Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

2026-03-1121:06307391apnews.com

Britain is ending the centuries-old tradition of hereditary aristocrats sitting in Parliament’s House of Lords.

LONDON (AP) — Centuries of British political tradition will end within weeks after Parliament voted to remove hereditary aristocrats from the unelected House of Lords.

On Tuesday night members of the upper chamber dropped objections to legislation passed by the House of Commons ousting dozens of dukes, earls and viscounts who inherited seats in Parliament along with their aristocratic titles.

Government minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said the change put an end to “an archaic and undemocratic principle.”

“Our parliament should always be a place where talents are recognized and merit counts,” he said. “It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold power over the will of the people.”

The House of Lords plays an important role in Britain’s parliamentary democracy, scrutinizing legislation passed by the elected House of Commons. But critics have long argued that it is unwieldy and undemocratic.

The case of Peter Mandelson, who resigned from the Lords in February after revelations about his friendship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, drew renewed attention to the upper chamber and the problem of lords behaving badly.

The chamber currently has more than 800 members, making it the second-largest legislative chamber in the world after China’s National People’s Congress.

For most of its 700-year history, its membership was composed of noblemen — almost never women — who inherited their seats, alongside a smattering of bishops. In the 1950s, these were joined by “life peers” — retired politicians, civic leaders and other notables appointed by the government, who now make up the vast majority of the chamber. Roughly 1 in 10 members are currently hereditary peers.

In 1999, the Labour government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair evicted most of the 750 hereditary peers, though 92 were allowed to remain temporarily to avoid an aristocrats’ rebellion.

It was another 25 years before Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s current Labour government introduced legislation to oust the remaining “hereditaries.”

The lords put up a fight, forcing a compromise that will see an undisclosed number of hereditary members allowed to stay by being “recycled” into life peers.

The bill will become law once King Charles III grants royal assent — a formality — and the hereditary peers will leave at the end of the current session of Parliament this spring, completing a political process begun a quarter century ago. In Lords terms, that is speedy.

Labour remains committed to eventually replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is “more representative of the U.K.” If past experience is anything to go by, change will come slowly.

“So, here we are at the end of well over seven centuries of service by hereditary peers in this Parliament,” Nicholas True, the opposition Conservative Party leader in the Lords, told the chamber.

“Many thousands of peers served their nation here and thousands of improvements to law were made,” he said. “It wasn’t all a stereotypical history of reaction in ermine. Many of those people, no doubt, were flawed but for the most part, they served their nation faithfully and well.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By endoblast 2026-03-1122:556 reply

      When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
      As every child can tell,
      The House of Peers, throughout the war,
      Did nothing in particular,
      And did it very well;
      Yet Britain set the world ablaze
      In good King George's glorious days!
    
    (from Iolanthe by Gilbert and Sullivan)

    Gather a group of the most powerful people in the land; give them ermine robes and manifold privileges; require of them nothing other than that they meet regularly to converse and debate in a prestigious and historical chamber. Allow them only the power to veto or delay legislation.

    Gilbert and Sullivan were satirising but I think their point stands. It is possible to do nothing and to do it very well. While they're busy doing nothing they're not interfering or messing everything else up, even though they probably could outside the chamber.

    The fact that heriditary peers are being ejected means nothing beyond the fact that these nobles have lost their inherent power.

    • By alexpotato 2026-03-1123:0612 reply

      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.

      • By kiba 2026-03-1123:265 reply

        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.

        • By kennywinker 2026-03-1123:515 reply

          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.

          • By michaelt 2026-03-121:396 reply

            > 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?

            • By SllX 2026-03-123:441 reply

              > 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.

              • By bigstrat2003 2026-03-124:401 reply

                > 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.

                • By LadyCailin 2026-03-129:391 reply

                  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...

                  • By IAmBroom 2026-03-1215:492 reply

                    Exactly! What the Constitution /says/ and how it is interpreted... The Tenth Amendment is written (IMO) incredibly short to underscore its importance AND breadth:

                    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

                    But I've very seldom heard the phrase "states rights" uttered by anyone who isn't pro-gun and anti-abortion. I doubt they'd feel any freer if their state came down like a ton of politically-angered bricks on unfettered gun ownerships and anti-abortionists.

