Most British people I think are just indifferent to the Lords. I personally am very keen on keeping it the way it is - it shouldn't work on paper but it does work in practice, just like most of the British constitution. The Lords basically have the power to say "...are you sure?" to the Government, and the Government can say yes and go ahead, but they have to spend their own political capital to do so by having to explain themselves to the public and the media about this now-controversial bill of theirs, so it can't just sail through. Having it unelected is important not only for the reasons they give in the video, but also because if you have two elected chambers, they usually end up being able to block each other and jam up government (as happens in the US and Italy) rather than just have one scrutinising the other. If we had to change, I think the second best option would be what Germany does, where their local state governments appoint members of their upper house - same argument that they're not directly elected so they aren't seen as equal in power to the upper house. Also just a note that the bishops are Church of England bishops (you call it Episcopalian in the US) because that's the state religion, Catholics were barred from office until the 1830s and it was still seen as controversial enough that Tony Blair didn't come out as a Catholic until he'd stepped down as PM.

As a Brit we tend not to think about the Lords too much Why would we? it works and has done for hundreds of years, Lifetime peers have usually distinguished themselves in some way either in Business in politics or maybe even as a trade Union Leader. They have accumulated years of experience between them so it makes sense to push them up into the Lords where if they can't stop the Government of the day, from doing their will they can at least question them and make them explain themselves and make us aware of what is happening.

Having an appointed house in the House of Lords can actually protect democracy as the peers are not beholden to supporters lobby groups or voters. They are an important check point for lawmaking

An interesting fact for you Americans is that the Hollywood actress Jamie Lee Curtis is married to Christopher Guest who is the 5th Baron Haden-Guest and up until 1999 was eligible to sit in the House of Lords and Jamie Lee Curtis was seen sitting with him at the State Opening of Parliament in 1997.

There is a process in place to ensure the elected representatives have the final say. If the House of Commons passes an amendment and the Lords reject it the Commons will review and amend, but if they just pass it again and it goes back and forth 3 times then the Commons can invoke the Parliament Act and pass it anyway.

Before 1999 so many of the members of the House of Lords were hereditary. This could mean that some people sat because their ancestor was appointed in 1283!

You should watch a session of PMQ's (Prime Ministers Questions) it gets pretty unruly and boisterous. Also watch the State Opening of Parliament that gives you a good look at both the Houses of Parliament when they are full on the biggest day of the year

I love seeing all things British through your eyes and find it very refreshing. I do have to shout at the TV sometimes! Good job!

There's something great about the non-political Lords bringing their knowledge and experience to public service through scrutiny and advice. Check our Robert Winston and Helena Kennedy.

By George I think he's getting it! Well done!👍

Just so that you know for going forwards in your life, if you ever hear of a British person being described as "Lord X" or "Lady Y" that isn't just a title, it means that they are literally peers in the house of lords. For example, Lord Sugar (the star of "The Apprentice") is an actual lord and peer in the house of Lords for life.

So that 2 hrs journey would be by high speed train ... On the motorways (highways to you) the same journey would be more like 4hours .. it would take more like 13 - 16 hours to go from the furthest south to the furthest north in a car . Maybe even longer as the roads in Scotland are allot more winding then in England's east

note: its more like 12-15 to drive to the north of scotland. i live about 50 miles west of london and it takes about 8-9 hours to drive to my grandmothers house in aberdeen

I’ve come back to watch your earlier videos and love that you were learning this, it’s interesting to see your reactions and the fact that you keep looking stuff up is good 😊

Hi Tyler.... thanks, I learned quite a bit from this series you have doing on the UK and parliament. As an Australian I know our Parliament and Government was set up as a combination of English and US systems. This was done deliberately when Australia became a Nation in 1901. We took the best of both, supposedly. We have elected House of Representatives and an an elected Senate (upper house to review bills). Our Prime Minister is the leader of the Party that has a majority. Our Parliament is headed by the Queen and opened each year by her representative, the Governor General (who could dissolve Parliament and call for a new election in a very rare controversial situation). Australia is a member of the Commonwealth and as such Queen Elizabeth is also officially the Queen of Australia. Fun :-) Graeme

Haha , it'll take 2 hours to get through London !

It is not the upper chamber of government. It is the upper chamber of Parliament

Enjoying watching you learn.

