this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
148 points (98.1% liked)

UK Politics

3090 readers
56 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The argument in favour of the lords is it allows scrutiny on laws without party politics - if something is stupid but popular their job is to say no, when the commons would want to push it through to increase their reëlection chances. Replacing them with an elected chamber is just as bad as completely removing them in that case.

[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There’s also bishops from the Church of England in there having a say in what happens like it’s still the Middle Ages.

The only other country where senior religious figures have that kind of say is Iran.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah, I agree that's not great but it's still not a reason to risk rushing in to making it worse

Personally I think the fact it's unelected is great, but the way people get into it isn't so great, so would rather have reform but keeping it unelected or at most indirectly elected, with voting rights going to MBE holders (or a pool of MBE holders elected by the commons in some format which accounts for party makeup of the commons) or all Livery Company/Professional Association leaders or some other group which should know their stuff better than both the people we currently have in the lords or career politicians

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

In Sweden, all proposed laws basically go through an investigation by a group of civil servants, which I believe could be said to fulfil the same objective.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, depending on how they're elected - these sorts of systems can be democratic and effective, but they have to be designed well

Doing something like the staggered terms used in the US senate is a pretty good way of reducing that sort of effect

[–] Minarble@aussie.zone 3 points 6 days ago

The Australian system seems to work pretty well if the electorate is smart enough to not give a major party a sweeping majority which seems to be the case since the Whitlam dismissal,so regardless of who is in power in the lower house they have to negotiate with minor parties to get legislation through the senate unless both the major parties agree on something.

The point is there nearly always has to be some discussion and negotiations.

The senate elections are staggered as well with only half up for reelection at every lower house election.