                    • By paradox460 2026-03-130:50

                      Pro gun is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, about 8 amendments before the tenth, so that argument isn't the best tack

                    • By tpmoney 2026-03-1222:33

                      While the American left has largely ceded the term “states rights” to the American right (and was/is well on the way to ceding the term “Free Speech”) they have their own share of “states rights” issues. Medical and recreational marijuana is a “states rights” issue. “Sanctuary cities” are a “states rights” issues. The fact that the Trump administration can’t (yet) force California schools to drop teaching certain things is a “states rights” issue. California deciding they’re goin to just gerrymander the heck out of everything in response to the current administration is a “states rights” issue. In fact basically every state level opposition to the current administration is a form of a “states rights” issue.

                      It’s immensely frustrating to me that what should be a huge lesson in the importance of limited government power and diffusion of that power across multiple governmental levels isn’t likely to result in that lesson being learned. I have a real fear that in history Trump will have been an inflection point on the road to an ever more powerful federal government in general and executive branch in particular, rather than a historical anomaly at the high end of that same power dynamic.

            • By jjmarr 2026-03-122:202 reply

              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.

              • By alexpotato 2026-03-1211:07

                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”

              • By kelnos 2026-03-124:111 reply

                > 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.

                • By jjmarr 2026-03-124:27

                  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

            • By SoftTalker 2026-03-123:241 reply

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

              • By krapp 2026-03-1211:001 reply

                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.

                • By SoftTalker 2026-03-1213:24

                  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.

            • By edgyquant 2026-03-123:02

              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.)

            • By vintermann 2026-03-127:18

              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".

            • By benj111 2026-03-1210:492 reply

              Could you explain this to a non USian???

              • By IAmBroom 2026-03-1215:51

                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?

              • By BobaFloutist 2026-03-1216:00

                They're referring to increasingly partisan Supreme Court Justices

          • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-120:392 reply

            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.

            • By IgorPartola 2026-03-122:291 reply

              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.

              • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-124:532 reply

                > 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.

                • By kelseyfrog 2026-03-126:072 reply

                  Are we reading the same constitution?

                  Article II, Section 1

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

                  • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-127:401 reply

                    A party is a thing where multiple elected officials band together in a persistent coalition. The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature?

                    On top of that, that section applies to how the votes of the electoral college delegates are counted. It doesn't specify how the electoral college delegates are chosen, which it leaves up to the states. There are plenty of interesting ways of choosing them that don't result in a structural incentive for a two-party race.

                    • By thaumasiotes 2026-03-1210:371 reply

                      > The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature?

                      I don't think it's a coincidence that every US state is structured as a smaller mirror of the federal government.

                      • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-1218:32

                        It's not a coincidence because they adopted their initial constitutions at around the same time or based them on the existing states that had. But we're talking about the electoral college and none of the states use something equivalent to that to choose their governor.

                        Using score voting instead of FPTP for state-level offices would be a straightforward legislative change in many states and still not require any change to the US Constitution even in the states where it would require a change to the state constitution, which is generally a much lower bar to overcome than a federal constitutional amendment.

                  • By ZeroGravitas 2026-03-126:561 reply

                    I'll tell Hillary Clinton, she'll be thrilled.

                    • By IAmBroom 2026-03-1215:52

                      And Al Gore, while you're at it.

                • By Amezarak 2026-03-129:471 reply

                  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.

                  • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-1218:151 reply

                    > Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions.

                    The US is extremely partisan right now and the partisanship is strongly aligned with the two major parties, not the individual coalitions that make them up. And with two parties you get polarization, because then it's all about getting 51% for a single party rather than forming temporary coalitions between various parties none of which can do anything unilaterally.

                    A different voting system allows you to have more than two viable parties, which changes the dynamic considerably.

                    • By Amezarak 2026-03-1218:301 reply

                      Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election.

                      The 51% is for the coalition, not the party. That’s what you’re missing. CoC Republicans for example have temporarily sacrificed their immigration policies to retain legislative influence - and they are a check on the Trumpist wing passing whatever anti-immigrant legislation they want, because they too cannot act without at least tacit support from the CoC wing.

                      The “major party” is from a systems perspective no different than a European parliamentary governing coalition.

                      • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-1218:591 reply

                        > Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election.

                        The "except when forming governments post-election" is a major difference. It also presumes that a coalition in the legislature is required to persist for an entire election cycle rather than being formed around any given individual piece of legislation. You don't have to use a system where an individual legislator or party can prevent any other from introducing a bill and taking a vote on it.

