Most of Britain's Parliament is not elected... Meet THE LORDS
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- In the ancient House of Lords, you can inherit a seat from your family.
(Subscribe: bit.ly/C4_News_Subscribe)
As the UK debates Brexit, many politicians want to break from the EU in order to restore British democracy. But how democratic are we really?
We investigate the House of Lords, where hundreds of people have power over UK laws - without ever being elected by the public.
-------
Watch more of our explainer series here - ua-cam.com/users/playlist?list...
Get more news at our site - www.channel4.com/news/
Follow us:
Facebook - / channel4news
Twitter - / channel4news
As an American I can say that having two houses both elected doesnt solve a damned thing.
Our highest court isn't even elected...lol and that impacts everything perpetually. I would dare imagine that most Lords are conservatives though regardless of not having a political party although many lords are innately eccentric and liberal so its really a luck of the draw in that regard.
The Senate wasn't elected until 1914. Even now, it's a permanently gerrymandered election.
The problem is america is Bipartism
it doesn't because our two party system has become so divided and all of them are just looking towards the next election
for proof see the life term members of congress
I respect that old dude, he's like " yeah it's stupid but you would do it too"
Right? Free power is hard to pass up. Even if you're a good person you're probably thinking that you can contribute positively
Only a liar would say they wouldn’t want it.
@@visigoth3696 a liar or a simple minded person.
No trust me you won't do it. Only old power hungry racist megalomaniac would do it
@@visigoth3696 i wouldnt want it, too much attention, and responsibility
Id rather stay in military
And it's easier to act on things as normal person, if your a monarch you cant just say stuf or do stuff but being someone from common lineage you can volunteer to help others
Ive seen my fair share of stupidity of those in power, so yeah, call me simple minded but id rather be in a place where i can actively help those around me
Ahahaha
Honestly. The big problem with elected officials is the fact that most of the stuff they do is short term to please the people that voted for them or to make a mark on society. Therefore having a group of people that are not affected by this, but are part of the process isn't as bad as people may think.
I agree with that point. But why not get rid of those peers who have inherited their post? This is the only problem I see here, the function of the house of lords is unproplematic in my opinion.
I get that argument but then why not make it representatives of certain groups in society. How about some unemployed people, some teachers, some union representatives, some retail workers, some nurses etc. About 60%of society are underrepresented. Maybe we would address some really pressing issues then.
@@gnommgYou get elected into the lords the most common way by achievements big enough. Sorry bud but we can’t have everything in life. Having all walks of life would make the agenda muddled and confusing
Yes. Arguably it should be a civil service position, appointed by meritocracy and other factors. Indeed, it would be beneficial to have a few MPs who can hold unpartisan views, and not be so focused on the short term.@@Nico-wg5jo
@@enriqueperezarce5485
Born inst a good reason
As an American the House of Lords sounds nuts, but looking at the state of our own politics, Im just gonna sit this one out 😂😂
Right lol.
Both are royally fucked
How very un American of you, I think UK needs some freedom.
Despite its faults, I'd say the US is a 1000 times more democratic than the UK
it does. But so does the US-Senate.
I was hoping to hear more a discussion on the House Of Lords role and how it impacts our lives, as opposed to just ‘it can be a hereditary role and some people have spent £200 on a chauffeur’
Also to say "most of the parliament is not elected" is just trying to be inflammatory. Its 750 Lords to 650 MPs. The Lords don't have much power to make or stop laws, they simply exist as a higher house to hold the democratic process to account and to insure a tyrannical majority party in the House of Commons doesn't make laws contrary to the core constitutional rights of the UK. The Lords don't spend their days just coming up with new laws on their own initiative - they safeguard the UK's most vital and core ideals.
Compare a Lords pay to a standard politicians from the commons, and you will care even less how much money they spend.
They get sweet F all in comparison.
A lord will get £66,000 if the attend ever session they only get payed on the days they attend, an back bench MP gets £82,000 even if they don't attend session. (Most hereditory Lords couldn't be bothered to attend) only bothering to attend for the most important Bills, however politically appointed Lords go to every session.
The House of Lords really shouldn't do much other than being a rubber stamp group that can only block a bill twice and give recommendations that can be completely ignored by the house of commons.
If I am remembering correctly, the only bills they can block from the House of Commons is any plans to delay any elections by parties trying to move away from democracy using the democartic system.
When someone is not afraid of being replaced in 5 years, they can have the power to lookout for their country, take decisions that may not benefit soon. I think this is the picture this clip missed.
@@akhilsharma20 In ddition if those elites are sustained by the nation being independent and strong they should always vote in favour of the nation. If however the nation is weak and their positions are threatened they will invariably vote to protect themselves and align themselves with whatever power best does that even if it is foreign.
Firstly, the House of Lords really doesn't have the power to stop a law, they mainly act as an advisory board to the House of Commons. They can delay laws, but not the ones in the winning party's manifesto... So really, they don't have that much power as this video made it look like.
However, what the House of Lords does very well is "balancing" against the problems that may occur with democratic systems. One of the biggest problems of every democracy is that the MPs are usually experts in politics, but aren't really experts in much else. They're not economists, lawyers, businessmen, sociologists or urban planners, they are usually just experts in making people vote for them, they're simply salesmen. Yet, they make the most important decisions that need the most advanced level of general knowledge.
So do we really want another house of ignorant salespeople who mainly just think about getting voted? The idea of the House of Lords is to balance the democratic aspect, having its pros and cons, with a council of experts, not of elected salesmen, but people with senior experience in various fields.
Now, I agree that your dad being a Baron doesn't really make you an expert. So rather than making the House of Lords elected, they should include more members appointed for their skills, the top people in each career, like they did with Andrew Lloyd Webber. That would make much more sense.
Historically, being a Baron would have made you an expert, you'd have had a higher quality education, be in charge of land and large amounts of wealth and business. Most likely would have seen military service and have experience commanding a sizable force or a fort. They'd have likely had a role in a colonial administration.
Hereditary Lords were raised form birth for the role.
ha I was with you and then BAM Andrew Lloyd Webber lol
Wow. That geniunely sounds like the best solution* for politicians being closer to celebrities than well-informed, generally educated and respectable people.
There's only 2 problems I see with this. First, the House of Lords (In this scenario) might become an even larger conservative party - in terms of sticking to what they know works, and not really caring about anything that might improve that. Secondly, the House of Commons can still just not care for the House of Lords, as they are a purely advisory institution (maybe giving them some power might help?). Nevertheless, being wholely an advisory body, their input would be really important.
Well done, simply an argument for a totalitarian fascist state.
@@pippipster6767 I don't think you understand the definition of fascism...
I am from Venezuela, a country where politics is pretty much a chaos. I wish we had some people reviewing the public policies and laws regardless of their political identity.
the exclusively bourgeoisie?
@@bizarreisthenewblack Its an argument for a second house to review things - the benefits of bicameralism over unicameralism.
