dont know whats happeining
@Luís Filipe Andrade but seriously whats going on is this like a gimmck or for real need explanatiom
This sounds so much better than the American senate
What's the "legilature"?
One has to look at the House of Lords of England from a historical view.
First of all, England was a Monarchy with full powers. Throughout the history and rulers, the privileged became the Aristocracy that ruled in their domain whether as a Lord, Duke, Viscount and all.
DEMOCRACY AND PARLIAMENTARY RULE SLOWLY DEVELOPED in England.
1215: the Magna Carta in 1215 curtailed the full powers of the Absolute monarchy forced on by the Barons AND the Parliament of England was established
1327:, the representatives of the counties (knights of the shire) and of the towns (burgesses) became a permanent part of Parliament.
1688: The English Parliament seized power from the monarchy
1707: The Parliament of Great Britain was formed in 1707.
1801: BOTH the House of Lords and House of Commons started in 1801 but the Lords as Aristocrats still invoked the RIGHT TO RULE
REFORMS: Reform Bill in 1831, Reform Act 1867, People Act 1884, Parliament Act 1911
1950: Every constituency represented by a single Member of Parliament.
The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It works with the House of Commons to:
make laws
check and challenge the actions of the government, and
provide a forum of independent expertise
Basically, it does the checks and balances of what the House of Commons passed in rules, bills, amendments and all. It scrutinises legislation, holds the government to account, and considers and reports upon public policy. AND may also seek to introduce legislation or propose amendments to bills.
The House of Lords Chamber spends about 60% of its time on legislation; the other 40% is spent on scrutiny - questioning Government and debating issues and policy. Committee work takes place outside the Chamber.
Am i the only one who likes the House of Lords? (And their non-political structure)
Not really.
The House of Lords is great as-is.
It is better before when there are more non-politically affiliated peers that makes the HoL unique and genuine.... until the HoL Reform Act came in 😐
Who is the old duffer who is always first to chirp up eeryahh
Could you do this for the Senate of Canada too?
The Queen is the head of state in Canada.
I support maintaining the House of Lords as it currently is.
Where's the 3 Million Committee?
*Food for Thought - Two Ideas:*
1. If a Surgeon was performing heart surgery, you would expect them to have In-Depth knowledge and training to complete the operation.
2. Decisions should be made by the people, but not all people have training and expertise.
go figure.
Personally I don't think It matters whether we have a House of Lords or not. However, ensuring that people understand governing Is critical.
This is not so much “food for thought” but abject spastication fuelled by a pathalogical inferiority complex and monumental subservience.
It is in English, but evidently you learned English at an Islamic State summer camp.
Ok i understand what they are. I still dont understand WHY they are. I get the role the King plays. Hes a morale booster for some, a tourist attraction for others, an annoyance for a minority of people. But the house of lords at this point seem entirely pointless.
Did the Lords approve of the 1911 Act that reduced their power?
They did, because they were threatened with the addition of liberal MPs into the upper chamber.
As far as I can remember anyways.
@@cholloway0046 Thank you. That sounds a bit like Franklin Roosevelt's threat to pack the US Supreme Court.
No, it is the King who have approved the 1911 act which reduced the power of lords.
I miss when US Senate members were elected by the state legislatures.
Me too. It should had stayed that way
Luís Filipe Andrade that’s what they said but there was no proof and if we put limits on his long one can be in the senate it will be fine.
Luís Filipe Andrade there is no term limits on how long one can be in either house of Congress. And my point is the the states should had keep their representation in the senate. We get ours in the house but the senate should be for states, just my opinion, you can disagree but I have thought about this for a long time.
I feel like they’ve taken too much power away from
them now
I find it funny that hard-line brexiteers complain that the EU is undemocratic
but they literally need authorization from a bunch of Lords.
Did you even watch the video. Your comment makes you looks like a fool. They can’t veto legislation and they can only delay some legislation for up to a year. Their job is advise and consent.
Sign a book, get £300 and go home. Or piss it away in a heavily subsidised bar all day. Beats working.
What is 1 2 C R 3?
When britain is a secular state then what is the role of lord spiritual and peers there???
Britian is technically a Theocratic Monarchy.
