Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by glaucon 92 days ago
If you're not British please don't assume that "ejecting heriditary nobles" from the upper house of parliament is automatically going to increase the quality of governance.

For more than a century the majority of those who sit in the House of Lords have been "Life Peers", appointed by a politician and without any heriditary aspect. They include such towers of statepersonship as : Evgeny Lebedev (Russian businessman, son of a KGB officer); Alexander Lebedev (another Russian businessman, he's actually been in the KGB); Charlotte Owen (junior aide to Boris Johnson for three years) ... the list goes on.

This isn't new (although in recent time the dodginess has risen to new highs) and many of those appointed to Life Peerages meet the goal of having significant life experience they can use to illuminate aspects of legislation that might otherwise be missed. Equally heriditary peers are not all some Wodehousian stereotype of bumbling idiots.

2 comments

This is more an argument against political appointees than it is an argument for hereditary peers. I agree that the system has been abused. It's need reforming
> many of those appointed to Life Peerages meet the goal of having significant life experience

This is a poor justification for what still amounts to an unelected ruling class.

Honestly, I look around the world and don’t see much, if any, practical difference.

The US has had two presidents that were direct relatives, I can’t believe that’s by pure chance or some kind of genetic skill at being president.

If you don't see any difference between people who won US presidential elections and those appointed for political favoritism, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, if you look at the current state of the UK vs US and don't see any difference then you need to get out more.
Well. Looks like you don’t know what to tell me, hopefully someone who does comes along.
It's because people find comfort in what they know, nothing more complicated than that.