I was thinking exactly the same thing ( I am also Venezuela )
@@bizarreisthenewblackhahaha good one
Except they don't review the la s, they simply rubber stamp badly written, written in self-interest by lawyers for the benefit of rich lawyers - their friends/neighbours/colleagues mostly. None of them have a shred of integrity...most are pretty dim in the head imo
Even the elected officials need an endorsement from the party before they can campaign for a seat.
the whole system is designed to be undemocratic. or rather the creators' concept of democracy intentionally excludes the vast majority of people
And the people still beloeve democracy exists
@@ince55ant Yup, it’s the illusion of democracy. Then again, democracy has always been easily manipulated and corrupted. It’s why many of the founding fathers despised a democracy and went with a constitutional republic.
You can run independent. But the only independents that seem to get elected are former party members that was booted by their local party council but successfully ran as an independent
There is no such thing as "elected officials".
Say all u want against the house off lords, the guy makes a point when he says that lords don't have to worry about elections. Politic these days are more like an advertising competition than running the country.
It depends on the person really, elected officials and lords are all human, some are good, some are bad. Depends really.
@@rafifputrataqidarmawan4044 I mean lets not pretend we havent heard of unelected life positions, the US has judges for life which impacts everyone perpetually.
@@caligulalonghbottom2629 True
The fact they don't have to worry about elections means they can more easily be corrupt because they won't be voted out.
Electing people rather than voting directly on policies will be like that, although it's difficult because not everyone is aware of the facts enough to vote directly on that,
The earl of Limerick submitting a limerick is such a power move ... I'm honestly rather impressed
That’s a chap with a sense of humor
Funny yes.As an Irishman,I ask why an English peer could have a seat in the English parliament when Limerick is a city in a foreign country,the Irish republic.There is no earl of Calais even though this French city was under English rule for centuries.
When I first saw it I blinked.
Although it was impressively succinct.
I thought it was a gimmick.
Not from the Earl of Limerick.
And now I quite like it I think.
@@jameskingston3058 In contrast to peers of Scotland, no person holding titles only in the peerage of Ireland has ever been allowed a seat in the UK House of Lords (unless he were specially selected as a representative peer, beginning in 1800, by his fellows in the Irish nobility). However, should a peer of Ireland also hold a title in the peerages of England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom (and beginning in 1963, the peerage of Scotland), then that peer was entitled to a seat in the House of Lords, until the 1999 reform revoked the automatic right of anyone to be seated as a Lord by virtue of any hereditary title. Hereditary peers remain eligible for the House if duly appointed by correct parliamentary procedure, and hereditary peers holding life peerages are guaranteed to be seated in the House (pending any retirement from that advisory body). As the Earl of Limerick also bears a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom, that of Baron Foxford, he is eligible to be appointed to a seat in the House of Lords, hence the application that is briefly discussed in the clip.
Many thanks for your explanation
The cut at 8:40 is classical example of media manipulation.
While he is asking the question, they jumpcut to some other footage where she looks "scared" by the said question and jump back to original cut when she starts talking.
Look at the top left of her head and notice the hair.
You are Right, this is insane
It’s called „editing“. All editing is manipulation, since, by definition, it edits parts out.
Calm down.
@@JJ-ze6vb I presume that majority of people understand what the definition of "editing" is.
But clearly you missed the point i was trying to make.
@@Zozi_og I hope you find something that will calm you down
@@JJ-ze6vb you’re avoiding the point, and everyone here is calm lol
The whole issue is accountability. Doesn't matter how someone came into power, if they're unaccountable for anything that they do, then they're dangerous. Everyone knows that power corrupts.
Can you give me an example of how House of Lords behaved in a dangerous manner?
Power don't corrupt, Power simply reveal their true selves.
Oh yes you can clearly tell the Earl of Selby is an evil power hungry aristocrat just waiting to take away your rights.
@@Tattletale97 What are you a poet... People doesn't have true color they have character and it may differ depending on the environment they've grew up.
There's no people walking around with a stable color inside and that's a racist😂😂
@@ForF6cksAke What are you talking about? I didn't mention "colour", I utilise the word "True selves".
Failed to mention that the House of Commons which is wholly elected can reject any motion that the House of Lords proposes. The House of Lords is simply advisory and has no power.
So what you're saying is, Britain could perfectly discard it and adopt a unicameral system, like many other countries in the world?
The Lords can veto laws passed by the Commons. Ill say that's real power
@@fil_britbunnyboi872 I don't *think* they can actually veto laws. AFAIK They can reject them and send them back to the House of Commons, but there's a limit to how many times they can do it.
What about the tax payer money? It wouldn’t be an argument for an advisory position. It’s obviously more than that
@@fil_britbunnyboi872
The Lords can’t veto laws, they can make amendments, which the Commons can accept or reject. If neither House can agree, the commons has the final say.
As I have understood they don´t come up with laws or have the ability to stop something that the commons have voted on. They review the text and propose changes and/or send the bill back to the commons. They can delay something but not stop. Feels like people might watch this and going away with the belief they have more power than they actually have. It should be changed but it's not like it's a democratic disaster atm.
They can introduce legislation, but yes the commons always has the final say. Personally I like having an appointed upper chamber - I don't think the hereditaries or bishops should be in there (or rather, they shouldn't automatically get seats, although I have no problem with people who happen to be hereditary peers or bishops if they earn it, but its nice to have people involved in the parliamentary process who aren't obsessed with PR, many of whom actually have some expertise in fields other than politics.
@@monkeymox2544 pr...or the public...or who cares what the public think of their decisions....being accountable comes with almost every job in the world apart from the lord's.
@@skindred1888 the Lords are accountable, it's just that they tend to behave responsibly so we don't see the censure
@@monkeymox2544 the hereditaries & bishops _don't_ automatically get seats, 92 seats are _available_ for hereditaries & I think 26 _available_ for bishops. The hereditaries are _elected_ from a pool of 810 Peers of the Realm & bishops from however many thousands of the Church of England & if enough aren't elected the seats aren't filled (I don't think it's happened for long but it's theoretically possible). They're all there on merit.
@@alanhat5252 Yes I understand that the hereditaries are elected from a pool, I just don't think they should be. Bloodline shouldn't come into it at all, in the slightest. And to say they're there on merit is a bit of a stretch - they're elected by the other hereditary peers! If we're going to have an unelected chamber it should completely be appointed, with no seats reserved for hereditary peers at all. Again, I've no problem with people who have titles being in the house, as long as they get there by the same method as the other members.
The fact that they arnt elected actually makes them more morally sound than regular members of parliament. The house of lords is an important regulantory body for the government that is now almost impossible to replace. In principle it doesn't make sense but in real life I am am glad it still exists.
Amen!
Hear hear
Then North Korea is an extremely morally sound country.
I love that this video is so aggressively against the house of Lords, but all it makes me do is want to root for them.
Why is that exactly?
It’s funny because the charges against the baroness were so silly when she actually broke it down that, while we can all agree the House of Lords is a bad concept, it made the video come off as a cheap political hit job.
I think that's called Stockhome Syndrome
@@williamcarter3933 I'm an American 😅
@@JPKloess ah well that solves that level of thought then
The House Of Lords Act (1999) made it so that only 92 hereditary Peers were allowed to remain in the Lords on a temporary basis until "second stage" proposals were agreed. Therefore out of the 788 sitting members only 92 inherited their place. Other sitting members of The House Of Lords are specialists in their field so that they can give their expert opinion on bills (draft laws) that have been brought forward by The House Of Commons.
