It's crazy that there is a house of unelected lords in an allegedly modern country.

andyjohnson0 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It's crazy that there is a house of unelected lords in an allegedly modern country.

I certainly agree. But its worth noting that only 92 of the 825 seats in the Lords are reserved for hereditary peers - the remainder are nominated by the (elected) leaders of the main political parties, or are appointed for non-political achievements (science, society, business, arts, etc.) There are also 26 Church of England bishops. Legislation to remove the hereditary peers is currently going through parliament.

There's plenty wrong with the HoL, but I think there's at least an argument to be made that the UK benefits from a parliamentary revising chamber that is less party-political than the Commons.

▲

tehjoker 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That description sounds like the U.S. senate before there was a constitutional amendment to implement directly elected senators. The indirect election of senators was used to ensure that senators were selected to be favorable to elite interests. Direct election was intended to make it more responsive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_U...

However, I have many criticisms of the continuing undemocratic nature U.S. Senate (I think it should be dissolved entirely), but that reform was a good step.

It's true that the upper house will be less party political, but that is because everyone inside is very comfy with each other and aligned on policy that favors the wealthy.

	▲	kmeisthax 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's also the same problem with the European Commission. If anything, it's worse than hereditary peers. At least the peers are obviously illegitimate.

▲

pjc50 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> less party-political

Making it life appointments only makes things much worse. It is not possible to be depoliticized in a polarized environment; look at what happened to the US supreme Court, or the Polish one.

	▲	tehjoker 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		For what it’s worth the SC happened in the US because there is too much agreement between parties. The republicans are the bad cop to the democrats more presentable bad cop. They feel they are losing control of things so capitalism is taking a turn towards increased repression. There wasn’t opposition to the packing of the court, both parties have the same masters.

▲

pjscott 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They have very limited power these days. They advise the House of Commons, as more or less a hereditary think tank. They can delay the passage of bills, though this has been limited to a maximum delay of one year since 1949 (less for some types of bills) and there are some checks on this ability. They have a few other things they can do that are (IMO) too boring to warrant much thought unless you're a member of parliament.

The idea of a House of Lords does strike me as a bit odd, but it's not really the big deal it used to be.