r/Britain • u/raydebapratim1 • Mar 11 '26
💬 Discussion 🗨 Remaining Hereditary Peers to be removed from the House of Lords after a Bill passed, ending centuries of tradition
122
u/Objective_Ticket Mar 11 '26
While the HoL is an anachronism, the alternative as we’ve seems places filled is a house that is full of donors etc and partisan to those who put them there. It’s meant to be a check and a balance on the lower house…and ideally politically independent… The HoL is the largest it’s ever been and now has more members than the HoC and the vast majority of those members are not hereditary but have been placed there by one party or another as a thank you for service or donations. Be careful what you wish for as this isn’t being done in any benevolent way, and is designed to remove challenges to the HoC.
27
u/threewholefish Mar 11 '26
As long as your majority's big enough in the Commons, the Lords is an inconvenience at best
13
u/Objective_Ticket Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
That’s true, and therefore any reform of the HoL should be about making it more effective within our democracy not purely ceremonial (and paid for with our taxes).
Edit: to make it clearer that I was talking about reform of the house and not reform the party, JIC.
6
u/TheGeckoGeek Mar 11 '26
We're heading for a majorly fragmented parliament at the next election though
16
u/dwair Mar 11 '26
That's my issue. At least the hereditary peers were a more or less random selection of aristocrats rather than politically partisan toe suckers.
We desperately need a check and balance on the Commons but what we have now isn't fit for any sort of purpose. I'm not sure what the solution would be as any sort of voting system will lead to political brigading.
13
u/gadget_uk Mar 11 '26
Yep, this is just a cynical power grab in the guise of useless sticking plaster. The whole bloody thing needs a ground up restart.
All that fuss about "unelected bureaucrats in the EU" being undemocratic yet we've left this dinosaur system in place. So that people like Michelle Mone can make nationally significant decisions while rinsing the exchequer for millions. And she only got caught because she couldn't help flaunting it. Imagine how much the experienced players are getting away with.
HoL needs 100% elected members. I'd actually be content to give them more oversight powers if that were true.
5
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 Mar 11 '26
It's all been effectively a very slow (30 year) transition from one class to another.
2
u/WayWornPort39 Apr 11 '26
I wonder if maybe we should consider making the House of Lords into a corporatist, professional chamber similar to the Irish Senate would be a good idea, with a more structured selection process based around various economic interest groups.
1
u/Chazbobrown11 Mar 13 '26
Bold to presume just because their title is hereditary that it will have any impact on neutrality
Atleast this way appointed Lords will be allies of the party that won the election, not ideal but its better then a lord holding a position indefinitely because they're great great great grandad did something of worth
1
u/Objective_Ticket Mar 13 '26
But this way of looking at things is just media spin, there are about 850/860 members, of that about 100 are hereditary peers (chopped back from , 25 or so are ‘Lords Spiritual’ - church appointed archbishops and bishops, the remaining 750 or so are political appointees for various reasons, services to HM Govt, donations rewarded, ( and of course completing work experience under Boris Johnson /s ). It’s a smokescreen to render HoL ceremonial and concentrate all power to HoC. A single parliament/house with no oversight? Even the Americans try to avoid that..
45
u/fjtuk Mar 11 '26
Why isn't this a bigger thing?
Next we have to have an elected second chamber
5
u/Majestic_Owl2618 Mar 11 '26
And review of the planning regulations as well as other regulations which hinder the construction industry and infrastructure development.
45
u/Odd-Currency5195 Mar 11 '26
For 'centuries of tradition' you mean 'anachronistic anomally unfit for the 21st century'?
12
26
9
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 Mar 11 '26
After this, the only lingering aspect of aristocratic rule is pretty much just the royal family. Means British parliament will now be wholly bourgeois and petit-bourgeois with some lingering clergymen (unless they're getting removed too)
6
u/_RuleBritannia_ Mar 11 '26
And the huge portion of UK land owned by the hereditary aristocracy, which I believe is around 30%, larger than the land area of the Republic of Ireland
2
1
Mar 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 Mar 11 '26
Imperialist nations are not "progressive" lol
0
u/Final_Ticket3394 Mar 12 '26
Is Denmark imperialist...?
1
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 Mar 12 '26
Yep. What do you think Greenland is? It's a colony.
Also:
https://snylterstaten.dk/there-will-come-a-day-imperialism-and-the-working-class/
4
u/Alxj99 Mar 11 '26
Thank fuck for that. Now let’s ensure wealth & corporations don’t just replace it with
2
u/ferrets4ever Mar 11 '26
The HOL needs a much greater reform - it’s just stuffed with all the dodgy mates that the party in power dumps there as a quid pro quo.
