3/11/2026 at 10:55:19 PM
When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
As every child can tell,
The House of Peers, throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well;
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George's glorious days!
Gather a group of the most powerful people in the land; give them ermine robes and manifold privileges; require of them nothing other than that they meet regularly to converse and debate in a prestigious and historical chamber. Allow them only the power to veto or delay legislation.
Gilbert and Sullivan were satirising but I think their point stands. It is possible to do nothing and to do it very well. While they're busy doing nothing they're not interfering or messing everything else up, even though they probably could outside the chamber.
The fact that heriditary peers are being ejected means nothing beyond the fact that these nobles have lost their inherent power.
by endoblast
3/11/2026 at 11:06:46 PM
To play devil's advocate:Some people argue that the difficulty of passing laws in the United States is "a feature not a bug" b/c it prevents the US from creating laws too quickly.
You could argue the House of Lords did the same: by vetoing bills, it acted as a "speed bump" to laws that might cause too much change too quickly.
by alexpotato
3/11/2026 at 11:26:31 PM
It doesn't really help the United States create good law. You could argue that it worsen the quality of laws by forcing kludges to be built on top of kludges.A sortition panel collecting random people from all walks of life to give feedback on law would probably improve the quality of law more than any amount of procedure and paperwork ever will.
We mistaken paperwork with deliberation and quality control.
by kiba
3/11/2026 at 11:51:10 PM
I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.by kennywinker
3/12/2026 at 1:39:23 AM
> To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up.While I agree - this has been an issue long before Obama.
Any reasonable country should be able to decide on the legality of abortion through the normal political process - the public deliberates, they elect representatives, the representatives hammer out the fine print and pass legislation.
But in the American system, the legality of abortion is decided at random, based on the deaths of a handful of lawyers born in the 1930s. If that person dies between ages 68-75, 84-87 or 91-95 abortion is illegal, if they die aged 76-83, or 88-91 it's legal.
Why doesn't America deal with political questions using their political process?
by michaelt
3/12/2026 at 3:44:48 AM
> Why doesn't America deal with political questions using their political process?Since 2022 we do. But it’s through the political process of the States. This has made a lot of people very angry because a bunch of States have got it all wrong, and the exact way they got it wrong depends on your point of view on the subject, but no matter which side of the debate you’re on, some on your side most assuredly want to preempt all the States that got it all wrong with Federal law.
That Congress hasn’t come to a political consensus is the Federal political consensus.
by SllX
3/12/2026 at 4:40:39 AM
> Since 2022 we do. But it’s through the political process of the States.Which is exactly as it should be. There's nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government power to act on this issue, therefore it should be decided on a state by state basis. Government works best when it is done based on the values and needs of the local population, not one solution for an entire heterogeneous nation.
by bigstrat2003
3/12/2026 at 9:39:07 AM
I might take this argument seriously, if not for the fact that the party of “state’s rights” are pushing for a national ban on abortion. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-you-need-to-kn...by LadyCailin
3/12/2026 at 3:49:44 PM
Exactly! What the Constitution /says/ and how it is interpreted... The Tenth Amendment is written (IMO) incredibly short to underscore its importance AND breadth:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But I've very seldom heard the phrase "states rights" uttered by anyone who isn't pro-gun and anti-abortion. I doubt they'd feel any freer if their state came down like a ton of politically-angered bricks on unfettered gun ownerships and anti-abortionists.
by IAmBroom
3/13/2026 at 12:50:45 AM
Pro gun is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, about 8 amendments before the tenth, so that argument isn't the best tackby paradox460
3/12/2026 at 10:33:58 PM
While the American left has largely ceded the term “states rights” to the American right (and was/is well on the way to ceding the term “Free Speech”) they have their own share of “states rights” issues. Medical and recreational marijuana is a “states rights” issue. “Sanctuary cities” are a “states rights” issues. The fact that the Trump administration can’t (yet) force California schools to drop teaching certain things is a “states rights” issue. California deciding they’re goin to just gerrymander the heck out of everything in response to the current administration is a “states rights” issue. In fact basically every state level opposition to the current administration is a form of a “states rights” issue.It’s immensely frustrating to me that what should be a huge lesson in the importance of limited government power and diffusion of that power across multiple governmental levels isn’t likely to result in that lesson being learned. I have a real fear that in history Trump will have been an inflection point on the road to an ever more powerful federal government in general and executive branch in particular, rather than a historical anomaly at the high end of that same power dynamic.
by tpmoney
3/12/2026 at 2:20:02 AM
Because that requires compromise and Americans are raging absolutists that need immediate results.In 1791, abolitionists tried to end slavery in the British Empire but couldn't get it passed by the House of Commons. Henry Dundas changed the bill so it would be phased-in. Existing slaves wouldn't be emancipated but their children would be. That bill did pass. Slavery naturally ended over the following decades until the much smaller slave population was bought by the government and freed in 1833.