That act was a catastrophe and should be abolished. The HoL needs to return to how it was in the 1910s.
@@danielkrcmar5395 what
yeah, BoJos chums are "specialists"... hahaha
Many life peers were just simply chums with the PM of that time. Think there needs to be a reform in the Life Peerages Act 1958 as many of these 'experts' becoming a life peer is just blatant nepotism.
@@danielkrcmar5395 agreed, the Lords should be just that Lords. People who have a an excellent motivation in preserving the system because they benefit greatly from it.
The house of Lords came about by convention because it just works, tacking "democracy" onto it only breaks it. Experts and political appointees are not Lords and are no better than the MPs that put them there.
Remarkable job of confusing the viewer about the comparative power, or lack thereof, of the House of Lords.
this video is shite honestly, definitely not made from an objective standpoint
This bozo thinks he is a journalist, but in reality he is an activist, you can tell by the way of his mannerism.
Agreed, incredibly bias.
And these jokers call themselves champions of democracy !
What you failed to mention are the seats reserved for senior figures of the Islamic and Jewish faiths and if I remember correctly there is at least one senior member of the Catholic church in the chamber to round out the representation of the major faiths and that the members who have salaries have said salaries as a result of having a job outside the House of Lords. They don't get paid by the house to have their seat.
They do get a £323 a day "allowance" to attend though. As well as dodgy expenses.
Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal… up to the early 20th century the Lords had veto power over bills passed in the Commons… and the Head of State is not elected either!!
00⁰00⁰
@@johnkirke8356 Name one respectable elected head of state in the past 50 years.
@@HD-mp6yy Sauli Niinistö, president of Finland. He is highly respected by the Finnish people and international community, same goes with former Finnish presidents like Martti Ahtisaari.
I don’t know where this obsession over total democracy comes from. The House of Lords is a great example of how much work can be done when you don’t have to focus on winning elections every four years. Total democracy would require each citizen to know exactly what’s best for themselves and the rest of society, which is simply not possible.
name a worthwhile thing the house of lords has actually done
@@afgor1088 allowed to hold suspected terrorists for 42 days, halted the tax credit fiasco and came up with the dormant cash act to name a few. They are the unsung heroes in a lot of cases
Total democracy has worked in the past. Representative democracy allows citizens to be ignorant by giving away their say to a representative.
@@owenlees1832 total democracy is not always right
@@zeroroninoh it works though, it has worked many times throughout history. One of the main arguments liberals used in the late 18th to early 20th century for implementing representative democracy that democracy endows the average man with an interest in political matters, and thus reduces the tendency for ignorance. However, by having representatives, people give away this endowment and remain relatively ignorant as they are not required to think through complex political and economic questions. Total, or direct, democracy ensures people have to take an interest in politics, and thus reduces ignorance, a pattern seen throughout history. Apply this to the workplace in abolishing capitalism, and suddenly we have a truly democratic society.
I'm not a big fan of the house of lords but this is so clearly bias it's repulsive, and they clearly entrapped that peer absolutely disgusting practice and I would have expected better from channel 4
Good journalism is when you soft ball questions that don't hold people accountable. Make sure you tell the interviewee all the questions in advance so they have a chance to say no or create spin in advance.
I agree this is a one sided video, but to complain about "entrapping" this peer makes it clear you have your own bias about who deserves to be treated with unearned respect.
Agreed
Not sure why you would expect much better after their reputation...
Funnily enough, I thought the peer wondering around his garden actually came across very well despite the bias.
My word, the condescension in the baroness' tone is rich indeed.
It is time to inform British people what these undemocratic Lords and Ladies are contributing to the country. How unique British democracy is. without making any iconoclastic nonsense.
Only 12% of the members in the house of Lords have inherited their position.
12% too many.
12% Inherited
3.4% Bishop
and the rest bought their way in
@@RoseSiames aren’t most of the life peers retired MPs?
@@Zizzles oh yes
Don’t care 🤷🏾♂️ why they there anyways. Corruption
I honestly think the Italian Senate is the best idea for an Upper House: people who have accomplished something, who are seen as competent in their field, are appointed by the president with the consent of the Lower house. A house composed of people who have already proven themselves competent and have been endorsed by elected officials seems like a good idea.
I correct you: these are senators appointed for life. The Italian Senate is elected in general elections of the Parliament. The President of the Republic can appoint up to 5 Senators, that aren't part of political parties, for specific merits towards science, politics, society or something else. They are appointed for life and they can resign when they want.
Since the Lords are appointed by the King "under the advice of his government" that basically means that nobody is going to get a new peerage who hasn't already been accepted by the elected leadership of the majority of the elected House.
That is the House of Lord's. Most lords are not hereditary, but life peers (they only keep their peerage for life and cannot be inherited). Parliament would recommend "accomplished" individuals for peerage to sit in the House of Lords.
That's an atrocious idea. Competent people are already overrepresented in all institutions and in all offices that can make decisions, in all parliament, in the judiciary and the media.
If anything they should make a special house for incompetent and lazy people.
@@MrCmon113 That's what the lower house is for, to represent the masses.
I really don't like it when people bring in the 'cost factor', the 'taxpayer money' stuff into the conversation; it is a small price to pay for A COUNTRY to operate smoothly.
I kind of like the idea of having a group of non political party affiliation participate in democracy.
they're not apolitical. they represent the interests of the wealthy. that is inherently political
Everything is political
@@afgor1088 well that’s not true is it really
@@harrylundie5542 yes. It is true
well that's not the lords! 507 peers are associated to the three main parties. Many are donors, or ex-MPs being rewarded for party loyalty
Kinda crazy that the guy interviewed was in parliament for 48 years and say 9 prime ministers, and in 2022 as a 16 year old I’ve seen 7.
The important part, the legislative part of Britain's parliament is the Commons. The Lord's is there as a brake to extreme and badly written law sent to it from the Commons. InOz until reasonably recently the Upper Houses of our Parliaments were elected by land owners only, and exists for the same reason.
As an American I can say 2 things 1.) It's fascinating how Britain's government works and how very different it is from our House and Senate and 2.) I can also say a House and Senate doesn't solve a damn thing. It's all about parties today which btw our founding fathers despised (hint hint America).
If the Lords were to be elected why should the Commons retain primacy?
Not only that, it would actually make it harder for the Lords to do its job. They're supposed to be scrutinising legislation, which will sometimes entail doing something deeply unpopular. However their job isn't to be electable or even liked. They're job is to make sure legislation that ends up on the Queen's desk is robust and effective.
That's not to say the Lords isn't due some reform. I'd like to see a few more Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers, etc. People with decades of experience and are well-respected in their fields. There's far too many former politicians. But they shouldn't be elected.
@@spareumbrella8477 I agree with you
Having an upper house and a lower house is common. Like in the US, they have congress and the senators. They can just copy that system no problem
@@tekashiii US is a federation while UK isn’t so it won’t really work.
