UK Politics

3097 readers

124 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

Labour could axe all hereditary peers from House of Lords, reports suggest (www.standard.co.uk)

submitted 7 months ago by Emperor to c/uk_politics

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Labour plans to axe all hereditary peers from the House of Lords, reports have suggested.

But the 92 hereditary lords who sit in Parliament’s upper chamber would still be allowed to retain their access to the Palace of Westminster as a sweetener, the Financial Times has reported.

This would allow them to still enjoy access to Parliament’s bars and subsidised restaurants.

Labour has previously vowed to abolish the unelected upper chamber of Parliament, with Sir Keir Starmer having branded it “undemocratic”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Emperor 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's pretty much what it is - you can think of it like political jury service. It would be a cross-section of the population vetting laws with an eye on how they impact the lives of ordinary people. So you might get an NHS doctor pitching in on medical reforms but you also get a lot of people who use the NHS and are incentivised to improve it because it is life or death to them, rather than a politician who might be more interested in seeing what can be flogged off to their mates in return for a cushy non-executive position.

We largely only get a say in the laws during elections when we have to decide who we trust yo make the changes we want. With sortition in the upper house we get instant and fine-grained oversight of each individual law.

[–] Risk 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ah I'm so sorry - thanks for the TIL.

Yes, I very much agree with your idea then.

Edit: I also like what @Womble@lemmy.world suggested of retaining 1/3 of seats for cross-party selected experts. Especially with sortition, it's important to have the expertise to inform discussion.