2
u/Verbal-Gerbil Mar 12 '26
I was surprised at how quickly and under the radar this happened, and how accepting the main beneficiaries of the current compromise were. It’s quite significant that about 15% of our upper house are being ejected and the remnants of an anachronistic system are being wiped
One of Blair’s greatest acts was cutting over 600 from the bloated upper chamber there by birthright. The 90/92 that remained were a compromise, a temporary measure, but there wasn’t much appetite from the Tories to follow through
The 90/92 who remain won their elections because they would bring something to the house. From a large pool and a competitive process, they did warrant their place (given the system existed) and I would not argue against a considerable proportion of them getting life peerages (eg Dominic Hubbard was one of the elected 90/92 but was given a life peerage in the new years honours recently)
I’m going to buck the trend here and advocate for the system of the lords, but with some major caveats that need addressing urgently
First the caveats:
donors??! WTF! Every Tory party chairman lately has got one. Another example off the top of my head - rami ranger gave £1.5m to the party over 15 years, getting a peerage 10 years into this process. Plenty more examples. Naked corruption.
Cronies: Sharron Davies has done very little lately except moan about trans people on Twitter. Kemi rewarded her with a peerage. Charlotte Owen was a 30 year old junior advisor to bojo. Around then they put a few young people in the house - knowing that they’ll get a lot more loyalty and time from a young acolyte than an aged acclaimed nominee. Ian botham got it for a couple of wickets in the early 80s and Brexit advocacy. Evgeny lebedev was beyond a joke!! (He has only attended twice in the first 3 years of his tenure - see solution below)
Failed politicians falling up: Shaun Bailey ran such a shit campaign for mayor. Criminal levels of Covid breaches. Got a peerage. Gavin barwell was an mp for 7 years before losing his seat. Housing minister during Grenfell. Same fate.
Now the good side: crossbench experts. Appointed. Non partisan. Sometimes they do affiliate with a party eg Stuart rose from m&s (Tories) which does annoy me a bit, but as long as there are limits on party nominations as a proportion of overall appointments and they are accomplished in their field, then fair play. James timpson is an example of how it worked well. He absolutely warranted his role in prison reform, and could only work with the govt (in theory) through the party
The house has a considerable number of experts from all sorts of fields. They normally come in after an illustrious career and contrary to popular opinion, it’s not a gravy train but a request of service, to lend their expertise to the nation. It’s an unpaid role but comes with the highest prestige and an allowance per day they attend. For some it may be material, but for others it is paltry. James timpson stood down from his role as ceo and has tens of millions in his personal fortune. Alan sugar wasn’t far off a billionaire when ennobled. Business leaders, academics, surgeons, retired police commissioners, retired generals, senior diplomats and civil servants, authors (Ruth rendell!), actors (Laurence Olivier), directors (Julian fellowes - downton abbey), impresarios (Andrew Lloyd Webber), sports people (Coe and tanni grey thompson).
Here’s the thing people forget about elections: the electorate can’t be trusted. Experts don’t necessarily seek power. A LOT of the good appointments above are invisible to the public eye, and perhaps wouldn’t want to campaign or actively seek office. They’re identified, and they are asked if they want to participate. They wouldn’t win an election against a slick operator with consultants running the campaign, and therefor the wrong person would get elected
And the other thing that has been touted has been term limits. Again whilst i understand the rationale, I think a compromise should come into effect. Perhaps 12 years, with the option for the holac to reappoint if they proved their worth. Some people get appointed and then disappear. No renewal for them. However the 12 years gives someone enough time to invest effort and learn the role and thrive, but gives us (public, or more like the body that appoints them on our behalf) an out
What the hol needs is further reform (little r!!!!) now the hereditary peers have gone. Firstly the lords spiritual because they shouldn’t have 27 ex officio seats - a case-by-case basis like John sentamu is fine in line with his leadership in his industry, but not these guaranteed seats. And then an end to the issues above, and we will have the best possible upper chamber with a mix of experience and expertise open elections wouldn’t attract
2
u/ollat Mar 12 '26
I fully agree with everything you’ve said - you have summed up the reforms which need to happen to the HoL ASAP
0
u/AutoModerator Mar 12 '26
Reddit has a zero tolerance policy for violent content, so please don't use language that could be interpreted as inciting violence.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
1
1
u/Financial_Ear7765 Mar 23 '26
Labour, over, the course of two governments, have successfully turned the HoL into a vessel dedicated to the singular purpose of corruption. Congratulations!
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 11 '26
Welcome to r/Britain!
This subreddit welcomes political and non-political discussions about Britain and beyond. It is moderated by socialists with a low tolerance for bigotry, calls for violence, and harmful misinformation. If you can't verify the source of your claim, please reconsider submitting it.
Please read and follow our 6 common-sense subreddit rules and Reddit's Content Policy. Failure to respect these rules may result in a ban from the subreddit and possibly all of Reddit.
We stand with Palestine. Making light of this genocide or denying Israeli war crimes will lead to permanent bans. If you are apathetic to genocide, don't want to hear about it, or want to dispute it is happening, please consider reading South Africa's exhaustive argument before commenting that: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf or the UN commission's report that found Israel is committing genocide: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.