@@sivaprasadv77 majority of the countries in the world already uses this system. Unitary or federal, it doesnt matter. It IS easy if they actually wanted to do it
Doesn´t it bother anyone there are 26 seats reserved for the Church of England? What on earth do they have anything to do with government?
We have the same thing in the Netherlands, it is called the first chamber (eerste Kamer).
Their job is basically to check if the propositions of the second chamber (tweede kamer) do not violate existing rules and laws.
Members of the second chamber are elected by the people, members of the first chamber are not.
I think the lords are fine so long as they're picked based on merit, rather than by donations to political parties. They should be nominated based on a third party non-political body, picking the best economists, scientists, businessmen, environmentalists, etc.
I don't really mind inherited lords.
third party body? you fucking crazy?
there is a third-party body currently, but the PM has the ability to overrule and ignore it - and does. More generally, it's a nice idea but who decides which experts and what balance? Tories would push for more businessmen, Labour for more environmentalists, etc. Once elections are removed as a check on power and these decisions are made behind closed doors, corruption flourishes. I think each party should put forward their best selection of experts - in a party list, and people can vote on which list they like best. There could be a list for the current unaligned peers as well, and we could see how well they'd do, judged on their merits.
@@brunobarton-singer9622 you can't have experts on specific things making decisions about hundreds of diffrent topics. For example an expert on environmental living might vote to pass a law pass a law where every new house must have solar Panels then there is no affordable housing. And if there is a financial expert they may never agree with them. You need people who know bits about everything but have what is best for there constituents in mind, that way they can consult bodys of experts ( which also eliminates the individual biases one expert might have.)
@@inanis9801 so are you saying, abolish the lords entirely? I think that's also a reasonable position. My point is just that if you like the idea of a second house which is a bit more long-term and focused on expertise, the current system isn't that and I was suggesting an alternative. I think there's nothing wrong with experts in particular topics in the commons or the lords, I just think it should ultimately be up to voters
The Lords exists for a very simple reason.
Despite most of Britain (myself included) hating the idea of an unelected house The lords somehow seems to work out as a better representation of public will than the commons.
How?
@@9grand as one of the lords said, they don't have to worry about elections, so they don't worry about pleasing a very select group of people, they are free to think of the big picture
@@shamrock141 Same could be said for dictators !
@@9grand that would be the case, but the difference is the lords do not have the power to create or repeal laws on their own. They have to work through the house of commons
@@shamrock141 But have the right to veto or influence it ?!
I am not a Christian.I am a buddhist but honestly I love the way Britain continues their traditions ❤
Congratulations from Sri Lanka
nonce
Honestly, I can agree that it tends to be beneficial to have an agreeable non polarized group focused solely on the betterment of their territory.
I think that there should be, if there isn't, a level more communication of needs from the people to those individuals, and some requirements for those governing to spend time as a regular in order to understand the needs that may exist, but by and large I see the effects of constant reelections over a short 4-8 year span of time where the rising elect underwrites, or in cases completely abolishes the work of the previous elect.
That said accountability is also in order. I do like that the speakers here have at least had the blatant honesty to say well yes, we aren't exactly right to be here, but unless you all can make up your minds we will remain. Really highlights that most people have a problem with communication.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it certainly seems a lot less annoying then the pissing contest every 4 years burning a hole in taxpayers wallets.
You’re assuming that these lords are acting in the interest of the people. I certainly wouldn’t expect a bunch of rich kids to be in touch with what normal people want or need, especially when they don’t have to care about it.
@@thedapperdolphin1590 1. No I'm not, I even blatantly pointed out they themselves say they aren't necessarily for the people.
2. I also blatantly said they should spend time among normal people to get a feel for the needs of the normies.
@@JonathanMarcywhy would they do that? The only thing they care about is their own wealth and how to preserve it
@@hasbullaboren7720 because at one point they'll realize the cost of doing otherwise is an empty succession.
Like Mr Harry being wifeless.
@@JonathanMarcy There's no incentive for them to do that. We all know what human beings can do without accountability.
70,000 pounds over 5 years is not ten pounds a week, it's 269 pounds.....
The House of Lords cannot veto legislation. It can offer amendments and propose legislation that may be difficult for an elected member of Commons to offer.
The personal statements caught me entirely off-guard 😂😂
I’m English born and bred and haven’t got a problem with this system of my government. I fully support it!
“When you say we aren’t accountable to the public, that is correct”
-public servant
@@manuelolaya3194 yes, by the very definition they are not intended to be public servants - that would be a rePUBLIC. As Gt.Britain is a monarchy, it is obviously under the rule and in the possession of feudal lords.
She is not a public servant.
@@manuelolaya3194 thanks for enlightening me, but I simply do not care :)
@@hansofaxalia Based and democracy-pilled
@@hansofaxalia don't be an idiot then...
Why does this reporter always look like he’s on the verge of dropping a mean freestyle diss track
what a joke they all are, and once again, we, the public, are paying for this.
American-Brazilian here. This is actually great. one of the issues we have in the United States is that our governance is disgustingly greedy and when you relieve a particular group of citizens from the need for greed you have a small control group that make legislation or helps impede legislation without the sway of money or power.
If you give your stuff to the thief, he can't steal it.
Brilliant plan.
The purpose of the House of Lords is to act as a counterbalance against the extremes and demagoguery of the Commons.
Commons is there to do the actual law making.
I.e., make everything way more conservative
@@alexkfridges radical change is never good for a country, whether its reactionary or revolutionary. The Lords ensures that any change that occurs is organic and gradual, which is better for the country
So your entire argument is... to counter a house where a common person could end up having delusions of grandeur we will stack another house full of people who are born with delusions of grandeur... or to put it another way... "to avoid someone like Boris Johnson gaining too much power we are going to stack an entire chamber full of Boris Johnsons."
Every other stable democracy on earth that does not have hereditary peerage just has a second chamber of elected office holders to counter-balance the first chamber.
Or as their counterparts in Canada referred to their Senate (the equivalent to the Lords) as "the chamber of second sober thought."
@@thagamerzzz "better for the country". That's laughable, there is absolutely no way to ensure that with a House of Lords who are appointed by the government. Most Lords are Conservative, so I think what you mean is better for the wealthy minority.
70,000 pounds for 5 years is 10 pounds a week, she has more weeks in a year than my year or there were many rooms, so needed many flowers.
Yeah it's about £270 a week at them figures. All corrupt
I think she genuinely doesn't have a sense of elementary school math just like many politicians in the country, who just talk non sence but enough for them to be there.
I am not a British citizen (I live across the slightly less large pond ;-) ) but I know that, even though we don't have such a part of our government, the current state of politics is like a neglected house which doesn't only need new paint but a complete restructure. From what I hear and read of other countries it's much more similar there than you might think by just looking superficially.
A lot of the politics is about the latest outrage/hype/'sudden' problem and very little is about the long term future of the country and it's impact on the world as a whole. Since most chosen people in parliament are afraid to not get re-elected there is a disturbing lack of vision and willingness to make the tough calls early enough to prevent the next disaster.