The issues with John Bercow were two fold. First, the Speaker is supposed to be politically neutral. The Speaker will always be an MP, in this case he was a Tory, but the are supposed to put the politics aside but this was something Bercow found impossible, especially during Brexit. Interestingly after he retired from the job as Speaker, he left the Tory Party and joined the Labour Party. But more so, he was investigated for bullying and that was the nail in the coffin and why he was not, and never will be, made a Peer. From wiki "In March 2022, the Independent Expert Panel upheld the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, concluding that Bercow had “been widely unreliable and repeatedly dishonest in his evidence", a "serial liar" and a "serial bully"."

There are a couple of comments here that make the point already, but the House of Lords is something that is completely opposed to democracy, regardless of whether you are left, right, or centre. It makes absolutely no sense and is an utter anachronism. And yet, for some annoying reason, it actually works they generally do a pretty good job. I would say the main complaint is around the generous subsidies they get, regardless of how much work they put in. It's very much peers on an individual level that are seen as a problem, rather than the institution.

The Queen has an annual Honours list that usually contains the usual civil servants for long service, the political pat on the back for a few and then the odd commoners for exceptional service to the community. What honours are awarded is a little more tricky and you'll need to understand the hierarchy and nobility scale...

Yeah , Parliament is in London .Lords and Commons are even in the same Palace. Boris is still PM at the moment but has announced his resignation when the successor is chosen .

The average attendance at the House of Lords 2019 to 2021 was 352. Some only turn up long enough to claim their daily expenses. It acts as a review committee on new legislation. The system seems to work, as enough motivated Peers turn up to do the work. A lot of Life Peers are "retired" MPs and Prime Ministers.

Going back to your Churchill reaction, when Churchill was up for the post of Prime Minister his biggest rival was Lord Halifax. So there was a controversy at the time, as to whether it was appropriate to appoint a Peer from the House of Lords as Prime Minister.

Brexit is simple. A lot of people in England were upset about the way the European Union had transformed from a primarily economic association of nations to a full on socialist association that sought to govern all of the sovereign nations within the Union. Britain has a history of independence and not being pushed around by the Catholic Church and many other parties. Most people decided that the benefits of leaving outweighed the costs. The difficult bit was the fact that being part of the EU and leaving it carried some contractual financial obligations. My personal opinion is that the UK is better off out of it and focusing on wider opportunities throughout its empire and other parts of the world that are growing and have far more natural resources. People forget what is Great about Britain is its ability to endure after staring down its detractors and enemies. It doesn't need the EU to continue to be exceptional.

Nice to see an American trying to understand the political government of the UK You earned a subscriber

if your driving for the most southern point of England "Lands End" to the furthest part of the mainland in Scotland it will take around 14 to 16 hours as the road in Scotland have to move around the mountains just going from my home in Wiltshire to my Birth place on the north coast can take 12 hours by car with maybe 1 or 2 stops I wouldn't say controversial but they are referenced as being a remnant of an archaic system as they have been in existence for a very long time and are unelected, originally the Members of Parliament represent the people while the house of lord represent the Nobility. Nowadays the Nobility does not have really any power like they did so the House of Lords are more of a double check on the MPs and since the Nobility no longer have the power they used to they are much closer to ordinary people that have some fancy titles and heritage however some are recent and don't have heritage. They also serve the House of Lords until death at which point the next in line for the title takes their place into the House of Lords If i recall correctly the American version of the Tories (Conservatives) and Labour are at closest match Republicans to the Tories and Democrats for the Labour, also i know that there are some big differences between the parties i think they are the closest comparisons I would say how i see the Lords is complex as i know the downsides but i also see how they have changed overtime and how they haven't done anything wrong that i can see, so i can't see any issue having them around, especially as they have become closer to the average citizen as apposed to the career politicians we get in parliament (i hate career politicians as many have never had a normal job)

It takes 14/15 hours to drive the length of the mainland north to south. But as little as 2 to drive west/east at the narrowest point.

Sebastian Newbold Coe, Baron Coe, CH, KBE, Hon FRIBA (born 29 September 1956), often referred to as Seb Coe,[3][4] is a British politician and former track and field athlete. As a middle-distance runner, Coe won four Olympic medals, including 1500 metres gold medals at the Olympic Games in 1980 and 1984. He set nine outdoor and three indoor world records in middle-distance track events - including, in 1979, setting three world records in the space of 41 days - and the world record he set in the 800 metres in 1981 remained unbroken until 1997. Coe's rivalries with fellow Britons Steve Ovett and Steve Cram dominated middle-distance racing for much of the 1980s.[5] Following Coe's retirement from athletics, he was a Conservative member of parliament from 1992 to 1997 for Falmouth in Cornwall, and became a Life Peer on 16 May 2000. He headed the successful London 2012 Olympic bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics and became chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. In 2007, he was elected a vice-president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), and re-elected for another four-year term in 2011.[6] In August 2015, he was elected president of the IAAF.[7]. Wikipedia. I think he must be one of the most famous people in the UK, if not to a lesser extent the World.

