✅

🤭

And also remain unaccountable...

Yes I'm sure a review of history would show that unelected and unaccountable governing bodies lead to long view policies that are purely in the best interests of the country and in no way harmful to public confidence or national viability.

While I undertstand that it solves that short termism problem, I would prefer if it had a tinge of democracy, If say they had to have a new speaker of the house every year, and that person was always given a peerage, or it could just be a group of pensioners that were once MPs. IDM giving the MPs the vote on this one, but the hereditary system and the religious system is just bollocks.

There are Senators here who have served 20-30 years without accomplishing much… I disagree with your statement wholeheartedly…

The fact that senators like McConnell have chosen to do nothing does not diminish the impact that they could have. Only their legacy.

What?

At the moment, yes, but the government is appointing peers to fix that problem.

XalphYT Then it’s bad because populism is democracy

In other words a continuation of disgrading the people

Agree, I'd much rather have a bunch of Lords than another batch of elected gobshites. Some of them get made, others are hereditary, none of them are elected. People whinge about the Lords being undemocratic, but its pretty clear that all that democracy does is persistently disappoints a significant minority of the electorate.

One way or the other there will be another house. Doing the same job.

They have to be approved by the semate and they don't create their legeslation, they only implement it. Which, considering how often Democrat secretaries implement Republican legislation and vice versa, it works remarkably well.

@@unclejoeoakland ​ Senate approval is basically the exact same level of approval to run a government department as a member of the House of Lords (or really anybody) whose appointment is backed by the UK government which is backed by a legislative majority.

I would consider federal officers to be as good as elected officials, considering they need to be appointed by an elected official (president) and approved by a bunch of elected officials ( senate). Also they only have executive powers

Glad someone else picked up on this too 😳🙂

@@GavApple. I'm surprised nobody else had already commented on that. Especially as I watched the video pretty late. Don't they listen (carefully)?

Not yet

@@j-dog7767 it's treason then

FloFloFlowable *dies from spin attack

Urahhhhhhhh palpatine said calmly

Only having one elected house would also help prevent obstructionism

Yeah exactly. As an American, I always cringe seeing Canadians or Brits asking for an elected upper house. I get how its morally wrong that both countries have an unelected head of state and upper house, but having those jobs be elected doesn't always make it better. In the US, we get to elect our upper house and head of state, but they actually use their power and it's why nothing can get done in the US ever. Which is because we have insane gridlock. Not to mention the dumb senate rule that requires 60% to pass almost everything. So in the US, if you want to pass something, you need to control the house, 60% of the Senate, and the presidency, which is all but impossible to do. So, that's why America is always lacking behind every other developed nation on basic rights. I'm no fan of the monarchy and house of lords at all, and I think they both should be abolished... but replacing them with what we have in the US would even up being even worse for the UK

@@Simon-tc1mc I thought this gridlock is with purpose part of the system? Making lawmaking on federal level difficult to protect the states from an "all ruling federal government"? In my country (Germany) it can be bad as well. The second chamber of legislation consists of the governors of the states (and not elected senators). In contrast to the U.S the german federalism is not a state in state system. In many cases things must be ruled on federal level because once a federal law is passed the states are limited in their power to pass own laws (which would contratdict federal law). So in the end most laws are passed on federal level and the main power of the states is the second chamber. If now first and second chamber are controlled by different majorities it can block the whole country. In the U.S at least the states can still make laws on their own. While in Germany that is limited to certain topics like education, gambling or prostitution, state police law where the states have the exclusive right of lawmaking. Another thing is that the power of the executive branch is limited. The governments (state or federal) can not create own executive order without a law granting the power explicity to do so.

@@Temo990 yeah, the system was designed for gridlock but it's still a bad system. Everyone's opinion differ or not if they want a centralized or decentralized system I guess. I like a government that can actual function and get things done and the US does not have a system like that at all. I have never been to Germany so I guess I do not know what it is like there, but I assume the regions of Germany are much different than US states. I think its kind of weird that Germany has states within it at all. And it seems you all could be better served with a unicameral government.