                        In less partisan periods in US history, bills would often pass with the partial support of both major parties.

                        Moreover, the US coalitions being tied to the major parties makes them too sticky. For example, the people who want lower taxes aren't necessarily the people who want subsidies for oil companies, or increased military spending, but they've been stuck in the same "coalition" together for decades.

                        Suppose you want to do a carbon tax. People who don't like taxes are going to be a major opponent, so an obvious compromise would be to pass it as part of a net reduction in total taxes, e.g. reduce the federal payroll tax by more than the amount of the carbon tax. But that doesn't happen because the coalition that wants lower taxes never overlaps with the coalition that wants to do something about climate change. Meanwhile the coalition that wants lower taxes wouldn't propose a carbon tax on their own, and the coalition that wants a carbon tax to increase overall government revenue gets shot down because that would be extremely unpopular, so instead it never happens.

                        • By Amezarak 2026-03-1220:501 reply

                          All countries have these problems which vary by the local political environment and history. Multiple European countries are facing particularly absurd varieties of these dilemmas because of their refusal to form coalitions with the second or third largest party in their country.

                          • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-1318:091 reply

                            Again, it seems like the flaw is in trying to form a long-term coalition instead of just passing the bills that have enough support to pass when you put them up for a vote among all the people who were actually elected. Why should anyone have to give a crap what someone else's position is on immigration when the bill in question is on copyright reform or tax incentives for solar panels?

                            • By Amezarak 2026-03-1318:32

                              The coalitions do a pretty good job of representing people’s pre-existing positions. People aren’t not voting for copyright reform because their party said so, but because they agree with their party. Party discipline in the US is not nearly as strong as in most parliamentary systems.

            • By Panzer04 2026-03-121:171 reply

              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.

              • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-124:551 reply

                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?

                • By watwut 2026-03-127:231 reply

                  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.

                  • By AnthonyMouse 2026-03-127:41

                    It's not supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public wants to happen. It's supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public doesn't want to not happen.

          • By Dig1t 2026-03-126:341 reply

            >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...

            • By amanaplanacanal 2026-03-129:021 reply

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

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

              • By IAmBroom 2026-03-1215:54

                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...

          • By canarypilot 2026-03-120:322 reply

            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!

            • By kennywinker 2026-03-120:53

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

            • By edgyquant 2026-03-123:04

              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.

          • By ivell 2026-03-127:02

            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.

        • By laughing_man 2026-03-121:17

          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.

        • By bhk 2026-03-120:04

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

        • By rybosworld 2026-03-120:051 reply

          Government needs to be more Agile.

          • By SanjayMehta 2026-03-121:461 reply

            Government needs to be less.

            • By JamesTRexx 2026-03-122:071 reply

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

              • By edgyquant 2026-03-123:061 reply

                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%

                • By JamesTRexx 2026-03-1210:07

                  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.

      • By DrScientist 2026-03-1212:351 reply

        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.

        • By WickyNilliams 2026-03-1213:053 reply

          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.

          • By NetMageSCW 2026-03-1314:251 reply

            >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.

            • By DrScientist 2026-03-1315:00

              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.

          • By DrScientist 2026-03-1214:141 reply

            > 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.

            • By WickyNilliams 2026-03-1214:381 reply

              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.

              • By DrScientist 2026-03-1214:52

                > 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.

          • By foldr 2026-03-1410:30

            Jacob Rees Mogg isn’t in the Lords.

      • By seanhunter 2026-03-125:401 reply

        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-...

        • By kitd 2026-03-127:141 reply

          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.

          • By NetMageSCW 2026-03-1314:40

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

      • By trebligdivad 2026-03-122:391 reply

        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.

        • By hunterpayne 2026-03-123:322 reply

          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.

          • By Nursie 2026-03-124:482 reply

            > 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.

            • By t43562 2026-03-1211:571 reply

              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.

              • By Nursie 2026-03-1212:481 reply

                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.

                • By t43562 2026-03-1216:18

                  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.

            • By glyco 2026-03-135:43

              > 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..)

          • By dotancohen 2026-03-124:18

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

      • By kergonath 2026-03-1123:12

        > 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.

      • By verbify 2026-03-120:101 reply

        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).

        • By marcus_holmes 2026-03-122:071 reply

          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.