In the USA, nobody budged until a Civil War happened and then the slaves were freed by force in the 1850s without monetary compensation. But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required.
by jjmarr
3/12/2026 at 11:07:10 AM
Shelby Foote has a great quote about this in regards to the Civil War:“The war happened because we failed to do the thing that we have a true genius for and that’s compromise”
by alexpotato
3/12/2026 at 4:11:16 AM
> But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required.I really hope you were being sarcastic here... Emancipating the slaves during/after the Civil War was not an orderly, immediate process. And even once all slaves were freed, they continued to live second-class lives due to the laws of the time.
by kelnos
3/12/2026 at 4:27:48 AM
Yes, it's sarcasm. I'm contrasting how Britain made their legal process gradual enough to match reality with the USA's demand that legal processes create reality.For reference, fully elective abortion legally doesn't exist in most of the UK. It's just that a fetus being dangerous to the mental health of the mother has progressively been interpreted more and more broadly...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom
by jjmarr
3/12/2026 at 3:24:21 AM
In the American system as originally founded, most of these things were intended to be decided by the states.by SoftTalker
3/12/2026 at 11:00:05 AM
In the American system as originally founded, black people were property.It should be expected that the American system is not eternally bound to the will and scope of vision of the founding fathers, that it can and should evolve over time as the needs and nature of society evolves. Otherwise, it isn't a republic, it's a cult.
by krapp
3/12/2026 at 1:24:58 PM
Yes, that was corrected by using the amendment process (and fighting a huge war) a long time ago. The system was designed to allow for correction.by SoftTalker
3/12/2026 at 3:02:10 AM
It’s more like Americans did decide, that it was illegal and judges decided they could use legal tricks to make it legal (which in turn meant as soon as they didn’t have the majority the opposite could occur.)by edgyquant
3/12/2026 at 7:18:59 AM
There's a long political tradition which doesn't acknowledge that there are political questions. In their world, there's only good policy and bad policy, and making the first is only a question of competence. Conflicts of interests they won't talk about. These people fight a constant battle to take political power away from people (not just regular people, elected representatives as well), and give it to their preferred "experts".by vintermann
3/12/2026 at 10:49:24 AM
Could you explain this to a non USian???by benj111
3/12/2026 at 3:51:56 PM
Or a USian who has no idea which lawyers you are referring to obliquely, so as to look "cool" and "knowledgeable", while avoiding communication with the sullied masses?by IAmBroom
3/12/2026 at 4:00:57 PM
They're referring to increasingly partisan Supreme Court Justicesby BobaFloutist
3/12/2026 at 12:39:50 AM
The problem here isn't the temptation to bypass a system intended to require consensus before action can be taken. That temptation is present with any system that provides any checks on autocratic tyranny.The problem is that something like executive orders are being used to bypass that system instead of being prevented from doing so.
by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 2:29:31 AM
The problem is that the US constitution was written before people realized that the natural consequence of that type of constitution is a two party system. You cannot have a viable third party in the long run because it will necessarily weaken one or the other existing party and that party will then absorb it.So no you have a situation where the government can have split brain: some parts of the legislative branch can be party A and other parts can be party B and the president isn’t tied to either.
From what I understand when the US “brings democracy” to another country we set up a parliamentary system and that system is widely seen as better. You cannot form an ineffective government by definition, though you can have a non-functioning government that is trying to form a coalition. These types of systems tend to find center because forming a coalition always requires some level of compromise. Our system oscillates between three states: party A does what they want, party B does what they want, and split brain and president does what he wants because Congress has no will to keep him accountable.
What I would like to try is a combination of parliamentary system, approval voting, and possibly major legislation passed by randomly selecting a jury of citizens and showing the the pros and cons of a bill. If you cannot convince 1000 random citizens that we should go to war, maybe it’s not a good idea.
by IgorPartola
3/12/2026 at 4:53:28 AM
> The problem is that the US constitution was written before people realized that the natural consequence of that type of constitution is a two party system.The two party system is a consequence of using first past the post voting, which the US constitution doesn't even require. Use score voting instead, which can be done by ordinary legislation without any constitutional amendment, and you don't have a two party system anymore.
by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 6:07:42 AM
Are we reading the same constitution?Article II, Section 1
> The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President
by kelseyfrog
3/12/2026 at 7:40:00 AM
A party is a thing where multiple elected officials band together in a persistent coalition. The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature?On top of that, that section applies to how the votes of the electoral college delegates are counted. It doesn't specify how the electoral college delegates are chosen, which it leaves up to the states. There are plenty of interesting ways of choosing them that don't result in a structural incentive for a two-party race.
by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 10:37:21 AM
> The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature?I don't think it's a coincidence that every US state is structured as a smaller mirror of the federal government.
by thaumasiotes
3/12/2026 at 6:32:21 PM
It's not a coincidence because they adopted their initial constitutions at around the same time or based them on the existing states that had. But we're talking about the electoral college and none of the states use something equivalent to that to choose their governor.Using score voting instead of FPTP for state-level offices would be a straightforward legislative change in many states and still not require any change to the US Constitution even in the states where it would require a change to the state constitution, which is generally a much lower bar to overcome than a federal constitutional amendment.
by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 6:56:36 AM
I'll tell Hillary Clinton, she'll be thrilled.by ZeroGravitas
3/12/2026 at 3:52:51 PM
And Al Gore, while you're at it.by IAmBroom
3/12/2026 at 9:47:39 AM
US "parties" are giant coalitions compared to the "parties" in parliamentary democracies. You're solving a problem that doesn't exist.Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions.