In Australia the upper house is elected the same as the lower house, but the upper house is run along similar lines as the house of lords.

You're doing great ..keep going.

As a British person the house of lords is probably the one place nobody understands not even the people there. Somehow it works, however it's starting to get much more party lined than it has been. Also just like the house of commons there are far too many of them that are completely out of touch with the common person, and out of the 757 members only around 300 bother showing up regularly. Still if you watch the chambers they are usually pretty empty. It's only the schoolyard that is PMQ's that fills the house up these days. It would be nice if the lords was more representative of the country. I don't mind it being an appointed system, but it would be nice if there were some regional members and a recall option for them and maybe not a lifetime appointment....

You’ll be an expert on British politics soon Tyler.

You are quite correct to think that the House of Lords has royal connections, as it is from the throne in their chamber that the King, Queen or their Commissioners officially open each new session of parliament at the event known as the State Opening of Parliament. The present Queen has missed this event just three times over the past 70 years - two of which were when she was in the late stages of pregnancy with her two younger sons; and the third being the most recent, due to mobility problems occurring due to her extreme old age. As the latter is unpredictable and she is now in her 97th year, it seems unlikely she will perform this duty in person again - and certainly not in her full State Robes and Crown, as was always the case until she had passed the age of 90. On these occasions when she is unable to attend she appoints Commissioners to read her speech on her behalf - her personal presence being represented by the Imperial State Crown, which is carried in procession into the chamber, immediately before the commissioners and sits alongside them as they read the speech! Commissioners are usually the most senior members of the Royal Family next to herself, but can be another of her peers - which is where that word comes from - Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Lords and Bishops all being considered the Sovereign's Peers - as either they themselves or their ancestors have been awarded their titles by the present or a past King or Queen Regnant. If you watch footage of a State Opening of Parliament before 1998 when ALL hereditary peers were entitled to sit in the House of Lords, you'll notice that other members of the Royal Family also used to attend State Opening ceremonies. (The late Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, who was the Queen's sister; her aunts Princess Mary, the previous Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood (until 1964); Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent (until 1968); Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (until about 1980); her uncle Prince Henry, 1st Duke of Gloucester (until 1970); and her cousins, the Dukes and Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent (until 1962), and The Earl (until 1959) and Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone (until about 1975) have all been fairly regular attendees - as of course was Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - who was positioned on a slightly lower throne next to his wife's, after she made him a Prince of the United Kingdom in 1958 - prior to which he sat on a "Chair of Estate" several feet away. The Prince of Wales and Princess Anne - who later became the Princess Royal, occasionally attended from 1968 and were also seated on the dais, a few feet from their parents. The Duke and Duchess of York also attended at least once in the late 1980s - but the Earl and Countess of Wessex never have, as Prince Edward had no automatic right to be there until his marriage in 1999 - by which time most hereditary peers were being removed from the Lords!) There is a dress code on these occasions: full parliamentary robes denoting their ranks for the members of the House of Lords - with other orders and decorations (sashes and stars) and tiaras for the ladies; including the Queen's ladies-in-waiting who used to include her Mistress of the Robes and two Ladies of the Bedchamber, but in more recent times have just been the two Ladies. The Princess Royal sometimes takes part in the processions in her role as Silver Stick in Waiting and in full military uniform with the sash and star of the Order of the Thistle, and the star of the Order of the Garter and the star and chain of the Royal Victorian Order, of which she is also Grand Master. Since 2000, The Duchess of Cornwall attends as part of The Queen's Procession too, immediately behind Her Majesty with her husband, the Prince of Wales, or immediately beside him and behind The Crown, if he is acting as a Royal Commissioner. She also sits on the dais in a Chair of Estate a few feet from the throne - and will in future sit beside her husband on the Consort's throne after they become King and Queen. The Queen wears the family orders of Kings George VI and George V; the other Royal Ladies present wear the Queen's family order and any others they might also possess - although there is now only one member (Princess Alexandra) still alive who also possessed the family order of King George VI. (Princesses Margaret, Marina and Alice of Gloucester wore Elizabeth II, George VI, George V and the Imperial Order of India; while Princess Alice of Athlone wore the Orders of Victoria and Albert (2nd class), Edward VII, George V, George VI, Elizabeth II and the Order of the Crown of India!) As the vast majority of the hereditary peers were assumed to be Conservative, we all thought that the Lords would become fairer when all but 92 of them were removed from the chamber in 1999 (those that remained did so by election of their whole number; with only one royal relation remaining - Lady Saltoun, who is a great granddaughter in-law of Queen Victoria, and who has since retired). As Prime Minister Boris Johnson has abused his appointee privilege however, appointing even his own brother to the Lords, who had resigned as an MP in opposition to some of Boris' tactics - and generally trying to tip the balance of power within the Lords with Conservative Party supporters in the hope that Commons legislation will pass through largely unchallenged. With some justification, The House of Commons might be regarded at this present time as the House of Conservative Corruption; while the House of Lords might be called The House of Conservative Abuse.

