Labour plans to axe all hereditary peers from the House of Lords, reports have suggested.
But the 92 hereditary lords who sit in Parliament’s upper chamber would still be allowed to retain their access to the Palace of Westminster as a sweetener, the Financial Times has reported.
This would allow them to still enjoy access to Parliament’s bars and subsidised restaurants.
Labour has previously vowed to abolish the unelected upper chamber of Parliament, with Sir Keir Starmer having branded it “undemocratic”.
Labour could axe all hereditary peers...
...from the House of Lords
Not going to happen. Use this line to draw in the last few far left hold outs that were on the fence for the election then quietly say:
Now is not the time. The country has bigger priorities. We don't think the electorate care about this above a properly funded #NHS. Etc etc
Politics playbook 101.
The lefties want to reform the House of Lords.
We would like to pay for an incubation chamber for this dying baby.
Yep, they already trotted that out twice. It could easily come out a third time and the 51% wouldn't even notice.
And replace it with what?
A second FPTP psuedo-democracy isn't going to help.
It's worse than that - they rowed back on fully reforming the House of Lords, this is just binning hereditary peers, all the others get to stay. So it's the same mess, just with slightly fewer leeches hang off it.
They have the opportunity to make a sweeping change and show people there's a different way of doing democracy. They aren't taking that though.
I never thought of it before but your comment just made me realise this would be a great backdoor way to get the PR ball rolling. Make the lord's elected with a full PR system. Maybe with half the seats going up for election every 7 years or something.
I which case it should become the primary chamber. Having the second chamber be more representative of public opinion would be yet another way the commons would repress the views of the people.
I'm pretty sure I've seen that suggested before, it would make a lot of sense, so obviously it will never happen.
It's a start but I won't be happy with anything less than sortition - a true upper house of our peers.
I'd like for it to be people with previous careers as well though, not career politicians. Which is what it would end up being if open to anyone standing.
That's pretty much what it is - you can think of it like political jury service. It would be a cross-section of the population vetting laws with an eye on how they impact the lives of ordinary people. So you might get an NHS doctor pitching in on medical reforms but you also get a lot of people who use the NHS and are incentivised to improve it because it is life or death to them, rather than a politician who might be more interested in seeing what can be flogged off to their mates in return for a cushy non-executive position.
We largely only get a say in the laws during elections when we have to decide who we trust yo make the changes we want. With sortition in the upper house we get instant and fine-grained oversight of each individual law.
Ah I'm so sorry - thanks for the TIL.
Yes, I very much agree with your idea then.
Edit: I also like what @Womble@lemmy.world suggested of retaining 1/3 of seats for cross-party selected experts. Especially with sortition, it's important to have the expertise to inform discussion.