Love him or hate him, Trump is a great example of this - in 2016, Trump effectively formed a new party focused on anti-immigration and protectionism, which rapidly grew to dominate the "conservative" coalition. But those other parties, ranging from libertarians to the Chamber of Commerce (highly pro immigration and highly pro free trade) parties are still there in the coalition.
by Amezarak
3/12/2026 at 6:15:02 PM
> Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions.The US is extremely partisan right now and the partisanship is strongly aligned with the two major parties, not the individual coalitions that make them up. And with two parties you get polarization, because then it's all about getting 51% for a single party rather than forming temporary coalitions between various parties none of which can do anything unilaterally.
A different voting system allows you to have more than two viable parties, which changes the dynamic considerably.
by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 6:30:55 PM
Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election.The 51% is for the coalition, not the party. That’s what you’re missing. CoC Republicans for example have temporarily sacrificed their immigration policies to retain legislative influence - and they are a check on the Trumpist wing passing whatever anti-immigrant legislation they want, because they too cannot act without at least tacit support from the CoC wing.
The “major party” is from a systems perspective no different than a European parliamentary governing coalition.
by Amezarak
3/12/2026 at 6:59:12 PM
> Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election.The "except when forming governments post-election" is a major difference. It also presumes that a coalition in the legislature is required to persist for an entire election cycle rather than being formed around any given individual piece of legislation. You don't have to use a system where an individual legislator or party can prevent any other from introducing a bill and taking a vote on it.
In less partisan periods in US history, bills would often pass with the partial support of both major parties.
Moreover, the US coalitions being tied to the major parties makes them too sticky. For example, the people who want lower taxes aren't necessarily the people who want subsidies for oil companies, or increased military spending, but they've been stuck in the same "coalition" together for decades.
Suppose you want to do a carbon tax. People who don't like taxes are going to be a major opponent, so an obvious compromise would be to pass it as part of a net reduction in total taxes, e.g. reduce the federal payroll tax by more than the amount of the carbon tax. But that doesn't happen because the coalition that wants lower taxes never overlaps with the coalition that wants to do something about climate change. Meanwhile the coalition that wants lower taxes wouldn't propose a carbon tax on their own, and the coalition that wants a carbon tax to increase overall government revenue gets shot down because that would be extremely unpopular, so instead it never happens.
by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 8:50:32 PM
All countries have these problems which vary by the local political environment and history. Multiple European countries are facing particularly absurd varieties of these dilemmas because of their refusal to form coalitions with the second or third largest party in their country.by Amezarak
3/13/2026 at 6:09:22 PM
Again, it seems like the flaw is in trying to form a long-term coalition instead of just passing the bills that have enough support to pass when you put them up for a vote among all the people who were actually elected. Why should anyone have to give a crap what someone else's position is on immigration when the bill in question is on copyright reform or tax incentives for solar panels?by AnthonyMouse
3/13/2026 at 6:32:21 PM
The coalitions do a pretty good job of representing people’s pre-existing positions. People aren’t not voting for copyright reform because their party said so, but because they agree with their party. Party discipline in the US is not nearly as strong as in most parliamentary systems.by Amezarak
3/12/2026 at 1:17:49 AM
The point is that if you can't do the thing the democratic way (because the system is so biased against change as to make it impossible) then people will look for workarounds.The workarounds are accepted since otherwise nothing would get done at all, and then people are surprised when the workaround gets used in ways they no longer like.
by Panzer04
3/12/2026 at 4:55:20 AM
When people say "nothing gets done" they mean "we can't do things that a substantial plurality of the public doesn't want done" -- which is exactly what's supposed to happen.If you break the mechanisms ensuring that stays the case, what do you honestly expect to happen the next time it's you in the minority?
by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 7:23:48 AM
Things substantial plurality of public wants are not being done. The votes in legislature dont match what plurality of voters want.Public opinion is not really represented in a way your comment implies.
by watwut
3/12/2026 at 7:41:20 AM
It's not supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public wants to happen. It's supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public doesn't want to not happen.by AnthonyMouse
3/12/2026 at 6:34:07 AM
>federalizing who can voteAlmost every single democracy in the world requires proof that you are eligible to vote. 80% of Americans agree with the idea as well.
https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/02/voter-id-americans-suppor...
by Dig1t
3/12/2026 at 9:02:27 AM
So let's have a national ID, given to all citizens.Unfortunately the party calling most strongly for proving eligibility absolutely hates that idea.