I am British. And I think that the House of Lords should be kept but should also be reformed in it’s member choices. I believe it should be almost entirely meritocratic. Abolish Hereditary Peers. And have every single member of the House of Lords be chosen based on them being a leader in a particular field of society. It could be Civil Engineering, Environmental Science, Medicine, Economics. A few chosen from each important field to be called on when their particular field arises to lead and inform the house. I also believe amongst these there should be religious leaders from the major religions and denominations of those religions in the UK, so not just Bishops but Imams, Rabbai’s and Guru’s too. To help represent the opinions of the religious population. Although I perhaps have a bias, living in the most multi-religious constituency in all of the UK.

Whenever someone in commons refers to someone they will always use right honourable, My right honourable friend, or the right honourable lady.

as someone from the uk think the fact that they don't have to play the party politics game has its advantage there position isn't controlled by the whip as it is called

Lords in Medieval times were the landowners gentry and nobility. All areas came under control of a Lord of the Manor. These until recent. These were the original participants in parliament under the maonarch, before the common people were allowed. The main Bishops of the church of England were included for spiritual input and as major landowners. Many modern lords are ex business men, scientists etc who bring their experience into parliament this way. Of course a PM will try to favour his party in appointments, but previous government parties have done the same so the balance is more or less maintained. The PM is leader of the largest party which forms the government, while the other parties are the opposition who contest it's bills in debate. Members of all parties sit together in committees to discuss business, in fact that is what they do most of the time. The noisy debate seen on video occurs only once a week when the PM or a minister has to answer questions in the house of commons. The US system was based on the British with the President gaining the monarch's powers (& uses them all the time we're our monarchs can only use these in emergency). The senate takes the Lord's role a America has no lords, but it would also be dominated by the rich & powerful. The house of representatives is similar to the house of commons. The main difference is that the President is the active head of US Government therefore a particular party member automatically disliked by supporters of other parties, whereas the monarch is neutral. It is the prime minister of the UK who leads the Government and so is opposed by the other parties' supporters. Hope this makes sense to you. Respect to you. Good videos.Well done.

I also see the benefits of the House of Lords although could do with some changes.

On the question of the size of the UK. the USA has something like 40 times the land area of the UK (the USA is 40 X the size of the UK). So as a 'rule of thumb', places (such as major cities) in the US are on average are approx. 6-7 times the distance compared to the UK.

When Considering the House of Lords and it's appointment processes there are 3 members that could be informative Lord Evgeny Lebedev is a recent controversial appointment but Lord Ashcroft was also a controversial appointment in his time. A less controversial member is Doreen Lawrence. If America had this system the Koch Brothers would be appointed to it.

I think in the end i can't decide what i prefer, keeping it as it is does mean the unelected technically hold more power, but we get the benefit of specialised incite in many cases, where as if it's gust general elected people they could only know what they've learnt in limited fields, which could result in good laws being delayed unnecessarily

