[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?