by amanaplanacanal
3/12/2026 at 3:54:16 PM
And that national ID has to be free, and available to people who cannot appear at federal offices during business hours without losing what sparse wages they get...by IAmBroom
3/12/2026 at 12:32:29 AM
Yes, and, Bush-Cheney were the modern forefathers of pushing the unitary executive theory, building on the work of Reagan after a 90’s shaped lull. Reagan took ideas from The Heritage Foundation, who returned in the ‘24 elections pushing Project 2025. A natural endgame and roadmap for the movement of power to the president, that is being followed as approximately as any political roadmap ever is.Remember that each time you’re tempted to crack a Coors light!
by canarypilot
3/12/2026 at 12:53:09 AM
So I should remember that… never? Got it. ;)by kennywinker
3/12/2026 at 3:04:19 AM
Unitary executive is popular and doesn’t have to mean an imperial presidency. Actually the most popular version, albeit not the one you hear about the most, is the libertarian idea that the executive should have little power at all and almost no bureaucracy to command.by edgyquant
3/12/2026 at 7:02:08 AM
It could be my interpretation, the framing of the above comment feels as if Obama gave Trump the idea to use executive orders in expansive ways. I think Trump would have used executive orders expansive even if no president ever had used executive orders.Trump is just trying to get away with as much as he can. The tariffs used by Trump and his "jokes" about skippings election and other things he did are quite unprecedented.
by ivell
3/12/2026 at 1:17:32 AM
The argument isn't that it helps the US create good law. It's that it keeps the US from creating too many bad laws.by laughing_man
3/12/2026 at 12:04:10 AM
"The more laws, the less justice." -- Ciceroby bhk
3/12/2026 at 12:05:57 AM
Government needs to be more Agile.by rybosworld
3/12/2026 at 1:46:41 AM
Government needs to be less.by SanjayMehta
3/12/2026 at 2:07:48 AM
Government needs to be for all the people, and not just for the 1% with wealth and power. Not more or less.by JamesTRexx
3/12/2026 at 3:06:05 AM
This seems to go against human nature. Government is always for the 1% and in the rare case it isn’t it simply just creates a new 1%by edgyquant
3/12/2026 at 10:07:44 AM
True. Seems self-preservation is strong in our genes and can manifest in strong greed or prefering to avoid (direct) conflict with the greedy.Humans are not always social creatures on all social fronts.
by JamesTRexx
3/12/2026 at 12:35:18 PM
The idea of a second chamber is not controversial. The argument is how you populate it.Elected - you have the problem of two chambers claiming legitimacy and potential deadlock, and also the problem of potentially having the same short term view as the other elected chamber.
Appointed - who gets to appoint, on what criteria, who are they beholden to ( ideally unsackable once appointed - I want them to feel free to say what they really think ).
Inherited - Very unlikely to represent the population. No quality filter. Potentially a culture of service built up - and free to say what they think.
Random. - More likely to represent the population. No quality filter.
You can obviously have a mix of all or any of the above.
In my view, the ideal second chamber would be full of people of experience, who are beholden to nobody (unsackable), that represented a broad range of views, with a culture of service.
I'm against a fully elected second house - as that's not really adding anything different to the first house. Appointed has worked quite well in the past, but it has become more and more abused recently as the elected politicians have two much control.
It's tricky - perhaps some sort of mix.
by DrScientist
3/12/2026 at 1:05:01 PM
Abused is probably an understatement. The Tories made some extremely questionable and bizarre appointments in their recent terms. We have the son of Russian oligarch sitting there! Inexplicable advisors whose appointment is a mystery even after FOIA requests. And extreme partisans like Jacob Rees Mogg and Priti Patel.Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used.
by WickyNilliams
3/13/2026 at 2:25:37 PM
>Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house.Then why wouldn’t the house just stuff them with people that will agree with everything they do and remove any checks and balances? You only need one house at that point.
by NetMageSCW
3/13/2026 at 3:00:25 PM
In part because the composition of the commons changes over time - so if the term timescales are different then they won't necessarily agree at any point in time - but I do agree it would potentially become too politicised if you had that kind of vote.Ultimately in the UK system, the commons has the final say ( ignoring the monarch in the room here ), so most of the time what the Lords do isn't typically a big public issue - it's quiet revision, have you thought of this?, type stuff. Not that common to have a big conflict - though it does happen.
by DrScientist
3/12/2026 at 2:14:29 PM
> Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used.You'd get party political trading - we will vote for your pick if you vote for our pick - but perhaps it will help at the margins - the obviously embarrassing would be harder to squeeze through.
The problem is the current process relied a bit too much on people being trustworthy - as you say that's kinda fallen away recently - and obviously the election of Trump show how dangerous it is for a process to rely on people being decent and not abuse the trust. Which is a shame as trusting people gives people the leeway to do the right thing.
In terms of JRM or Patel - while they are not my cup of tea, I think there is value in senior politicians becoming members of the Lords almost by default ( like senior judges or religious leaders ) - as to some extent it does reflect what people have voted for in the past and they have valuable experience. However perhaps it's too early in their cases.