One has to look at the House of Lords of England from a historical view. First of all, England was a Monarchy with full powers. Throughout the history and rulers, the privileged became the Aristocracy that ruled in their domain whether as a Lord, Duke, Viscount and all. DEMOCRACY AND PARLIAMENTARY RULE SLOWLY DEVELOPED in England. 1215: the Magna Carta in 1215 curtailed the full powers of the Absolute monarchy forced on by the Barons AND the Parliament of England was established 1327:, the representatives of the counties (knights of the shire) and of the towns (burgesses) became a permanent part of Parliament. 1688: The English Parliament seized power from the monarchy 1707: The Parliament of Great Britain was formed in 1707. 1801: BOTH the House of Lords and House of Commons started in 1801 but the Lords as Aristocrats still invoked the RIGHT TO RULE REFORMS: Reform Bill in 1831, Reform Act 1867, People Act 1884, Parliament Act 1911 1950: Every constituency represented by a single Member of Parliament. The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It works with the House of Commons to: make laws check and challenge the actions of the government, and provide a forum of independent expertise Basically, it does the checks and balances of what the House of Commons passed in rules, bills, amendments and all. It scrutinises legislation, holds the government to account, and considers and reports upon public policy. AND may also seek to introduce legislation or propose amendments to bills. The House of Lords Chamber spends about 60% of its time on legislation; the other 40% is spent on scrutiny - questioning Government and debating issues and policy. Committee work takes place outside the Chamber.

One thing to point out .. the US senate was not always elected. That changed at some point. They were appointed at one time.

At one of my first jobs, I wondered why the firm had a chauffeur to take our chairman - a Lord for services to the legal profession - to the House of Lords for lunch and then back again to the office for the afternoon through all the central London traffic. The firm had a staff restaurant and directors were served lunch in a separate formal dining room. Then I found out that a Lord who attends the the House of Lords for the day gets the attendance allowance, as well as the really good subsidised lunch. Currently, £323 / day ($390) plus travel expenses and the subsidised restaurant(s). In theory, the Lords - a hangover from when they owned the lands and were the legal representatives - are supposed to be a counter measure for draft legislation, questioning and bringing in amendments. But they’re not elected, although many of them have been MPs in the past. Each ex-PM, parties and so on can create Lords and Ladies. Now, the Labour Party has so many that the Tories are adding to them although the inherited Lords are being reduced and there’s far too many of them overall. Boris, now he’s about to become a ex-PM, is rumoured to be about to make his dad, who lives in France, a Lord in his resignation honours list. Boris, in the middle of a war, a fuel crisis and inflation higher than it’s been for 40 years, has left Downing Street for Chequers, the PM’s country residence, for the remaining weeks of his leadership. He’s been on hols for the last month.

A member of Parliament is referred to, especially in the House of Commons, as the honourable member for his/her constituency unless they are also a member of the Queen's Privy Council when they are referred to as Right Honourable members.

Moving the Upper House to York, which is a long way from London by European standards, would be akin to the US moving the Senate to somewhere like Denver. BTW, the bishops who sit in the Lords are the senior Anglican (Episcopalian) bishops, not Roman Catholics.

To the average man in the street, The lords and MPs have have little idea of how thier constituants live day to day on a basic wage or sickness benefit. The wine bill for a parliamentry lunch break would provide enough funds for a family of 4 for a year. Some of the people that were from working class background elected to be MPs soon get into the swing of Lobbying in the house for an unknown company and gets a bung of cash that is suposed to be declaired as interest, thats how MPs rise in the world. lots of MPs take non executive positions with companies but declair no earnings. When needed to sway something in that companies direction they are called upon to push for or against as required, but thats politics for you.

3:56 that isn’t driving, that’s taking the train 😅

Omg, I wish I didn't know about Brexit! 😭 I can only dream of being so blissfully unaware of BreakShit.

Think it's about 1050 miles between John'o'groats in Scotland and Lands end in Cornwall by road

The 1997 reform act was not progress. It removed most of the hereditary peers (lords who inherit their seat) with hundreds of Life Peers (lords who have been granted a seat by the government for life but not passed on). The "problem" was that as the hereditary peers were guaranteed their seat, it did not matter which politicians they pissed off. When Blair came to power in 1997, he did not like having hundreds of lords who did not answer him. So he introduced the reform act that allowed him to replace independent hereditary peers with life peers of his choosing. Each consecutive government has continued to stack the deck once elected, hence the almost 800 members.

Hi from England 😁 So the Lib Dems are the centre party, and Labour is the left party (what you call Lib Dems). There are so many ‘independents’ because it includes all 4 countries and their devolved governments as well. Hope that isn’t too complicated!