          • By AlecSchueler 2026-03-1212:26

            > 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.

      • By post-it 2026-03-1123:111 reply

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

        • By tialaramex 2026-03-1123:412 reply

          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...

          • By skissane 2026-03-120:001 reply

            > 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

            • By thaumasiotes 2026-03-122:132 reply

              > 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.

              • By dragonwriter 2026-03-123:45

                > 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.

              • By mastax 2026-03-122:431 reply

                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.

                • By dragonwriter 2026-03-123:50

                  > 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.

          • By hunterpayne 2026-03-123:371 reply

            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...

            • By Nursie 2026-03-124:53

              > 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.

      • By keeganpoppen 2026-03-1123:59

        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!

      • By thrance 2026-03-122:12

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

      • By vkou 2026-03-1123:532 reply

        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.

        • By anon291 2026-03-124:491 reply

          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.

          • By vkou 2026-03-126:461 reply

            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.

            • By anon291 2026-03-1215:231 reply

              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.

              • By foldr 2026-03-1410:34

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

        • By nxm 2026-03-120:39

          Hyperbole beyond belief there

      • By martythemaniak 2026-03-122:371 reply

        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.

        • By hunterpayne 2026-03-123:562 reply

          "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.

          • By watwut 2026-03-127:31

            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.

          • By anon291 2026-03-124:49

            > 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

      • By scott_w 2026-03-1123:302 reply

        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.

        • By hunterpayne 2026-03-125:181 reply

          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).

          • By scott_w 2026-03-1210:37

            > 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.

        • By hardlianotion 2026-03-1123:491 reply

          Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament?

          • By scott_w 2026-03-1210:311 reply

            > 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

            • By hardlianotion 2026-03-1213:181 reply

              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.

              • By scott_w 2026-03-1214:49

                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.

    • By fy20 2026-03-124:232 reply

      > these nobles have lost their inherent power

      The nobles were the land owners, the business owners, the OG entrepreneurs, they were educated, and their children would grow up to be the same.

      Historically the system made sense. But the last 150 years or so have basically taken their power away.

      A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much.

      • By tasuki 2026-03-128:462 reply

        > A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much.

        Entire village? How's that work? What can the new owner do with the village? I imagine the inhabitants aren't enslaved?

        • By roryirvine 2026-03-129:311 reply

          Collects ground rent. A few hundred pounds each year from everyone who owns property or land in and around the village.

          • By tasuki 2026-03-1215:491 reply

            Ah, so the property is owned by the people living there, while the land is owned by someone else? That sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. Is this common in the UK?

            • By roryirvine 2026-03-1218:09

              Yes, it's a system called leasehold which has its roots in medieval feudalism. Essentially, a property owner owns the building and a long-term (usually either 99 or 990 years) lease on the ground it sits on.

              Everyone recognises that it's absurd, and there've been attempts to fix it for over a century. They've already gone in Scotland, and the previous government finally passed legislation that would allow new leaseholds to be banned in England and Wales too (although it hasn't yet gone into effect). The current government has introduced a bill which will eventually bring the system to an end altogether.

              As you might expect, there's huge opposition to these reforms from vested interests who are using every trick in the book to delay them. Getting rid of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords can only improve matters.

        • By ForHackernews 2026-03-129:27

          Same thing landlords have done forever: Collect rents on their capital.

      • By telesilla 2026-03-126:282 reply

        Because 150 years ago the labour to keep the estate running was very cheap. Now that labour is expensive, it costs more in maintenance than the property is worth, unless it's highly productive land. Reminds me of the joke, how to make a thousand dollars: buy a million dollar boat.

        • By Ekaros 2026-03-127:34

          On other side my guess is also that net labour productivity of land has dropped significantly. What I mean that same amount of farm land does not produce same amount of excess labour buying power. So even if productivity itself for farming has risen massively. The amount of labour that you can buy with produced production has plummeted.

        • By theshrike79 2026-03-126:54

          Downton Abbey played on this, they had to let people film a movie in their home just so that they could afford to fix the leaky roof =)

    • By jjmarr 2026-03-122:31

      The purpose of an assembly is to reflect the actual distribution of power in society, not what we'd like it to be.

      If interest groups do not feel represented by the system, they will destroy it.

    • By DougN7 2026-03-1212:581 reply

      My father-in-law always liked to see an exact number of democrats and republicans in congress, or congress held by one and the senate the other, for exactly this reason. With deadlock they can’t screw things up more. I’m not sure I disagree.