An age limit has been talked about - but normally in terms of upper age - I wonder if it wouldn't be better as an age threshold - you have to have retired and be no longer 'on the make'. Sure that means no young people in the second chamber - but ultimately being representative is the commons role, the second chamber is for experienced people to tell the commons not to be hasty and do more work.
by DrScientist
3/12/2026 at 2:38:17 PM
It's very tricky to balance right that's for sure. Agreed that it opens the door to behind the scenes deals. But marginal improvements are still better than whatever the hell we have now.In the case of Priti Patel she was fired from government for having secret/undisclosed meetings with Israel to recognise some contested land (IIRC). That should be an instant disqualifier for a lifelong peerage.
by WickyNilliams
3/12/2026 at 2:52:48 PM
> That should be an instant disqualifier for a lifelong peerage.Again the current process does have an element of that - MI5 et al have a look at the list and say 'reputational risk'. "That's a very brave choice minster.."
However, as with Mandelsons appointment to the Lords and US ambassador, it's clearly being ignored - but then who better than the PM of the day to have the final say - the problem is somebody has to - and if you take it away from the PM - then it potentially becomes undemocratic.
Perhaps one improvement would be the removal of the tradition of exiting PM's creating a nomination list - when they no longer care about what the public think - a bit like Joe Biden outrageously pardoning his son.
by DrScientist
3/14/2026 at 10:30:59 AM
Jacob Rees Mogg isn’t in the Lords.by foldr
3/12/2026 at 5:40:31 AM
The Lords doesn’t actually have the power to veto bills thanks to the Parliament act. They also have a principle of ultimate legislative priority under which they defer to the commons in matters where the commons puts its foot down. They generally act as a revising body rather than outright attempting to defy the commons. > Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 it is possible for a bill to be presented for Royal Assent without the agreement of the House of Lords, provided that certain conditions are met. This change was seen by some as a departure from Dicey’s notion of sovereignty conferred upon a tripartite body.
by seanhunter
3/12/2026 at 7:14:24 AM
On the other hand, the process of having Commons legislation rejected by the Lords, then amended and sent back can take almost a year. A government looking to push its legislative programme in a single parliament may choose to remove the most controversial elements in return for an easier passage through the Lords. In this way, just the threat of Lords scrutiny can be enough to moderate the output of the Commons.by kitd
3/13/2026 at 2:40:54 PM
If the Lords can’t veto bills, why does their rejection matter?by NetMageSCW
3/12/2026 at 2:39:48 AM
Note that this change is not getting rid of the Lords; it's just getting rid of Hereditary piers - i.e. those passed down through generations. We'll still have Lords who have been selected by previous governments within their lifetime; so they still provide that speed bump; but do it in a way that means they were at some point chosen by an elected body.by trebligdivad
3/12/2026 at 3:32:42 AM
Not sure how you think this will improve things. None of these people are elected. They likely got these positions by doing political favors. They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate. They are even more likely to make decisions based upon ideology instead of practical quality of life considerations. Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few. And that's the last thing the UK needs right now.by hunterpayne
3/12/2026 at 4:48:45 AM
> They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate.Not compared to the hereditary peers.
In theory these people have proved themselves useful in some way and bring expertise to the upper chamber, rather than just being born in the right family. In practice there is some of that and some political cronyism.
> Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few.
That is exactly what hereditary peerage is. The few, by definition. The aristocracy.
by Nursie
3/12/2026 at 11:57:42 AM
Being out of touch with the electorate is the thing they have as a feature over the house of commons.i.e. they're not trying to win the next election.
They're also not there because of the favours they've done existing politicians.
I don't think this is "great" but it does make me wonder if the people who want an end to herditary peers are really going to like what they get.
by t43562
3/12/2026 at 12:48:57 PM
They're there because someone a long time ago was wealthy and probably had ties to one or more monarchs.This is not a basis for holding power in any country that calls itself democratic. This idea that they are somehow above everyday concerns and that's a good thing is some sort of weird retcon, and if we're going to use unmitigated cynicism to impugn the validity of action of other office holders who are elected, or who have got to the lords through prominence in public life, then allow me the same here: they're just there to pursue the interests of the landed gentry and hold back progress on issues like fox-hunting. And they have done exactly this in the past. The fact they're not trying to win an election means they are entirely free to pursue selfish aims.
There's no virtue in maintaining the privileges of these alleged 'nobles' to interfere in the running of the state.
What they’re going to get is 92 fewer (to use the modern parlance) nepo-babies having access to the levers of power. It’s something to celebrate.
by Nursie
3/12/2026 at 4:18:09 PM
Lots of countries call themselves democratic that absolutely aren't e.g. The DPRK for a ridiculous example. We actually aren't even democratic in the truest sense that we don't all vote on everything but instead elect representatives to vote for us (we hope). It's all a compromise with trade offs.Here one will just get different "nepo babies" who are more directly involved in the struggle for power because they will be connected those in power - people who have been useful and will be wanted in future.