@@Simon-tc1mc Well the german constitution is very flexible and can be change (with some limitations) easily (in comparison to the U.S. constitution) with 2/3 majority in both chambers. So lawmaking power can be shifted and has been. In theory a state in state system could be chosen (although it might make things more complicated with the EU). But I don't think people desire that. Many prefer a cooperative state system with similar living conditions over a competitive state system like in the US. Abandoning federalism would remove a seperation of power. And if we look in a history book we can see that the darkest times in german (and world) history were the times where Germany had a centeral government with all power, no thank you. In addition the federalism is protected from change by lawmaking (even constitutional changes). The only way to change that would be for the people to pass a new constitution.

Yes, apart from the fact it's not a 'strong' influence, as the video states, they can only hold a bill up by 1 year

Well as seen this week, they can be ignored completely so "strong influence" is over playing it, I would say. But do like the use of "influence" rather than "power". That's a good distinction. Nice way of thinking of things. I'll steal / use that 😁 If Labour had won the election woukd McKluskey have had influence or power over policy (I don't know the answer)?

Strictly speaking, because of first past the post, the house of commoms isn't really elected either.

I would hardly call the house of lords a chamber of unelected experts. Minusing the bishops and hereditary peers, life peer appointments are very often political and partisan

@@danielwebb8402 Well, they sure didn't put much of a fight...

Why do you need them as part of the legislature? You can include experts and advisors in the process of law proposal. No need to give them power to decide. And even if you could as well create an elected chamber of experts by require a certain educational degree. Although that still defeats a main principle of a democracy: equal right to vote (and be voted).

I kinda think you kinda right you know.

Elected are out for themselves too . Just co people put em there doesn;t mean they care .

Same applies to all offices appointed by the monarch. Even in other Commonwealth Realms, like Canada. The Monarch should be charged to appoint these officers (senators, Lords, Governors and Governors-General, etc.) No matter the advise of the Prime Minister (which position shouldn't exist; the cabinet should be elected by the House of Commons and parties should be outlawed.

LOL what a saddo

@@kightsunLOLOL

@@Brasslantern007 What? No real criticism?

They don't receive a salary

I think the fear of lossing the next election is way to low to begin whit.

It makes communism look like a bitch.

Thats the good thing knowing that you can lose an election is a great motivator to actual do what the people want.

Yeh exactly and it's also a great way to keep in check the rise of populism ect.. sometimes a single person can manipulate a large population invoke mass hysteria in a country and cause the Democratic election of a tyrant ie Hitler. Also someone like Trump would NEVER have been able to get into power in the UK system.

@@gorkym8864 Boris Johnson may look like trump / a buffoon but he is actually very intelligent and learned.. he went to Eton and Oxford ect and he has had a long political career leading up to being prime minister.. I dislike Boris Johnson but he is a proper politician unlike trump who had no political background and was basically just a dumb reality tv star.. trump is the kind of man who has not read a book in his adult life he is embarrassingly arrogant and stupid. At least Boris Johnson has a brain as much as I dislike him I will give him that - his ascent to power has been very cunning. .. Also Boris never wanted bbrexit to happen he headed the leave campaign as a way of gaining political power he never actually expected to succeed did u not see him on the day after the referendum he looked completely crestfallen and in shock - everyone knows he never really believed in Brexit he even told David Cameron this and whats more there are multiple interviews of him saying he wants to stay in the EU before.. it is practically impossible for a person with no previous political experience like trump to become prime minister in the uk .. you need to have a long career in politics to ascend the ranks of one of the leading parties (party leadership is not chosen by the voter but by other party members ensuring that only an experienced politician can actually become prime minister.

One of the issues can be that in reality a lot of those appointed to the Lords are largely picked by the serving government. So what ever they have done to distinguish themselves is more often than not that the either previously served as part of that government or donated a large amount to governing party.

Why not have an elected one or a senate where you can also have people of great talent.

@@dennispremoli7950 because with an elected one you're bound to have both houses dominated by the same side of the political scene. The whole point is to have better scrutiny over what the government is doing. When you have both elections happening at a similar time the results would also be similar. So the proportions of seats would also be similar. then you have government presenting a bill. commons just accepts it, as the ruling party has a majority senate accepts it, as there is the same majority there. queen ain't allowed to scrutiny bills so suddenly bill is a law - without any scrutiny. There is also one major benefit from having an unelected house - these people are not afraid of losing their seat. Like it or not sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made - elected politicians tend to stay away from them as far as they could, as they fear backlash from the electorate. But if something has to be done then it has to be done, whatever it's popularity.