      • By cthalupa 2026-03-1213:391 reply

        Congress has had one of the lowest approval ratings of anything in government for a long time now because it doesn't get things done. Most Americans are quite unhappy with Congressional deadlock being the norm.

        It's also directly lead to the continued rise of the powers of the unitary executive - the EO that have become the norm in the 2000s are in large part because Congress has largely voided all responsibility for legislating.

        • By troad 2026-03-131:06

          Congress passes tons of laws - just not on subjects on which the country is divided. Is that not a feature? Other systems require 50% + 1 to radically remake the entire country. Would that be better? Or worse? Imagine if <insert your most hated President> were Prime Minister instead, and had control of a truly sovereign Parliament with virtually no guardrails at all. Better or worse?

          EOs are a problem, but SCOTUS is walking at least some of that back in subtle ways, such as the end of Chevron deference. (Not that you'd get any of this from the media, who desperately want SCOTUS to devolve into the media-friendly horse race they've imposed upon all of the rest of politics.)

          Congress isn't supposed to decide on social questions. Society is. Congress is meant to represent it. A divided Congress is accurately representing a divided country.

    • By lo_zamoyski 2026-03-121:04

      > meet regularly to converse and debate

      Senators play a similar role. Their aim is heavily weighted toward oversight and advisory. Gov’t in general is weighted in that direction, because governments govern which is mainly about being a kind of referee, maintaining the social order, and aiding human beings in attaining their end as human beings through legislation.

      Without this function, we have activity with little reflection spurred by politicians pandering to the mob.

    • By ifwinterco 2026-03-1214:10

      That particular group of nobles have lost their power, we just now have a different group that are not as obvious.

      The Iron Law of Oligarchy

  • By mindwok 2026-03-1122:2413 reply

    British democracy and government is cool. It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution, it's this organic thing that they've stumbled towards over the last ~800 years with small changes like this one gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy.

    • By s_dev 2026-03-1122:476 reply

      If cool means interesting then yes, it is cool because it's archaic and different but it's not effective. It's the equivalent of a verbal contract. It's simply not as clear or coherent as a written one.

      Irish democracy in contrast uses STV voting and a written constitution and is modeled between the best of what the UK, the US and France had to offer when it was drafted and is a very representative democracy with many political parties compared to the duopolies in the US and the UK. It's also why Ireland is largely immune to hard shifts to the left or right relative to the UK and US.

      • By kimos 2026-03-1122:572 reply

        I love this about Ireland because they are such a young republic. And democratic systems are a technology. Something that we understand better over time, and somewhere new can pick and choose from what is best, where it is _extremely_ hard to change existing systems in established countries.

        • By xp84 2026-03-1123:564 reply

          Yes, it's in my opinion one of the great tragedies of our time that some of our established countries are so hard to change. I don't mean this as the policy needs change, everyone will differ on those. I just mean the technology of government like you're saying. Efficient and more fair ways of voting on laws and electing representatives do exist.

          For example my own (US) has a political system basically frozen in amber from a time before many of the political and policy challenges of our day were not even thought of yet. And they did their best to create a change mechanism, but I think anyone being truly fair of any political persuasion has to admit that while it has prevented nearly every harmful extremist constitutional amendment (I'd say Prohibition is the main one that sneaked in), it has proven to, within the lifetimes of most living Americans, be so hard to attain as to set the status quo in stone.

          The framers didn't realize that most changes would be blocked by at least one party, out of fear that it would advantage the other guys. Same reason we stopped admitting states before letting Puerto Rico in, an absolutely absurd situation.

          • By trimethylpurine 2026-03-121:331 reply

            > "The framers didn't realize that most changes would be blocked by at least one party, out of fear that it would advantage the other guys."

            Check out some of the founders' essays. This is no accident, or oversight. It's absolutely intentional and for good reason.

            The Constitution grants power to all three branches of government, which is the same as granting power to none of them. The more they disagree, the less power they have. In this way power can only be wielded through cooperation (selflessness).

            It's a honey pot for the power hungry.

            • By Affric 2026-03-122:521 reply

              Working very well as we can see currently.

              • By kelnos 2026-03-124:191 reply

                It's worked well as a honeypot, but I don't think it's working well as a device for paralysis. The executive has seized an alarming amount of power (with the tacit approval of the party in control of the legislature), and the constitution isn't doing much of anything to stop it.