Some people say that the desire for power is the thing that should disqualify a person from having it. i.e. we perhaps need some anti-politicians. This would mean people who don't want to be in power having some forced upon them like in Jury duty.
by t43562
3/13/2026 at 5:43:12 AM
> That is exactly what hereditary peerage is. The few, by definition. The aristocracy.Not true at all - there's nothing special about having a rich land-owner in your ancestry - most people do.
In fact, now, after a few centuries of reversion to the mean, the hereditary peers are the only people in government who are representative, in the statistical sense.
(Not that this is related in any way to the actual reason why this is being done - the actual motive is that a hereditary peer is necessarily British, and Starmer hates the British and wants them disenfranchised so that he can continue with their destruction. But that's another story..)
by glyco
3/12/2026 at 4:18:34 AM
You argue that a lot of things are likely. Why don't you take the time to check instead of slander?by dotancohen
3/11/2026 at 11:12:27 PM
> You could argue the House of Lords did the sameIt can still do the same thing without hereditary peers. A slow-moving, conservative (in the classical sense) upper chamber is a classic in bicameral systems, it is not specific to the House of Lords.
by kergonath
3/12/2026 at 12:10:17 AM
Just in case someone gets the wrong end of the stick, the UK isn’t getting rid of the House of Lords, just the hereditary members (of which there aren’t many).by verbify
3/12/2026 at 2:07:55 AM
But almost all the remainder are political appointees.It's disappointing that they didn't replace the hereditary peers with some other non-politically-appointed folks. There is a very great need to have people in the House of Lords who are not beholden to any of the political parties.
I personally favour a lottery system where random people get given the opportunity to join the House of Lords for the rest of their working lives.
by marcus_holmes
3/12/2026 at 12:26:04 PM
> for the rest of their working lives.One of the nicer things about Lords debates is that many members have ended their working lives and are no longer worried about the day to day felicities of their industry.
by AlecSchueler
3/11/2026 at 11:11:19 PM
The House of Lords isn't going anywhere. The majority of the chamber are life peers, functionally identical to Canadian senators.by post-it
3/11/2026 at 11:41:14 PM
And for many years now, even the remaining minority of hereditary peers in the chamber are elected to that job, albeit not by the general public. My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers so that they can keep doing the exact same job. Many life peers (who are all entitled to be there) rarely attend, so it would be kinda silly if Lord Snootington, the fifteenth Earl of Whatever is kicked out for being a hereditary peer despite also being the linchpin of an important committee and one of the top 100 attendees in the Lords, while they keep Bill Smith, a business tycoon who got his peerage for giving a politician a sack of cash and hasn't been in London, never mind the House of Lords, since 2014...by tialaramex
3/12/2026 at 12:00:35 AM
> My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peersThe government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages
But that political deal is just an informal extralegal “understanding”, it isn’t actually in the text of the bill-having the bill text grant someone a life peerage would upset the status of peerages as a royal prerogative, and they don’t want to do that
by skissane
3/12/2026 at 2:13:24 AM
> The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peeragesWouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.
by thaumasiotes
3/12/2026 at 3:45:48 AM
> Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.They don't have any expectation against losing their seats entirely when hereditary peers are ejected from the House, and, even with a sufficient number of life peers voting with them, they couldn't actually prevent such a bill from passing, only delay it. Securing a commitment of life seats is getting something they didn't have.
by dragonwriter
3/12/2026 at 2:43:53 AM
Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; the deal only needs to be seen as fair enough by the other peers. Or really, it only needs to be seen as fair enough to the House of Commons.by mastax
3/12/2026 at 3:50:19 AM
> Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree;As I understand it, it was necessary (in order to pass the bill without the delay the Lords can impose) to secure a deal on the hereditary peers (not with them), because the Conservatives (the largest Lords faction) and many of the cross-benchers among the life peers, a sufficient number in total to delay the bill (the Lords can't actually block it permanently) oppose the bill, not just a group among the existing hereditary peers.
by dragonwriter
3/12/2026 at 3:37:45 AM
The hereditary peers were elected and that's what is being discarded? So before at least the voters got some choice and that's going away? Amazing...by hunterpayne
3/12/2026 at 4:53:45 AM
> The hereditary peers were electedBy a larger pool of hereditary peers. Previously several hundred members of the aristocracy were all entitled to a seat in there by virtue of their birth and title alone. After reforms in 1999 this group had to nominate from within themselves a subset of 92 hereditary peers who would be allowed to participate in the chamber.