So, while I agree having ruling people outside of the democratic system does have it's flaws, it can also be used as a tool for forcing the elected officials to act upon less popular topics and enforcing the elected parliament to govern with more long term goals instead of just the next cheap vote grab and 'public opinion'.
Perhaps it's not a matter of 'does the house of lords need to be chosen' but 'what is it's purpose and which tasks do they have'.
£200 is lavish expenses for a politician. Hahahahahahahahaha, that is literally the most insignificant amount a politician has ever spent. Imagine being outed for £200 while you are most likely partly responsible for thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted.
A really interesting thing that I hadn't thought of before, was when the Earl said that the Lords are not subjects to popular pressure. I mean think about it: How many politicians are there that make poor choices to get elected? They promise people what they want, not necessarily what they need and often don't keep those promises and act shady because for them it's not about the greater good but about election results. Someone who isn't elected doesn't have that kind of pressure and is free to make choices that may not be popular but are for the good of the country. It's an interesting idea. That being said for me - coming from a republic (Germany) - it still seems kinda odd that politicians should inherit their offices. Maybe a middle ground would be interesting. For example the House of Lords could be made of people from specific branches e.g. heads of universities, trade unions, religious groups (like a certain number of seats for muslims, catholics, protestants, bhuddhists, jews etc.), NGOs, science institues and so on. 🤔
I mean, I hate the specific seats for different religions thing and that wont happen as long as there is a state religion, the church of England. I'd rather just see the bishops expelled.
Thats a big reason why I want the Kaiser to return here in Austria and in Germany :)
Exactly!
The Lords were the original "parliament" that was formed after the Barons and King John agreed to Magna Carta,
Nobody has ever believed UK is a democracy. We have known about the royal family for ages.
seems like an interesting and perhaps effective concept to have a portion of the government not having to worry about elections which can actually enact long term ideas and changes instead of the more short term focused elected officials which every democracy are going to begin to crack under the pressure of, just for the fact that it seems like everyone in the world has decided at the same time to deficit spend all the time, til the end of time, because that spending helps the boys stay elected.
especially when these sort of non term based officials are largely used in a regulatory and accountability position.
Thats why you have an administration. The only reason things get shaken up in a system like that, is if the people elect populists and sharlatans.
The deficit spending is because every country is owned by a Rothschild Central Bank.
That’s why I’ve always wanted longer terms for house of reps here in the USA combined with strict term limits so re-election is never on the table.
Although what’s to say they have to give anycare about the state or government, a lord could very much not do anything and stay home all day
I think it's a good idea to put such people in parliament...
Elected leaders are often corrupt because they want to gain more money or get fund for their party.
But when someone has everything he needs and he is assured that he needs not much, he can actually think about problems of common people.
He can raise problems of common people without his own interest.
He don't have to worry about any gain or any party.
You act as if these rich people would be in touch with what the people want or need. Rich people often act to protect and expand upon their wealth and power even if they don’t need it. If you have a shitty politician then they can be replaced by the people. If you have a shitty lord then you can’t do anything about it.
Interesting
Living in Australia, I believe we have one of the better democratic systems. Like the UK, we have an upper and lower house, however the people elect both. The lower house (house of representatives) is just like the House of Commons and 151 electorates from across Australia made up of the same population vote for their representative. The upper house (the senate) is made up of senators elected from their own state. There are six states in Australia and they each elect 12 senators. There are also two territories which elect 2 senators. This is a desirable outcome because each citizen has equal say in electing the government, and each state is able to still have its own power so that states with bigger populations can’t overpower smaller states. Obviously there are some problems, for instance, Tasmania is a state in Australia and thus elects 12 senators, and the ACT, a territory with nearly the same population as Tasmania, can only elect 2 senators. This is because like the US, Australia is a federation of United States (almost called the United States of Australia) but is known as the Commonwealth of Australia.
Your democratic system is riven with extremists, and has a culture of incredible rudeness and poor-quality debating. If you think anyone aspires to an Aussie -style democracy, you are very much mistaken.
@@MikeAG333 the democratic system and the members of parliament are not the same thing. Might I enquire what you believe the best democratic system is?
That's actually really good, I wish we had the same in France. Because they are not submitted to short term populist considerations to get reelected. They are the backbone of the political system as they can think long term without thinking about how popular they are.
The issue of representativity is important though, so that the lords even though they might be elected for life should represent to some extent society at large, with notables from different religious and ethnic backgrounds.
You have the same in France, the Senate is just as undemocratic, except for the 92 hereditary peers, which like you saw in the video, not even the benefitted support
@@arthurcaron9453 What are you on about? Members of the French Senate are elected for 6 years. The House of Lords, they are appointed or inherit their seats for life. This is the antithesis of democracy.
In general they do, simply because the overwhelming majority are appointed and generally get appointed by different governments over time, although obviously you have to have done something pretty remarkable in life to get appointed there's a good mix.
I believe the vast majority of Lords are Conservatives. So the representation isn't really there.
@@jordanforbes2557 they are conservatives they conserve traditions of a country
You drove home the point "not elected not elected not elected." Barely touched on the concept that NOT having to run allows the ability to promote good laws that don't sell well. You could have spent a bit more time on what the House of Lords does.
which good laws? name one
@@afgor1088 Lord Henley or Earl of Mansfield who lead the fight against slavery and passed the first laws abolishing it even though it was detrimental to the British Economy.
The Married Woman's Property Act which allowed married women to keep their wages and investments and not give the husband control of them.
There are lots of good laws.
@@Gerry1of1 😂 jesus you had to go far back. We're getting rid of it whether you like it or not the next generation of voters hate it
@@afgor1088 Not far back, just the first ones I thought of. Want more good laws? Women's right to vote 1920s ... Equal Rights for races...1960s . Equal rights for gays... oh wait, we didn't pass that one yet... Some laws are bad. Some are good.
What is your point ?
@@Gerry1of1 that the house of Lords is pointless and undemocratic.
Goodbye
Being French, I find this so anti-democratic and dangerous for a proper representation of the common people. Having more than half of the parliament from rich families, non elected, how could this ever be fair or profitable for common English citizens ?
This guy is shocked he lives in constutional monarchy 😱
that earl has a point, common politician has 4-5 years time in office and they'll spend half of it just to campaign to get elected next years or for partisan sake so they have more incentive to do things that align with people who might elect him whether it's good or bad rather than doing it for the benefit of the opposition, it's basically the same as feudal system of power struggle where feudal lord would waste their time to get and keeping their position instead of actually working for the masses, sometime politician who doesn't work based on partisanship or lobbyist are those who are about to retired or have nothing to lose
If you're saying that someone who isn't democratically elected will not have to constantly consider the will of the governed populace in their agenda then I cannot disagree. However, the idea that democracy is like feudalism so therefore we need more lords, a literal feature of a feudal society, has quite an Orwellian "Freedom is slavery," vibe.
Democracy doesn't always work, hereditary government doesn't always work. So maybe a mix of both isn't such a bad thing? I don't know though
Wrong! Show me where a democracy doesn't work? As a Yankee Schooner and one of the free peoples of America! We didn't fight England three different times so that way we could elect people or appoint them for life. In fact even in our own government they are talking about term limits for individuals who are in Congress. No individual should sit in definitely on the bench. And note America is not a democracy it is a Democratic Republic. And England is a monarch with the veneer of a democracy.