The main differences between the US and UK supreme court is in the US they are appointed by the governing party while in the UK they are appointed by independent committee

It was more controversial when The Lords was occupied by actual lords - hereditary peers (nobles) only there because they owned land and estates bequeathed to them by the parents (father usually). They were originally appointed by the king/queen, in fact, because their lands and estates were originally awarded by the monarch. Nowadays with life peers (people appointed on merit - usually depending on their specialist knowledge and experience), it's less of an issue with the public. There are still some hereditary peers left in the lords (the ones who actually turned up were allowed to stay after the change in rules, i.e. they contributed so that was recognised) but they really should go. Like the monarchy itself, it's not really ideal to have someone inherit power just because of who their parents are/were. There are other people in there too who are also problematic. Most controversially, bishops from the Church of England who similarly really shouldn't be there. Church of England is the 'official' religion of the UK but the reality is, the UK is predominantly a secular state. So not Catholic bishops btw - Church of England only. I don't think the Queen can refuse recommendations - she generally doesn't have any power of veto in politics. John Bercow annoyed Boris by opposing him over Brexit. Boris is a pratt. The Lords cannot prevent the Commons passing legislation but there are mechanisms, as you saw, where they can throw a spanner in the works. More usefully, because they have more time, knowledge and expertise, they are able to scrutinise proposed legislation and discover problems with it. Their most useful role is to send legislation back to the Commons for amendment because they have spotted a real problem with what is being proposed. That's what they mostly do. Right Honourable is used as a title in various ways - it's an honorific. Senior church members (Bishops and Archbishops) can be called Right Honourable and Reverend and, apparently, Right Honourable and Gallant can be used with a senior member of the armed services. There are other honorifics of this nature used in the UK.

The HoL is unelected yes which is a huge benefit, it means that they are not subject to the silly partisan squabbling that is rife in the HoC, at least to the same extent. They can also vote how they really feel would benefit the country without having to worry about the public opinion.

The HOL is a modifying body - saying "are you sure? The HOC, the elected body, have the final say and in extreme circumstances very much have the last word.

its all in the same building. However, the lords cannot enter the commons due to history when Charles 1st had the commons door slammed in his face. When the queen gives her speach every year, she invites the commons to enter the house of lords to hear the speach. Part of the pagentry is that Black Rod, her representatives goes to the commons and they slam the door in his face. He then bangs on the door with his black rod and the door opens and he bows to the mps and the chair and invites them to visit the Queen in the OTHER HOUSE.

I agree with what you say and adding life peers of former MPs who are good legislators and life peers who are in academia but sadly most life peer appointments since so many hereditary peer seats were taken away reduced from 600 to 192 many of the appointments are wealthily business and industrial leaders not so much celebrities but some of them as well. In fairness many of them are concerned about legacy and being a more broad group of expertise to the Lords a son of a Duke doesn’t always have a brain or interested in taking the job seriously but that was not the norm most hereditary peers saw their job as one predetermined for them and was an honor to serve their Monarch in this capacity and took their education seriously and their family’s ensured they were prepared for the task

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT BLACK ROD WHO'S JOB IT IS IS OLD CEREMONIAL AND HAS TO CARRY A OLD LONG ROD THAT MUST BE RAMMED INTO THE COMMONS DOOR AND ANNOUNCE CERTAIN DEMANDS TO GAIN ENTRY. ITS FASCINATING TO SEE .

London to York is about a 4 hour drive.

The reason usa doesnt elect all possitions is seperation of power the founding fathers wanted to keep each other in check they believed by elect8ng one layer then that layer elects another that they can keep each other in check

That's straight up one motorway London to York. Although 8-10 hours gets you just about anywhere from the centre of the country, but end to end is a lot longer, I've done Yorkshire to Portsmouth round-trip in 13 hours... York historically is the only other place that was actually recognised as England's capital. _In the summer of 1298 Edward I moved the two departments at the heart of government, the Chancery and Exchequer, to the city. They only returned to London in 1304. For those years, York was effectively the capital of England_

4:00 cute, it takes like 25 hours to drive up BC from the lower mainland; and I have to drive 12ish hours east just to get to the Alberta border 😂 Takes forever to get anywhere in Canada lol

The Lords is interesting. Some people get there because of their background, Church, military, birthright or expertise. It can become controversial when they think they know better than the electorate. Also they don't get a "salary" unlike the Commons but get expenses and attendance allowance. As a point of interest the Speaker of the Lords sits on a woolsack, a bale of wool, covered of course. Its to remind them of the basis of our economy. Thats medieval for you.

What the parties mean to someone in the US would very loosely be equivalent to Conservatives (Tories) = Repulicans, and Labour = Democrats. Lib Dems are kind of like Libertarians, and UKIP = Tea Party.

We used to have a house in the NW of Scotland - and family in Bristol. 610 miles was a 12 hour drive with only fuel stops - very arduous to do in a day, still tough in two. And that's nowhere near Lands End to John O'Groats.