If by "the voters" you mean the general public, then no, they had no say at all.
by Nursie
3/11/2026 at 11:59:04 PM
yes. just because it is unfashionable to argue in favor of aristocracy does not mean that it doesn’t have its own intrinsic set of benefits and drawbacks… the drawbacks of ultra democracy (populism, etc.) are all cast aside as the innocent folly of people yearning to be free but not knowing whereof to yearn (“it’s not a system problem, it’s a people problem, but we must no matter what condemn ourselves to people problems because anything else is anathema to “liberty”, or whatever”). but dare utter one word in favor of conservatism in the original, true sense, and it is as though democracy is an unalloyed good with absolutely no downside. like, clearly we should have a direct democracy with no senate and no house, no? anything else is just allowing the Powers That Be to patriarchy everything!by keeganpoppen
3/12/2026 at 2:12:13 AM
It's only a speed bump for progressive laws while the most reactionary garbage gets fast tracked with their approvals.by thrance
3/11/2026 at 11:53:54 PM
You get something far worse in the US. Which is a government that no longer feels any need to either pass or be bound by laws.by vkou
3/12/2026 at 4:49:58 AM
Ah yes, the country whose supreme court struck down its global tariffs and then forced the federal government into refunding all the money back is truly no longer bound by its own laws.by anon291
3/12/2026 at 6:46:21 AM
Did the government pass any laws to steal those 130 billion dollars from Americans? I can't recall that it did.Are there any consequences for the people who did it?
The government has long ceased to govern by law. It now governs from the bench, and from executive order, because laws are too troublesome to actually pass.
by vkou
3/12/2026 at 3:23:39 PM
America operates on a strong executive common law system not whatever system you are imagining.I took business law more than a decade ago and the professor basically said do what you want (money wise) if you can pay for it. This is the English legal system and is how it's always worked. Liability is purely monetary and the law only applies to those who can show standing to do anything about it.
by anon291
3/14/2026 at 10:34:58 AM
So no-one affected by illegal tariffs has any legal standing?by foldr
3/12/2026 at 12:39:03 AM
Hyperbole beyond belief thereby nxm
3/12/2026 at 2:37:24 AM
That view is a leftover from a bygone era, when others could look at the US with often grudging admiration. Today? The US itself doesn't think much of itself, and to the rest of us it is a cautionary tale.by martythemaniak
3/12/2026 at 3:56:43 AM
"The US itself doesn't think much of itself"If you ever find yourself wondering why US voters elected someone like Trump...if you ever wondered why institutions in the US are crumbling and experts don't have much credibility, this is why. I assure you, most Americans think very highly of the US compared to the rest of the world (especially if they have traveled). Only the out of touch don't and the reasons why most US voters don't give them much credibility is the absolutely crazy amount of twisting of facts to align to that POV.
As people like that are slowly removed/aged out from those institutions, the institutions will magically start working well again and regain public trust. In case you wondered how a potted plant like Trump can somehow perform better than those experts, that's how. Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have. Its also how people who claim to be for peace and democracy somehow end up supporting a religious oligarchy that funds terrorism across an entire region. Ideology makes you dumb to the degree that you are smart.
PS Europe is the cautionary tale here. Again, your leaders are far smarter than Trump. Does that seem to matter? Nope, because ideology destroys the effectiveness they (you) should have.
by hunterpayne
3/12/2026 at 7:31:00 AM
Oh yeah, gotta love the "if you dont join our illegal unnecessary war, you support religious dictatorship".Spoken by supporter of a goverment who prefres dictatorships over democrscies, claims does not even want regime change in iran, claims they dont care about targetting civilian infrastructure.
That just made it so goverment in Iran is more hardline. And that just gave a lifeline to Russia while being at it.
by watwut
3/12/2026 at 4:49:29 AM
> Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have.Extremely well said
by anon291
3/11/2026 at 11:30:05 PM
I think a good revising chamber is critical to good democracy, though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act and ignoring the Salisbury Convention (which is that they shouldn’t block manifesto commitments).I do think the USA goes too far, which has led to frustration among the public and contributed to Trump and the resulting behaviour. I’ve said before that I think the US House of Representatives should have a mechanism to override Senate speed bumps, though not without effort. The idea is to encourage the legislature to compromise but maintain the “primacy” of the House if the Senate is being obstinate. Something like the Parliament Act, is what I’d have in mind.
by scott_w
3/12/2026 at 5:18:30 AM
The Senate in the US is the upper house and can override the House. There is no "primacy" of the House in the US system. The only place where anything like that exists is in impeachment (which is for any member of the executive or judicial branch, not just the president) where the House simply has more votes than the Senate (each member gets 1 vote). Those types of hearings are pretty rare (usually).by hunterpayne
3/12/2026 at 10:37:09 AM
> There is no "primacy" of the House in the US system.I know, I'm saying this is not a good approach, for the reasons I gave above.
by scott_w
3/11/2026 at 11:49:33 PM
Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament?by hardlianotion
3/12/2026 at 10:31:41 AM
> Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament?To be clear, I didn't say they "blocked," I said:
> though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act
This was a manifesto commitment which, while it eventually went through, it was touch and go for a little bit. Reporting at the time:
by scott_w
3/12/2026 at 1:18:22 PM
Okay, though to be fair to me, you said just after> and ignoring the Salisbury Convention (which is that they shouldn’t block manifesto commitments)
which is what attracted my question.