@@robertschooner1812 Whilst not completely disagreeing, I don't think a significant proportion of the people of today have the knowledge, general standard of education, nor cognitive capacity, not to elect governments which would inherently be so volatile to social stigma and change, and have such a lack of consistency as to the ability to comprehend the effects of their decisions. In many ways, it is largely the highly educated who can draw logic/reference from the century-old evolution of law and government, and are taught the importance of this; giving somewhat of a consistency of moral and logical thinking. Surely concern lies there, where a teenager has such a seemingly pessimistic view of their own surrounding generations...
@@robertschooner1812 Hitler was elected
@@Faithfulstar_99 yes he was! But then again so was Churchill when he lied to the American people to bring him into the war.
@@robertschooner1812 To say that one form of government works completely is a massive statement. It is suggesting that the there is no abuse of power in democracy, that people are always right if they are elected. I am not suggesting that democracy is wrong, I am just suggesting that it isn't perfect.
The priority is to get rid of the first-past-the-post electoral system. The House of Lords needs sweeping reform though.
True.
You don't have to look past the house of commons to spot the unjust nature of the British political system
Ranking vote solves that.
Here in France we are glad to see this video in english class
De fou
8:20 Pointing the finger at somebody else does not excuse your own behaviour.
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".
ถูก มันไม่มีความ สมดุลเลยถ้าเทียบกับสหราชอาณาจักร
Thailand is a glorified autocracy.
As an outsider, let Britan be Britain. Why does it need to be same as other countries. I don't think they should change the process of election of House of Lords.
There is a danger in doing that, it will collapse the fabric of the country..
Who is the guy who is interviewing?
My country has an unelected upper house as well called the House of Elders.
The baroness should have just asked him to state how many people were in the car at the time and who they were since he's the one making the accusation
This has a sense of “let’s make fun of tradition”
Tradition in this case is unnecessary and stupid
Well yeah it looks stupid, and it isn’t democratic. Its the remnants of monarchy rule
@@guyincognito7979 newsflash, every "political stance" active in the UK today is "traditional", as they're all over a century old, and even worse, based on politics most of which are over 2000 years old. Whether its democracy, republicanism, tribalism, religion, communism, anarchism, socialism. They all have their roots in tradition, one way or another.
@@YevOnegin i didn't say tradition is always stupid but this particular one is.
@@guyincognito7979 what, this tradition of minimal influence who can't even pass laws? Thinking practically, I'd assume the house of commons being full of people who act as mouthpieces for billionaires' interests would be a bigger problem as far as traditions go. But going after the aristocracy is just in vogue, isn't it
The UK is a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY not a Democracy. 😳🤨
Its both numbnuts.
Even without the House of Lords, the democracy isn't very democratic. There are a lot of issues but the main ones is the kind of voting and you can't decide on specific issues.
But there is an issue with direct voting. I just remember what happened after the Brexit. There were people who said that this isn't the Brexit they voted for but in fact, that is the Brexit they voted for. The issue being that not everyone does vote for that, what they really want, because they lack some information. With a Parlament in between, you don't need to understand everything.
As an American I can say that having one unelected house made up of more technocratic highly informed “elites” who aren’t necessarily accountable to any base elements, extreme or otherwise, is probably actually a good and healthy and moderating element for society at this point. Two elected houses are sometimes too prone to minority populist impulses, depending on how they’re elected.
The Senate wasn't always elected by the people but rather by the states' governments.
Didn't this video show you that you don't have to be informed to get this job?
How can elites understand and empathise with the people? They are under no obligation to go and find out what people think.
You forgot that people cannot think critically and simply believe that democracy=good and hereditary power=bad
@@kaiudall2583 which was worse
@@linusmlgtips2123 the old senate system was way better
What most people always forget about hereditary roles is that these people don't just sit around in castles drinking tea and wine while waiting until it's their turn to hold the hereditary role, they are taught and educated explicitly to fill that exact role for most of their life, unlike elected politicians that spends half of theirs drinking beer while learning how to speak a hundred words while saying nothing at all, until one day they decide that they want to join politics to serve the nation and the people (and most of all themselves)
You’re thinking of monarchs. Peers don’t NEED to serve, they’re really just rich people who can serve.
To be a devil's advocate, these are people who have had access to the best education, so they are (presumably) better educated. They own most of the land in the country so they are aware of issues relating to land ownership, be it economic, environmental or logistical. Many (by no means all) will be very wealthy and have a firm grasp of wealth management, investment and economic growth - their estates are like national economies in miniature. They have (sigh) a unique perspective on tradition and history and how the current system we have compares to the past, and the role of their ancestors at various times (some of whom will almost certainly have been exiled or executed). Perhaps they are out of touch with the average person on the street, but they are very well connected to the history, function and ceremonial nature of the institutions of state, and, as you stated, have the time and economic independence to, and perhaps the historical expectation that they should, serve their country in some way. They may bring more value to legislative oversight than a career politician. But do we really need 92 of them?
@@stephenderry9488 Yes. Because they are candidates in case of needing them to be chosen to sit on the Thrones of 14 nations if the current family suffers disaster.
They do not have that education and experience for nothing. They do on the small scale what the Monarch does for the 14.
Jesus Christ, the number of snivelling cucks pining for aristocracy on here is obscene.
How could letting the rich rule over the rest of the population possibly go wrong? idot
OK, it could be far worse. Here in Norway we cannot vote for (or against) politicians, only for established parties. We cannot vote useless politicians out, because the parties will just put the same ones in. What we get is an establishment of professional sycophants, who can only suck up to the party officials. They will in turn form a sort of an oligarchy, taking all decisions, and even instructing MPs how to vote. After all, the MPs are in office because the party officials put them there. In fact, the parties have now come to the arrangement that MPs do not even have to show up at work, because they must vote as instructed they are not even allowed to speak as they wish. So the parliament it empty while the party officials rule in the names of their MPs. When an MP is allowed to speak, from a given a manuscript, they speak to an empty room because nobody cares what they have to say. There is nothing anyone in Norway can do about it, because voting for parties will just make sure the same oligarchs stay in office. Party officials cannot be elected, and they will always put the same sycophants in the parliament. We fool ourselves into thinking Norway is a democracy. In the UK, at least you can vote directly for politicians and keep them responsible. If you want to see what a really flawed democracy looks like, you need not look any further than to your neighbours to the east.
Why does Britain need 800 lords?
Because once you have elected officials that changes every 5 years, their interest is only aligned to what happens the next 5 years and you're limited to that time preference.
They have no interest in the success of your kid or your grand kids and focuses on solving the issues infront of them, instead of future planning because those future people who benefit them aren't in their voting block.
Yep, which is why things get neglected. I wish we had longsighted people
We're 'educated' to see democracy and good as essentially synonyms.
What this does is it prevents anyone from taking a critical analysis on the inherent and somewhat dangerous flaws of democracy.