@@michazajac5881 Obviously don't have your elections matching. At least in Italy senate elections run less frequently and you have life senators which can be nominated by the president of the republic or may be distinguished members of society. These will be senators for the rest of their life.

@@dennispremoli7950 well, even if initially they're not matching it gives you no guarantee how long it would stay so do remember the last 2 general elections were quite a bit earlier then they were supposed to.

Randomly selected (like a jury) could be a better way.

Well no, because they're working a very specific field which they have specific expertise in. Which any random person will have the know how to do. It's just a fallacy to assume only people of a certain blood type can do it.

I believe and suggest there are several other things of value the House of Lords provides: 1. The voice of intellect and reason - there are no hours of work; standards of performance; education criteria; requirement to know or understand history, the workings of government, law, or economics; or any ethical tests for an MP. At least the Lords excel in these areas. With Brexit and with the last General Election, the commons have shown themselves to be spiteful, accusatory and in breach of Commons decorum resulting in expulsion, ignoring the will of their electors, declaring to have no knowledge of parliamentary procedure, and the speaker has been downright rude, patronizing, discourteous and conceited in his dealings with staff, colleagues, MPs and has been reminded more than once about parliamentary precedent when he should in my opinion have known it. 2. Balance - the elite are often defined as the wealthy, implying that they are somehow preying on their workforce. The workforce outnumber the elite, so the elite, who provide the wealth of the country, need representation. Representation is balanced out by the Lords. 3. Educated scrutiny - before approving any bill, the monarch needs to know that it has been properly scrutinized and is in the ultimate best interests of the realm. This does not always happen, but a best defence is the Lords, otherwise, the time-oppressed, under-qualified, transient, and self-serving House of Commons could further decimate our once-Great Britain. 4. Reliability - apart from the House of Commons, the British political system and legal frameworks have been the model for the world to admire. Strong leaders with the best interests or Britain who can legislate in a way that promotes peace, health and prosperity with good international trade will probably regain some of the respect they have squandered in good time.

Rabid lifetime pro-EU evangelist Betty Boothroyd doesn’t have an agenda? You prat!

@@thegrandmuftiofwakanda did you even watch her speech? As she herself pointed out, it doesn't matter a fuck if we're in the EU or out... she's gonna be quite comfortable enough either way that it's not likely to disrupt her sleeping at night for the few years she has left in her, to quote her directly "I'm alright Jack!". So yes I'd say she doesn't really need an agenda at this point, its not like she draughted up two opposing arguments for the brexit referendum and backed one of them because it offered better career prospects.

LOL

LOL

You can ensure that people vote beyond partylines by hiding who voted whom and by not telecasting parliament functioning.

@@nandi7772 the issue with that is that there is no accountability to the people

@@zachw566 You can say that. But here in India, when they discuss bills in parliament, opposition opposes literally every bill, even the most non controversial ones. But when it comes to parliamentry committee, all MPs from all parties work with each other and they do good review of the proposed bills. Many times they suggest huge changes and many times they give clean chit to the bill. And all MPs try to be productive there and not shout for no reason just to appease their voters.

Keep them as advisories, with no legislative powers?

DEVANG LIYA I think it should either be elected or abolished

I just dont like the hereditary peers. I would quite like a senate as well as the house of lords. The lords should only be advisory and i like how they help hold politians to their manifesto with out sneaking in laws thats were never promised

And I think they should just stay the way they are.

They're great. Keep them.

You’re Aussie. Where did you learn that southern phrase?

You have nearly the same system, with some more power for the president than any queen since Victoria!

You could look into the changes throughout Germany from 1848-1960.

@@fionafiona1146 well at a very quick glance, yes, though it worth noting that the structure is pretty different. like how our executive is an entirely separate branch, the supreme court being separate from the start , both houses of the federal legislature being elected. but also a multitude of smaller things in practice that admittedly I was largely unaware of until recently, for example I never realized that in the UK the PM is not elected separately from the MPs, in that whichever party wins the largest share just asserts their leader as PM. or that until very presently parliament did not have set terms and they just decided when to have an election. the two systems seem more or less the same until you look closer, almost like a fun-house mirror, a sensation I sure wouldn't be uncommon when looking at it closely from the other direction

@@andrewemerson1613 Obviously I am not aware of the in and outs of both but the relative freedom of the branches and states/kingdoms under them without a constitutional separation of their " topic "-authorities (in Germany the states are responsible for education, no federal law may refer to it, while no state may execute a death sentence for example). The two party, first past the post system was uncommon with the post war democracys our social studies class focused on too.

