[alexpotato]

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.

[kiba]

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.

[kennywinker]

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.

[michaelt]

> 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?

[SllX]

> 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.

[bigstrat2003]

> 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.

[LadyCailin]

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...

[jjmarr]

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.

[alexpotato]

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”

[kelnos]

> 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.

[jjmarr]

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

[SoftTalker]

In the American system as originally founded, most of these things were intended to be decided by the states.

[krapp]

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.

[SoftTalker]

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.

[edgyquant]

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.)

[vintermann]

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".

[benj111]

Could you explain this to a non USian???

[IAmBroom]

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?

[BobaFloutist]

They're referring to increasingly partisan Supreme Court Justices

[AnthonyMouse]

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.

[IgorPartola]

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.

[AnthonyMouse]

> 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.

[kelseyfrog]

Are we reading the same constitution?

Article II, Section 1

> The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President

[Amezarak]

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.

[Panzer04]

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.

[AnthonyMouse]

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?

[watwut]

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.

[Dig1t]

>federalizing who can vote

Almost 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...

[amanaplanacanal]

So let's have a national ID, given to all citizens.

Unfortunately the party calling most strongly for proving eligibility absolutely hates that idea.

[IAmBroom]

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...

[canarypilot]

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!

[kennywinker]

So I should remember that… never? Got it. ;)

[edgyquant]

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.

[ivell]

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.

[laughing_man]

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.

[bhk]

"The more laws, the less justice." -- Cicero

[rybosworld]

Government needs to be more Agile.

[SanjayMehta]

Government needs to be less.

[JamesTRexx]

Government needs to be for all the people, and not just for the 1% with wealth and power. Not more or less.

[edgyquant]

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%

[JamesTRexx]

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.

[DrScientist]

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.

[WickyNilliams]

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.

[DrScientist]

> 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.

[WickyNilliams]

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.

[DrScientist]

> 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.

[NetMageSCW]

>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.

[DrScientist]

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.

[foldr]

Jacob Rees Mogg isn’t in the Lords.

[seanhunter]

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.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

[kitd]

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.

[NetMageSCW]

If the Lords can’t veto bills, why does their rejection matter?

[trebligdivad]

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.

[hunterpayne]

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.

[Nursie]

> 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.

[t43562]

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.

[Nursie]

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.

[t43562]

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.

[glyco]

> 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..)

[dotancohen]

You argue that a lot of things are likely. Why don't you take the time to check instead of slander?

[kergonath]

> You could argue the House of Lords did the same

It 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.

[verbify]

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).

[marcus_holmes]

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.

[AlecSchueler]

> 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.

[post-it]

The House of Lords isn't going anywhere. The majority of the chamber are life peers, functionally identical to Canadian senators.

[tialaramex]

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...

[skissane]

> My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers

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 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

[thaumasiotes]

> 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 peerages

Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[mastax]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[hunterpayne]

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...

[Nursie]

> The hereditary peers were elected

By 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.

[keeganpoppen]

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!

[vkou]

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.

[anon291]

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.

[vkou]

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.

[anon291]

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.

[foldr]

So no-one affected by illegal tariffs has any legal standing?

[nxm]

Hyperbole beyond belief there

[thrance]

It's only a speed bump for progressive laws while the most reactionary garbage gets fast tracked with their approvals.

[martythemaniak]

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.

[hunterpayne]

"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.

[watwut]

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.

[anon291]

> 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

[scott_w]

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.

[hunterpayne]

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).

[scott_w]

> 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.

[hardlianotion]

Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament?

[scott_w]

> 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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f412kJChC6g

[hardlianotion]

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.

[scott_w]

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.