                • By trimethylpurine 2026-03-1323:34

                  Sure. But it's amazing that we have a system where he needed the legislature. That's pretty new in the grand scheme.

          • By hunterpayne 2026-03-125:322 reply

            Do you not understand why PR isn't a state? Seems like you don't. Support for PR statehood is only about 50% (on the island). That largely has to do with the fact that their taxes would increase if they became a state. Additionally, they would have to switch to English (along with Spanish) which makes things a lot more complicated. They are already US citizens and can move to anywhere in the US if they want to vote in federal elections (and half of them do but mainly for work). They don't want independence either. So the current limbo state is actually desirable to them.

            Even if the citizens of PR wanted statehood, you have to get both parties to agree. This means probably 2 states at the same time (one red, one blue). Since there isn't another potentially red state (Alberta but that's probably never going to happen) to join, that's hard to do. Look at US history, statehood has always worked this way. It has nothing to do with whatever you are implying.

            PS The 27th amendment was 1992, probably during your lifetime. You would expect the rate of new amendments to slow overtime so the average of a new amendment about every 15-20 years seems about right.

            • By xp84 2026-03-139:01

              You just explained in your second paragraph how one party would block PR statehood for no valid reason, not because it shouldn't be one, but because it would presumably advantage Dems. That is literally what I said: any change gets blocked for fear it would advantage the other guys. And whether it's "always worked that way" doesn't make it right. A fair system would have said that an existing territory with enough people that can organize a government and vote to join the union must be admitted, to avoid those shenanigans. Leaving them unrepresented is embarrassing.

              And your first paragraph sounds like it's quoted from an anti-statehood propaganda flyer. PR has high taxes today -- an 11.5% sales tax, and a high local income tax, because PR has to pay for everything itself, and because Congress screws them over, such as refusing bailouts when natural disasters devastate the island. Many states receive significant money from the Federal government that PR doesn't get. If it were a state, some people would have to pay some federal income tax, but it would not be automatically a worse tax burden.

              Same for language, there's nothing in the constitution that mandates that. PR already has two official languages. And nothing lawmakers decide will stop people from choosing to speak Spanish all day long if they want. If you don't agree with me, walk around any city in California, Arizona, or Texas.

            • By TheCoelacanth 2026-03-1220:08

              27th amendment was about congressional salaries and had basically no effect on governance.

              26th amendment lowered the voting age to 18 for state and local elections and had no effect on national elections (statute already set the national voting age as 18, but courts prevented it from applying to state and local elections).

              25th clarified presidential succession to work exactly how everyone had already assumed it to work for over a century, so for practical purposes did nothing.

              24th in 1964, which outlawed poll taxes as a criteria for voting, was the last amendment with any effect on national governance.

          • By troad 2026-03-131:121 reply

            >> For example my own (US) has a political system basically frozen in amber from a time before many of the political and policy challenges of our day were not even thought of yet.

            Please, please, please go read the Federalist papers. The Founders thought of a lot more than you realise.

            The design of a constitution is the design of the distribution of power. The nature of power hasn't changed.

            • By xp84 2026-03-139:15

              Things they appear to have not thought of:

              1. Any voting system other than the disastrous FPTP which forces a two-party system and punishes any attempt to break this duopoly.

              2. What if Congress is composed entirely of weasels and just, though formal law-passing or by sheer inaction, cedes nearly all their power to the executive branch?

              3. What if the Supreme Court has at least 5 partisans who will say just about anything to keep in power the party (or even the individual) who put them there? What if they say stupid things like "A President has absolute criminal immunity for any act that falls within his 'conclusive and preclusive' constitutional authority, and presumptive immunity for all other official acts."

              4. Even if SCOTUS is basically working as intended, what if the President just...ignores them?

              5. What if a President is mentally incompetent due to age, and his whole party refuses to acknowledge it? (This one is Biden, arguably - I'm disgusted with both parties)

              I do get checks and balances, I know that a big part of the whole "they can't pass anything" is a feature and not a bug. But come on, it's got out of hand when every single term we have multiple debt limit hostage negotiations -- and now BOTH parties are doing it!

          • By queuebert 2026-03-122:532 reply

            New and shiny is not always better. Science has spoiled us in the last century, but it has little to say about how a good government should operate.

