>>The person who wanted them gone, which in this case is you. _You_, you

Well I wanted house of lords gone and that clearly hasn't happened, so....I don't feel like I got what I wanted? Or did you just assume I wanted just heridetary peers gone? If so, how did you make that assumption?

>>Watching the government trying to pass mental laws and having them rejected by people with no skin in the game.

Oh you mean for instance like the house of lords has opposed reforms around homosexuality that had both parliamentary and public support, but few conservative lords kept blocking the bills? That was as recently as 1998-1999. What paragons of sensible law making.

▲

hunterpayne 2 days ago | parent [-]

The House of Lords used to be composed of well...Lords. People with titles, usually because of their parents. Quite some time ago, they changed it so they needed to be elected but had to come from a specific aristocratic group. Now that is gone too and its just elected people. The body is still called the "House of Lords" but that's just the title. Its an elected body that anyone can run for. Which is...wait for it...exactly what it seems you are arguing for. When it was just aristocratic people, they would have opposed this. Now that they aren't, they don't. Not sure why this was so hard for you to understand.

	▲	gambiting 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>>Which is...wait for it...exactly what it seems you are arguing for. And again, how did you come with that assumption, when I explicitly said that the house of lords just needs to be removed as an institution. >>Not sure why this was so hard for you to understand Likewise. I think people make up an argument in their heads and argue with that instead of with what I actually wrote.