Thanks for the link. I haven’t watched it, but I will observe that a lot of the modern legislation that comes out of the commons should properly attract the attention of the Lords, as it doesn’t get nearly enough attention from the commons.
by hardlianotion
3/12/2026 at 2:49:45 PM
I totally agree, the upper chamber can and should make amendments to legislation. In this case, they made a generally good amendment to the Employment Rights Bill (allowing "at-will" dismissal up to the first 6 months rather than the initially proposed total ban).However after that amendment was accepted, Conservative Peers (who hold a majority) initially voted against the bill again: https://bectu.org.uk/news/prospect-slams-house-of-lords-for-...
It was eventually passed a week later when the Lords accepted the Commons amendments but that second block on 11th December shouldn't have happened.
by scott_w
3/12/2026 at 4:23:12 AM
> these nobles have lost their inherent powerThe nobles were the land owners, the business owners, the OG entrepreneurs, they were educated, and their children would grow up to be the same.
Historically the system made sense. But the last 150 years or so have basically taken their power away.
A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much.
by fy20
3/12/2026 at 8:46:16 AM
> A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much.Entire village? How's that work? What can the new owner do with the village? I imagine the inhabitants aren't enslaved?
by tasuki
3/12/2026 at 9:31:51 AM
Collects ground rent. A few hundred pounds each year from everyone who owns property or land in and around the village.by roryirvine
3/12/2026 at 3:49:28 PM
Ah, so the property is owned by the people living there, while the land is owned by someone else? That sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. Is this common in the UK?by tasuki
3/12/2026 at 6:09:51 PM
Yes, it's a system called leasehold which has its roots in medieval feudalism. Essentially, a property owner owns the building and a long-term (usually either 99 or 990 years) lease on the ground it sits on.Everyone recognises that it's absurd, and there've been attempts to fix it for over a century. They've already gone in Scotland, and the previous government finally passed legislation that would allow new leaseholds to be banned in England and Wales too (although it hasn't yet gone into effect). The current government has introduced a bill which will eventually bring the system to an end altogether.
As you might expect, there's huge opposition to these reforms from vested interests who are using every trick in the book to delay them. Getting rid of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords can only improve matters.
by roryirvine
3/12/2026 at 9:27:35 AM
Same thing landlords have done forever: Collect rents on their capital.by ForHackernews
3/12/2026 at 6:28:10 AM
Because 150 years ago the labour to keep the estate running was very cheap. Now that labour is expensive, it costs more in maintenance than the property is worth, unless it's highly productive land. Reminds me of the joke, how to make a thousand dollars: buy a million dollar boat.by telesilla
3/12/2026 at 7:34:37 AM
On other side my guess is also that net labour productivity of land has dropped significantly. What I mean that same amount of farm land does not produce same amount of excess labour buying power. So even if productivity itself for farming has risen massively. The amount of labour that you can buy with produced production has plummeted.by Ekaros
3/12/2026 at 6:54:43 AM
Downton Abbey played on this, they had to let people film a movie in their home just so that they could afford to fix the leaky roof =)by theshrike79
3/12/2026 at 2:31:42 AM
The purpose of an assembly is to reflect the actual distribution of power in society, not what we'd like it to be.If interest groups do not feel represented by the system, they will destroy it.
by jjmarr
3/12/2026 at 12:58:35 PM
My father-in-law always liked to see an exact number of democrats and republicans in congress, or congress held by one and the senate the other, for exactly this reason. With deadlock they can’t screw things up more. I’m not sure I disagree.by DougN7
3/12/2026 at 1:39:19 PM
Congress has had one of the lowest approval ratings of anything in government for a long time now because it doesn't get things done. Most Americans are quite unhappy with Congressional deadlock being the norm.It's also directly lead to the continued rise of the powers of the unitary executive - the EO that have become the norm in the 2000s are in large part because Congress has largely voided all responsibility for legislating.
by cthalupa
3/13/2026 at 1:06:37 AM
Congress passes tons of laws - just not on subjects on which the country is divided. Is that not a feature? Other systems require 50% + 1 to radically remake the entire country. Would that be better? Or worse? Imagine if <insert your most hated President> were Prime Minister instead, and had control of a truly sovereign Parliament with virtually no guardrails at all. Better or worse?EOs are a problem, but SCOTUS is walking at least some of that back in subtle ways, such as the end of Chevron deference. (Not that you'd get any of this from the media, who desperately want SCOTUS to devolve into the media-friendly horse race they've imposed upon all of the rest of politics.)
Congress isn't supposed to decide on social questions. Society is. Congress is meant to represent it. A divided Congress is accurately representing a divided country.
by troad
3/12/2026 at 1:04:27 AM
> meet regularly to converse and debateSenators play a similar role. Their aim is heavily weighted toward oversight and advisory. Gov’t in general is weighted in that direction, because governments govern which is mainly about being a kind of referee, maintaining the social order, and aiding human beings in attaining their end as human beings through legislation.
Without this function, we have activity with little reflection spurred by politicians pandering to the mob.
by lo_zamoyski
3/12/2026 at 2:10:58 PM
That particular group of nobles have lost their power, we just now have a different group that are not as obvious.The Iron Law of Oligarchy
by ifwinterco