            Many of us have a popular set of ideals that we think are superior and have attempted to overlay those on every aspect of modern life, but they have little to no data behind them and are ultimately just beliefs that make us feel good. As such, there is no reason to expect they are optimal for governing either.

            • By xp84 2026-03-139:16

              Look, just let us get rid of first-past-the-post as the only voting method, and I'll be happy. I'm not asking for voting via Neuralink, holographic VR Presidential debates, or flying car taxis to the polling places.

            • By justonceokay 2026-03-125:441 reply

              It’s true. In the long arc of history I have no doubt that our current government systems will be considered childish

        • By Anthony-G 2026-03-120:181 reply

          Also, one of the reasons for choosing proportional representation with a single transferable vote (PR-STV) was to ensure that the substantial unionist minority (who wanted to maintain the link with the UK/Britain) would still have have their views represented in the new parliament. This system works for other minority views and provides new political parties with a chance to grow in a way that wouldn’t be possible in a first-past-the-post system.

          • By roryirvine 2026-03-1210:351 reply

            The parliament of Northern Ireland also used STV for the same (er, well, inverted) reasons from 1921 until the Unionist majority forced a change to FPTP for most seats in 1929.

            More generally, STV was the default choice for assemblies throughout the British Empire (and became known as 'the British system' as a result) from the late 19th century onwards.

            It was even agreed on for use in Westminster in 1919 - though only the university seats ever actually used it - making it "more traditional" than the current single-member FPTP system which dates only from 1949. The failure to actually implement it was part of a more general reactionary movement in the aftermath of the war, when Lloyd George's promise of a "land fit for heroes" was thoroughly betrayed.

            The Irish system seems to work well, and can be used as a comparator for considering what the UK might look like if that betrayal hadn't happened.

            • By Anthony-G 2026-03-1212:26

              Huh! I didn’t know any of that. I presumed that Stormont elections had always been FPTP and that gerrymandering – particularly in Derry – was the worst abuse of the democratic process in Northern Ireland.

              That’s really interesting that the British promoted STV within their sphere of influence and had intended to use it for elections to Westminster. Thanks for the informative comment and useful historical context.

      • By tshaddox 2026-03-123:00

        Note that even though the U.S. has a Constitution, the entire U.S. government is still, like the UK, highly reliant on inexplicit norms many of which go back hundreds of years before the U.S. was founded. They’re both still English common law systems.

      • By tialaramex 2026-03-1123:161 reply

        > It's simply not as clear or coherent as a written one.

        No. As you have surely seen, the US written constitution just gets contorted to "clearly" mean whatever it is the partisan Justices decided suits their current purpose. The effect is extremely corrosive - they even decided it means their guy is above the law.

        I agree that using a better voting system (STV) is a meaningful benefit and worth replicating elsewhere, but I don't agree that having a written constitution is better. I think Ireland would be in roughly the same place if it had the same arrangement as in Westminster in that respect.

        For example when Ireland wrote a constitutional amendment saying abortion is illegal under basically any circumstances, the people the Irish were electing would also have voted against legislation allowing abortion, but by the time the poll was held to amend to say abortion must be legal, the legislators elected were also mostly pro-choice. So if there was no written constitution my guess is that roughly the outcome is the same, in 1975 an Irish woman who needs an abortion has to "go on holiday" abroad and come back not pregnant or order pills and hope they're not traced to her, and in 2025 it's just an ordinary medical practice. Maybe the changes happen a few years earlier, or a few years later.

        Edited: Clarify that the abortion prohibition was itself an amendment, as was the removal of that prohibition.

        • By JCattheATM 2026-03-124:221 reply

          The power of a constitution is in it being the highest law in the land, that legislation can't just override. It's only recently in the US that there is a blatantly corrupt kakistocracy who feels free to ignore it.

      • By t43562 2026-03-1212:05

        Documents are meaningless. In rotten countries they simply get rewritten or ignored. Nothing beats an electorate who value honesty over being told what they want to hear and who punish corruption.

      • By foldr 2026-03-1410:38

        I’m not sure if you can talk about a duopoly of parties in the UK at present.

      • By williamdclt 2026-03-1123:522 reply

        > duopolies in the US and the UK

        for better or worse, the duopoly is disappearing in the UK. Both Tories and Labour are getting passed by Reform and the Greens

        • By laughing_man 2026-03-121:221 reply

          But it's not that the duopoly is disappearing. It's just that the previous two parties are being eclipsed by two different parities. That's occurred previously in both the UK and US.