The way I look at it, elected branches of governments have their strengths and weaknesses. Unelected branches of governments have different strengths and weaknesses. Having one elected and one unelected branch balancing each other out makes for a stronger composite government. Honestly, I do point to the US as an example of what can go wrong when *EVERYONE*, from the head of state, down to judges and sheriffs is democratically elected. It's why, despite being politically very left wing myself, I believe having the monarch as head of state is actually a good thing, that makes the systems of governance stronger.

If someone is the "Right Honourable" then they are a member of the Privy Council, who are the senior advisors to the Crown.

Easiest to describe the political parties in the house of lords would be, conservatives= Republicans, labour= democrats, ukip= tea party, lib-dem= left of labour, independents and small parties left and right, bishops= head of churches

you ought to do a reaction to UK geography.

John Bercow not being put forward for life peerage was the final and omissible sign how much former prime minister Boris Johnson disregarded the British constitution in order to have his ways in politics. It was a very despicable move of Johnson's, unfortunately only one in a million.

The UK is about the size of Idaho and the population of 2.5 times that of Texas and everyone is within 1 hour of the coast

this is why a democracy works elected official follow the party line which sometimes goes against the majority of the people this is where the lords steep in they do not owe allegiance or do not have to stick by the party line because they do not have to worry about reelection so they can vote what is best for the country and when they do then the people can get involved in changing it that is why i think Britain is the best democracy in the world

There are some lords who just turn up once a year just to keep the title up

The Salisbury convention means that the lords won't block a law if the government told people they were going to do it when they were elected, on the basis that the people have had their say on the matter. If it's a bill they never told people they were going to pass, which happens sometimes for various reasons and can't be avoided, the lords can block it for a year and force the government to argue (With a bunch of experts) why they know better. The "Democratic" nature of the commons is weakened in those circumstances. (This is the Lords argument for their existence.).

Most people in the UK probably don't really know how it works so will reel at the thought of the privilege the name and history infers. However, if you break it down to it being a collective of experts, separate from the electoral party politics, there to scrutise legislation and ensure legislation is workable and legal, then it does work. There are exceptions, the public rightly have little time for members of the HoL who abuse their position or show up merely for subsidised lunch and to claim their daily expenses and allowance. The main causes of concern however are the remaining heriditories and the inclusion of so many religious appointees with their tiny and dwindling mandate and archaic viewpoint. (Unlike in the US, being overtly religious is a massive political negative in the secular and multicultural UK). But overall people in the UK are quite apathetic and not overly informed on how scrutiny works. In the Scottish Parliament, it is done by committees made up of elected members with each committee compelled to have the same make up as the Parliament itself. The system was designed (around 20-25 years ago) in the belief that they had created the perfect electoral system that would never produce a majority so both the chamber and scrutineering committees would be balanced and consensual. Except it hasn't. The SNP have had both a majority and a majority through coalition with the tiny Green Party (run by people who support the SNP's nationalism and who SNP campaign for as 'second votes' on regional lists to ensure the coalition) for over 10 years. Every law the SNP votes through with its majority in the chamber is then scrutinised by committees where the majority are SNP politicians. Ain't no turkeys voting for Christmas so SNP policy can become law with little or no scrutiny along the way (and the SNP even challenge the law courts ability to point out legal flaws and outright illegality in legislation). Given the information and choice, most people would rather have unelected appointees scrutinise legislation and have the chance to point out flaws, rather than the same politicians drafting that legislation waving it through without proper checks and balances. Or at least they do when it's not their party on charge.

About filling positions, that's just the same as the cabinet, the p.m selects his cabinet, there's no u.s equivalent to the Lords.

I actually don't think most people think too much about it at all. However it is controversial to different people who do for two seperate reasons, the first being on principle that an appointed house is indefensible. The other is as you said for the perceived biases in its make up. If it really was an assembly of experts in their field that would be great, but its not. Such people are there, and there is a great deal of experience and knowledge and 90% of the time its work is to fine tune legislation, and mostly their amendments are accepted by the commons. But a lot of the members are actually ex MPs, or so called working peers (appointed just to fill a role in Government, but who keep their seat for life), others are appointed as a reward to their services to their party. In recent years a the Brexit debate showed how unrepresentative of devide in opinion the chamber is, as they are the establishment and have a stong bias to the establishment position. Strangely enough the hereditary system was the one that actually put non political people in there, they owed their place to nothing but genetics, and while some were very grand, others were farmers, doctors, architects or whatever. In truth there will be no serious reform, because no party cares enough to do it, and MPs fear creating a rival elected chamber, which they suspect who not settle for the limitations placed on the Lords.