@@fionafiona1146 yeah, I suppose my underlying feeling is that their relative similarity amplifies the differences to the point of fascination for me. and from my admittedly very limited understanding of the topic, Germany seems to have the closest relation between it's national government and state governments to what is typical in North America, that said things like that are by nature interesting to me, the deeply boring man that I am

Yeah.... mate you need to read the name of ur country

@@shubamrachappanavar2708 you mean United States of America? Are you referencing the great compromise?

He meant 2025

Problem is most Brits hate experts.

To you, maybe

Arya1999 Only you and your cronies hate experts.

@@starlinguk Classic strawman arguments

Are you seriously correcting a 4 year old video 💀

@Luís Filipe Andrade but seriously whats going on is this like a gimmck or for real need explanatiom

The government comes up with a new bill, it gets passed to the Lords who might disagree with an aspect of it and send it back to be amended, and it goes to the Lords again who send it back and back it comes and so on until everyone is happy(ish). Think of it like handing in an essay at school and your teacher hands it back pointing out issues and you rewrite it and hand it in again and so on until it's done properly.

WRONG.

Because now there's less of them and the number is still going down

@@TheBackslash1 No shit sherlock. Now explain.

The Queen is the head of state in Canada.

Personally I don't think It matters whether we have a House of Lords or not. However, ensuring that people understand governing Is critical.

This is not so much “food for thought” but abject spastication fuelled by a pathalogical inferiority complex and monumental subservience.

It is in English, but evidently you learned English at an Islamic State summer camp.

....

I'm not 100% certain that this was the last contriubtion, but it's fairly recent: On the 20th of January a Lord put the question to the government what considerations (if any) they were making in relation to relocating the house of lords out of London. During the debate the idea of not having a fixed location was flung about and The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford made the (I think, important) point that as much as the business of the house was done in the chamber, there was equally as much business taking place in the halls. He finished by pleading the lords: "Could we reconsider this one, please?"

The queen had to remind the bishop that it could only move diagonally.

@@Pining_for_the_fjords I see a chess fan in the House.

Exactly why is that a good idea? It is more stable for sure. But what it keeps stable is the power of those already in power.

Whaaaaaaaaaat

Well it is if you have the attention span of a downs syndrome goldfish I suppose.

Take a look at the history of the House of Lords medling up to even the 2000s.... like gay marriage for example. Brexit is just another example of them having private interest$ in these affairs.

Me too. It should had stayed that way

Luís Filipe Andrade that’s what they said but there was no proof and if we put limits on his long one can be in the senate it will be fine.

Luís Filipe Andrade there is no term limits on how long one can be in either house of Congress. And my point is the the states should had keep their representation in the senate. We get ours in the house but the senate should be for states, just my opinion, you can disagree but I have thought about this for a long time.

@@retched and then don't any amendments in the Commons have to go back to them?

@@retched so, if the Lords want, they can stall a bill theoretically forever by amending it every time it comes to their chamber. Do I have that right?

And Nicky Morgan who is actually a Secretary of State from the Lords!

Nah.

@@yamyam2987 Tar.

Britian is technically a Theocratic Monarchy. No one attends the Church of England and the Queen has no real power. But 1000 years of entrenchment is hard to overcome.

@@codymurphy3493 It is said that she has no power..it is to make people foolish.. these members, the BBC, the leftists and the countries whose governments takes oath in the name of queen are the tool of british monarchy to pollute this society of other countries.. Truth PREVAILS... now she might be thinking that her cunning behaviour is helping her to fetch wealth from other other countries. The coming generation will pay for it. But

They did, because they were threatened with the addition of liberal MPs into the upper chamber.

As far as I can remember anyways.

@@cholloway0046 Thank you. That sounds a bit like Franklin Roosevelt's threat to pack the US Supreme Court.

No, it is the King who have approved the 1911 act which reduced the power of lords.

The House of Lords must also limits its members from 794 to atleast 300 members. while the Commons from 650 members down to 600 members.

The Sovereign also must have the power to Veto any bills passed by Parliament.

​@@dearanetagive the unelected chamber of parliament to veto the elected chamber of parliament? And allow the unelected head of state to veto the only democratic part of the U.K? Wanna say why?