To accept democracy, you must accept that not only your rights are up for a discussion, but is up for a vote.
There isn't a single country on this planet that has an immutable constitution that cannot be voted away, all it does is to add extra steps.
Most importantly, the people who require leaders are not in a position to choose them.
Life time appointments give them no incentive to do really anything the public wants. Your take is insane
@@kstar1489 nor do elections
Polyarchies (democracy though the idea is slightly different) and monarchies all kind of do the same thing
It doesn't matter which one it is, government will still do whatever it wants for itself
Whether it is hereditary or not matters very little, with monarchies capable of being, at times, more just than polyarchies
Elected people got there because they lied and tried to make themselves look good, but they'll work towards their own interests anyway, with even more scheming due to the limited terms
A permanent house can help to avoid backtracking too much in the government, something that is usually mere waste of time and resources
That doesn’t make any sense. If they’re unelected then they have no reason to look out for anyone’s interests but their own. And you honestly think that a bunch of rich kids will know about or act in the interest of the common people? We see these types of wealthy and powerful people act to preserve and expand their own power all the time. If someone is elected then they can be pushed out if they do a crappy job. A lord can just constantly make horrible decisions for decades.
I know absolutely nothing about British politics but from what i can gather… if it ain’t broke don’t fix it
Great music. Does anyone know what's is playing in the background?
Here in Canada, we also have an Upper Chamber - the Senate - although they are not "Lords", and neither are they elected, as in the U.S.. The Constitution sets out that all provinces have a designated number of senators, roughly proportional to their population, although as demographics shift, I can easily see the numbers changing to provide appropriate voice. Senators are generally appointed, based on a number of factors, as this blurb from the Senate website nicely describes: "Canada’s 105 senators are men and women of accomplishment and experience. They are business people and scientists, judges and teachers, athletes, community leaders and senior civil servants who use their lifetimes of expertise to ensure Parliament acts in the best interests of Canadians. Senators come from diverse ethnic, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds; they use the wisdom gleaned from their own experiences to give minorities a strong voice in Parliament." There is a teensy degree of bias in who gets appointed, but it is not *nearly* as partisan as the American Senate.
Although the House of Commons has 5 parties in it (plus whoever decides to be independent), the Senate has been designated as entirely "independent". Traditionally, however, since there has never been a Government formed by any party *other* than Liberal or Conservative parties, and all appointments go through the Prime Minister, and ultimately through the Queen's/King's representative (the Governor General), appointees have been selected by ONLY those two parties.
As much as I prefer the Canadian approach, because it sidesteps all the nastiness that the American approach to Senate construction invites, there are a few things I would change. My suggestion, these last few years, has been to turn recommendation of appointments over to ALL parties, albeit in an interesting way. The five (and however many get added over time) parties each get to nominate someone for a Senate seat, in round robin fashion, but only if there is an opening (resulting from retirement or death, since senators are appointed) in a province or territory where that party holds one or more House of Commons seats. In other words, they get to identify a Senate voice for a province they already represent. I propose they do so in reverse order. So, the party with the fewest number of HoC seats gets to pick for the first opening, if one is available for their region. If the only available openings are NOT in their region/s, then it goes to the party with the next largest number of seats, and so on, until all openings in all provinces and territories are filled. The PM still makes the final recommendation to the GG, but both would be fools to veto what a party suggests, unless it was an outrageous nomination.
Why do I think this is good, or at least better than what we currently have? As the number of parties in Parliament increases, it is important for them all to have a stake in the Senate, and it is hard for them to do so if they have little likelihood of forming the government. As well, with more parties in the HoC, governments tend to take power with less than 40% (generally in the mid-30s) of the popular vote, which decreases the sense of "voice" that many voters have (given that over 60% of voters didn't want *that* party to win). A more multi-partite Senate gives those voters a little more voice, especially on Senate committees, where a single senator can have influence.
I think some changes to length of office term are also called for, but this post is long enough as is. I could elaborate if anyone asks.
Why not provincial legislatures electing senators for life or a 10-15 year term (life or definite term should be decided by local legislatures in my opinion), with the only way of removing a member being a three quarters vote of that legislature?
@@JulesFerry11130 Nah. If one wants senators to actually DO things, and the populace wants a voice in the composition of the Senate, an especially long term is not a good idea, and neither is turning it over to legislatures. My suggestion is that while they get *in* via appointment, they serve a term of modest length (4-6 years), after which the province they represent gets to vote, by plebiscite, on whether they stay in the job or not. The senator essentially runs against their record. If they've been active and effective in some demonstrable way during their term, odds are those they represent will vote for their continuance in that role. So senators have an incentive to do more than simply punch the clock, citizens can feel like they're not hapless bystanders, and we avoid the nonsense that underlies senatorial races in the U.S.A. At present Canadian senators must retires at 75, to make way for new voices. But within my proposed system, if they're doing a bang-up job, were appointed in their 40s, and the public likes them, they could be renewed for term after term after term, until they reach that age.
I'd be more concerned about the fact that you can't get a fixed rate mortgage in the UK than whether or not a baroness is part of parliament....
.... but the reason for that is because of the house of lords making policy that makes a fixed rate mortgage impossible.
@@windwaker0rules Isn't that in the purvue of the House of Commons?
The Lords have no real power, the Commons who are elected can ALWAYS overrule anything the Lords come up with. The Lords is a cultural relic of our past and should be kept. The constant attacks on English and British culture is never ceasing.
Yep 100% agree
Fully agree!!!! 👍👍
Costs taxpayers millions per for a useless unelected class of people. The (stupid) "culture" is useless. + Your culture sucks
The British went around destroying other people's cultures. Now you can't handle criticism of the English culture.
@@nomahope3182 Cope and seethe.
The disconnect that she apparently thinks the only forms of transport is riding the bus or chauffeur.
Or talking about a ball gown as if every woman has a closet full
She claims 200 wasnt much, well if it's true: Why didnt she pay it herself?
@@semiperfekt Also she is blantently bad at math/lying 10 a week over 5 years adds up to 2600 not 70.000. She is obviusly either lying or not intrested in what the peasents think about how she spends the peasents money.
@@scheikundeiscool4086 time for a revolution
@@scheikundeiscool4086 She said that she was meant to spend 70000 pounds over the span of 5 years but it turned out she spend only 10 pounds a week which added up to 2600 pounds.
Despite the fact your video obviously is trying to encourage people to want to get rid of the house of lord, it's actually tilted me towards thinking they should stay. Having government officials that are not beholden to party politics and only worrying about what to do to get elected probably isn't really a bad thing
Who pays them????? 6000 acres for fucking what? Just to have it? (America) I thought we needed work but this is crazy!!!
@@Justice4some the 6000 acres looked like a functioning farm, which would be where his income would be coming from, alongside whatever income he was getting from attending the sessions of the House of Lords.
@@Justice4some Removing the House of Lords will not remove the land he gained by hereditary means. I think you meant to say you want to remove the entire nobility system as a whole, not just their participation in the Parliament.
@@Seawulfnorsemen thank you rigo!!