9:00 The Labour Party is generally our slightly Left leaning party. So your equivalent would be the Democrats. But it is often said that American Politics is generally shifted a few notches right in comparison to many European political systems. So your Democrats have a decent amount in common with our Conservatives. And your Republicans have a decent amount in common with our Far Right party, UKIP or whatever they’re calling themselves now.

They aren’t worried about getting re-elected they are concerned about long term effects. The great thing it’s not politics it keeps politicians in check from not doing something self serving to get re-elected

The Queen is also the head of the Government and of the Armed Forces.

I suppose its called moving with the times.

The nearest comparison for American politics would be the Supreme Court, where the President puts forward a name and once appointed they hold the position for life. When there is a change of Party in power the new Prime Minister will want a Majority of their own side in the Lords and therefore add new Lords to increase their chances of getting legislation passed.

There is just one point about the recommendation of certain persons for a peerage that is not entirely "kosher". I don't know about Labour Prime Ministers but there are allegations against Tory PMs (esp. B. Johnson) that Tory (conservative) MPs bought their peerage by donating 1.5 million Pounds to the Conservative Party's coffers. I'm not British but that sounds awfully unethical to me.

The Prime Minister isn’t actually elected Prime Minister, they are chosen by the Monarch and asked to form a party. Typically the Monarch will select the leader of the largest party to be Prime Minister.

Hi tyler. A lot of the things you’re confused by were addressed in previous videos

Also conservative (Tory) is basically the uk version of the Republican Party and labour is basically the uk version of the democrat party

London to York in 2 hours? You'll be lucky! lol

I’m laughing here, nobody has ever driven from central London to York in two hours! It’ll take an hour just to get out of London! It’s closer to four hours to drive, but around two hours by train.

Our senate used to be sat by people selected by each states legislature the Hereditary Peers are aristocrats no royal but are the Dukes Earls Vicounts, Marquis, etc remember their used to 600 of them ns then the Bishops but they reduced it to 192 and the others are various business people or experts etc. and are appointed for life but their heir does not get their seat

Don’t know how you got 2 hours from York to London but it’s would take more like 5 hours

most people dont thonk about thenhouse of lords its a small policy that people never pay atention to its politicians who take a big deal out of it Most brits dont care for big changes so

Having an unelected body with any kind of power over an elected body seems wrong but having two elected bodies, as in the US with the Senate and the House of Representatives, can seem worse. With two elected bodies one situation is you end up with one party in control of both houses so there may be no control of the government which could pass any legislation it wants. The alternate is where each house is controlled by diametrically opposed parties making it almost impossible for me government to pass any legislation. So until someone comes up with a better solution at least the House of Lords works after a fashion.

The House of Lords is basically our version of the senate but instead of being elected they get appointed by the Prime Minister and the King

10:00 The UK actually have low diversity because of similar problems to the us. You also have many political parties in the US, it's just that just like in the UK small parties are disadvantaged heavily.

In a lot of countries around the world Blue is a right wing party similar to the Republicans in the US and res is left wing similar to the democrats

Maybe not perfect, certainly too many sit in it, but does a pretty good job. People who want to abolish it are usually more authoritarian leaning.

I am very opposed to an elected upper house. Elections are great for judging the emotions of a group, but poor for rewarding skill and expertise. I believe both are necessary to a well-functioning democratic system, and that more elections is not the same as more democratic. Having a body that is primarily made up of subject matter experts who are not required to be electable is a great thing, because it means they are difficult to capture through populism, and can offer improvements to bills that go against popular sentiment. A great example of this is the controversy when this video was made: the Lords had made amendments to the Brexit enabling legislation to prevent it running afoul of international law and also to remove certain provisions that would have massively expanded the power of the executive. This was against the interests of the popularly elected government (who had made 'delivering Brexit' their main pledge), but if they hadn't have done so the UK would be a rogue state. This is why they were talking about shunting the Lords off from Westminster to York, in the hope of weakening their ability to function and get in the way of that government's populist agenda. I say 'that government' because while it is the same Parliament as early 2020 (the last General Election was in December 2019), and the same party has formed the government since, we've had another PM who made their own (much weaker) government since and by next Friday we shall have another.

The whole of Westminster is controversial in my country, Hollyrood