No one attends the Church of England and the Queen has no real power. But 1000 years of entrenchment is hard to overcome.
@@codymurphy3493
It is said that she has no power..it is to make people foolish.. these members, the BBC, the leftists and the countries whose governments takes oath in the name of queen are the tool of british monarchy to pollute this society of other countries..
Truth PREVAILS... now she might be thinking that her cunning behaviour is helping her to fetch wealth from other other countries.
The coming generation will pay for it.
But
For a middle European like me, this all sounds like from 300 years ago.
Could you have a house of lords as well as a senate???
Nah.
@@yamyam2987 Tar.
House of Lords is basically a jury pool of random UK citizens.
Thanks for not answering your own qn 😂😂
They can amend bills to effectively make them impossible to enforce, right? Then if a bill can’t be enforced, they can effectively kill a bill without vetoing it.
@@retched and then don't any amendments in the Commons have to go back to them?
@@retched so, if the Lords want, they can stall a bill theoretically forever by amending it every time it comes to their chamber. Do I have that right?
What was the latest contribution that the Queen's bishops made to the debate?
....
I'm not 100% certain that this was the last contriubtion, but it's fairly recent:
On the 20th of January a Lord put the question to the government what considerations (if any) they were making in relation to relocating the house of lords out of London. During the debate the idea of not having a fixed location was flung about and The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford made the (I think, important) point that as much as the business of the house was done in the chamber, there was equally as much business taking place in the halls. He finished by pleading the lords: "Could we reconsider this one, please?"
The queen had to remind the bishop that it could only move diagonally.
@@Pining_for_the_fjords I see a chess fan in the House.
I am absurdly early right now. Nice vido, very informative.
I believe and suggest there are several other things of value the House of Lords provides:
1. The voice of intellect and reason - there are no hours of work; standards of performance; education criteria; requirement to know or understand history, the workings of government, law, or economics; or any ethical tests for an MP. At least the Lords excel in these areas. With Brexit and with the last General Election, the commons have shown themselves to be spiteful, accusatory and in breach of Commons decorum resulting in expulsion, ignoring the will of their electors, declaring to have no knowledge of parliamentary procedure, and the speaker has been downright rude, patronizing, discourteous and conceited in his dealings with staff, colleagues, MPs and has been reminded more than once about parliamentary precedent when he should in my opinion have known it.
2. Balance - the elite are often defined as the wealthy, implying that they are somehow preying on their workforce. The workforce outnumber the elite, so the elite, who provide the wealth of the country, need representation. Representation is balanced out by the Lords.
3. Educated scrutiny - before approving any bill, the monarch needs to know that it has been properly scrutinized and is in the ultimate best interests of the realm. This does not always happen, but a best defence is the Lords, otherwise, the time-oppressed, under-qualified, transient, and self-serving House of Commons could further decimate our once-Great Britain.
4. Reliability - apart from the House of Commons, the British political system and legal frameworks have been the model for the world to admire. Strong leaders with the best interests or Britain who can legislate in a way that promotes peace, health and prosperity with good international trade will probably regain some of the respect they have squandered in good time.
Sl;eep mainly for £300 a day, not bad A.
and how much do premiership footballers make In a minute?
I think there is need for reform in the Lords for example the bishops maybe fewer of them but replaced with more representatives from the other faiths to have more equal representation. Some laws should be judged under a moral lens and religious leaders can fulfil this role as they by definition are meant to live moral lives. Everyone else should have their appointments scrutinised to see if there expertise really will help. As for hereditary Lords it was my understanding they were elected by the other eligible Lords when a seat opens up. Most hereditary lords have trained themselves all their lives to be experts so the appointment committee would likely recommend them anyway.
Definitely they shouldn't be publicly elected as advisor's shouldn't be influenced by the momentary fleeting whims of the mob usually structured by the press coverage. Should the press really have that much power they already have big power over commons elections. However, to satisfy some people why don't the Lords get approved by the committee and then confirmed by a majority vote in commons. Like a supreme court judge in America.
Очень интересно, на самом деле. Старая традиция, которую все почитают.
Hlib Ivanovich English please
And some people claim this britian is a democracy?