@@Seawulfnorsemen “nobility system” you mean being able to pass stuff on to your children? 😂 props to whoever this guys ancestors were, they set up generations of their descendants for a better life
It's a good thing. Here in New Zealand we only have one house, and an incompetent PM whose party keeps pushing quite serious legislation through. Which has resulted in a number of badly thought out and ideological driven laws being passed, with many of unintended consequences. If there was a second house laws like this had to get through then it would increase the chances of bad laws being caught before they emerge to do harm.
In some ways with people like this man it could be beneficial looking at the people we elect in the US.
And yet they try to preach about democracy 🙄
I don’t know, for 67 years I’ve witnesses the massive waste of time and money spent on reelection campaigns. Where can we find a workable solution?
Always good to see our institutions probed with the insight and predictable edginess of a fifth form Modern Studies project.
We DON’T live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Monarchy in which an independent judiciary, the rule of law and a respect for individual rights and freedoms are enshrined in an uncodified constitution. Democracy is a useful tool to maintain these essential constitutional norms. A meritocratic and appointed second chamber and a Head of State determined by inheritance is entirely consistent with our system of government, so long as the elected House of Commons has tge final say in all matters.
Sorry but none of those things are enshrined in our Constitution. Any Act of Parliamentary can remove any of these supposedly enshrined ideals. The only ideal enshrined in our Constitution is parliamentary sovereignty
@@llewelyn7966 thank you - I’d like to know more about this. The Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights 1689 speaks to this.
Changes to matters relating to the monarchy and the established church, for example, would require extensive legal changes which would not be straightforward
Andrew, put more simply.... Boris Johnson is a dictator.
@@tomf4547 He has played fast and loose with the conventions which were thought to be more robust than proved to be the case
In malaysia we use the Westminster system i.e, House of representatives and a upper house BUT here they are called The Dewan rakyat ( The People's hall i.e the commons),And the Dewan negara or the Senate (i.e house of Lords but they are elected senators like the U.S)
No one is saying you should take public transport, the problem is that your private transport was tax payer funded!
As far I as I am aware, the UK is the only country where the number of upper house members is larger than that of the lower house. I understand that these peers, lords, or overlords have some 'expertise', but isn't it time to start thinking about the right size and save money?
Yes, but getting everyone to agree on the size and who should be removed would take so much time debating that they wouldn't be able to get around to talking about more pressing issues. eg. we've got a large Tory majority atm, and I'm sure they'd love to dismiss a bunch of labor peers to make their laws pass through easier, but once you've made that a precedent, what's to stop a future labor govt doing the same thing to dismiss a bunch of tory peers? (Note that the opposite currently happens - a new govt tries to ADD more peers predominately on their side, which is why we've got so fuckin many of them)
As stated in the video, a major problem with democracies is that it is hard to take the long view past the next election.
The lords currently work as a mitigating factor to this problem.
If it is changed to having elections then personally I think they should still have very long terms, to remove them from the need to placate short term interests.
@Hernando Malinche because these dictators are still controlled by the European elites, mostly French. You have to look at China where long term plans for the country is always paramount. Look, even with the genocide it's done because they believe in making a one culture, one race, one nation will make the country better - like Korea and Japan.
not really, that is what a senate is for. you can have senate full of elected representatives to take the long view that only gets elected every 5-8 years while the peoples house gets elected every 3-4 years..
anyways what was the long sighted view about Brexit? seems entirely short sighted and populist to me. Especially considering they hadn't even thought about what they were going to do about northern Ireland before pulling the pin..
@@IvarDaigon the house of lords can only delay action, it cannot stop it (which renders it almost useless)
@@IvarDaigon Brexit was decided in a referendum. What are you suggesting.......that the government should have ignored the result of a massive democratic process simply because it didn't like the outcome? Really? Did you think that through?
@@MikeAG333 a properly functioning first and second chamber actually work together to reduce the chances of populist politicians gaining power in the first place because they help keep politicians accountable for what they say and do.
Do you think people would have voted for brexit if they actually knew how much it would cost them?
Would anyone actually vote to become poorer? would they vote for more red tape? would they vote for supply chain issues causing food and energy shortages?
This isn't hindsight.. lots of economists said that it would be a disaster for the economy but they were drowned out by politicians who were only in it for themselves and thought they knew better..
In Australia the senate serves to keep the b's honest.
In the UK the house of lords serves only themselves.
In the US the senate serves the interests of the two major parties and, while not ideal, it still (in theory) serves the interests of the people via their elected officials.
This is fascinating to me because I have been working on an extended essay -- not quite a book -- that is a compare and contrast of the political structures in the US and UK. I am American, and lived in the UK for enough time to be affected by the British system as well.
I think it’s good to have an institution that can check new proposed legislation and that will recommend changes if for instance the execution of the legislation would require a disproportionate effort or if the legislation would help to reach the goal it aims for.
Such an institution should have the status somewhere between the civil service and the high court and it should be technical and non political.
A political second chamber should be elected. I’d suggest one based on proportional representation.
But how technical are they really? I bet the guy running a small restaurant understands more about how business works than the vast, vast majority of those in the House of Lords.
@@Anon54387 My comment is about a new second chamber, not the current House of Lords
@@Anon54387 Actually most people who run restaurants are complete clowns. Have you seen any of Gordon Ramsey's programmes?
It's simply a way for the British establishment to retain their influence over the country's political structures.
Ann, the House of Lords has almost no power. And only 92 out of 800 are heritable.
Wrong, it holds significant power, just because you cannot see the influence peddling does not mean its not there.@@juanmanuelg.delamelaydeiba8683
I'm not a huge fan of the House of Lords on paper, but these questions ...
1. How dare you charge people 230 pounds for 5 people
2. How dare you take a chauffer driven car with a foreign dignitary
And she explains the arguments for keeping the house and the interview just cuts all that out. This really isn't fair and unbiased journalism IMO.
Here's a question, and I have this as an American, and I pose it not only to Britain, but to my own country as well: why do we need two houses at all? What is the point of having a Senate (elected) or House of Lords (unelected)? I mean it seems to me that having the House of Representatives or House of Commons ought to be enough. I mean the people vote for those representatives, and there's already hundreds of them (in the US at least), and they vote, and pass bills: why isn't that enough? Why do we need some extra layer of bureaucracy when elected officials already did their job? It just seems to create a system that makes doing anything take longer, and gives lobbyists more chance to muck it all up.
One defense of the Lords is that it contains a lot of people with the knowledge and skills to scrutinise legislation properly. I think to some extent this is not wholly incorrect, there are many people in there who have had distinguished careers in law and business. The argument is that this results in more considered legilsation passing into law. I am in favour of an elected second house but I do think based on the quality of our current elected politicians that we would lose a lot of that knowledge and experience that justifies a second house.
We should have kept the hereditary House of Lords, it was the last truly independent section of parliament. Now it is full of cronies!
Hear hear.
Agree.
hear hear
Maybe when your deciding between cronies and feudal aristocracy to give power to you should maybe just choose neither of them? Britain is so backwards and brain dead sometimes.
@@cameronsteele7289 I can practically hear him tearing at his forelock with one hand while typing with the other.