          • By hunterpayne 2026-03-125:34

            The last time it happened in the US was 1856 and its only happened 2x in US history. The US democratic party is the oldest existing political party in the world. For reference, the UK is actually only about 90 years older than the Democratic party.

        • By t43562 2026-03-1212:07

          with first past the post there will only ever be a duopoly. It forces you into voting AGAINST your least favorite choice.

    • By kergonath 2026-03-1123:179 reply

      > It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution

      It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from unraveling like the American government. Too much depends on gentlemen agreements and people trusting other people to do the right thing. It works in a stable environment, but shatters the moment someone with no shame and no scruples shows up.

      • By laughing_man 2026-03-121:241 reply

        There's really no way around the possibility that whatever you've written down in your constitution will be ignored in the heat of the moment, or become degraded over time.

        • By Jensson 2026-03-121:573 reply

          But you don't need to put the military under the direct command of the civilian president like US does, if parliament can take military action against the civilian president and civilian action against the military leader then they have ways to deal with both.

          American president is too powerful to deal with since he controls both the civilian and the military side.

          • By marcus_holmes 2026-03-122:181 reply

            This is the one argument left for monarchy; that the military in the UK (and technically Australia) swear loyatly to the monarch, not the Prime Minister. In the event of an obviously-lunatic elected official ordering the troops into civilian areas to "pacify" civilian populations, the monarch could (in theory) countermand that order.

            • By r14c 2026-03-126:323 reply

              Isn't that worse? You don't even get to elect the commander in chief, its just some random guy who was born into it?

              • By ChocolateGod 2026-03-1210:271 reply

                The monarch being Commander in Chief is ceremonial. Everything is done on the advice of the Prime Minister and their cabinet.

                The chance of the monarch overriding said request is less than 1%.

                Even then, parliament is sovereign. Whilst the logistics are complicated due to how things are introduced to the house, if parliament says no to a prime ministers decision, it overrides anything the prime minister who has no absolute power like a president does.

                • By laughing_man 2026-03-131:10

                  Monarchists can't have it both ways, though. Making him a ceremonial CiC isn't going to provide you with much of a bulwark against abuse of power by parliament. Or he isn't ceremonial and he could become a threat himself.

              • By marcus_holmes 2026-03-137:20

                I didn't say it was a good argument ;)

                Personally I love the idea that the codes for nukes are surgically implanted in a volunteer, and in order to issue the order to fire the nukes, the CIC must personally carve the codes from that person's chest with a knife, killing them in the process. Or the variant on that idea, that the codes are implanted in their own forearm, and to order the nukes they must cut the codes from out of their own flesh.

                We could do the same for all military deployment orders.

          • By laughing_man 2026-03-122:40

            There's a mechanism by which Congress can remove the president if he gets out of control.

          • By subscribed 2026-03-127:28

            This just happened.

            The government, unilaterally, against the country's prevalent feelings towards this illegal war of aggression, permitted USA to use British bases, and if I'm not mistaken, without as much as the parliament vote.

      • By hardlianotion 2026-03-1123:53

        Most western democracies have exactly the same fault, maybe having unscrupulous, shameless legislators are the end state of the current models of democracy being practiced.

      • By philistine 2026-03-120:31

        While no democratic system is completely protected from tyrants, at least the UK (and the Commonwealth nations who inherited their principles) uses the living tree doctrine in its courts, which means that the written text is not sacrosanct and the intention and usage is to be considered. That and unwritten tradition has force of law and can be challenged in court. Look at Boris Johnson's reversal of his prorogation as an example.

      • By tshaddox 2026-03-123:05

        > It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from unraveling

        All sufficiently large governments (really all organizations of any kind) are necessarily like this, from the most successful attempts at open societies to the most autocratic. They all require constant vigilance both to perform their intended function and to preserve themselves into the future.

      • By petesergeant 2026-03-124:26

        Strong disagree. It's uncontested that supreme authority lies with parliament, not with the leader of the day. PM can't do shit if parliament doesn't want him to, because they can always simply change the rules on him.

      • By throwaway85825 2026-03-122:56

        Constitution and laws are just pieces of paper. They only matter if the population acts as if they matter. Liberia has the same Constitution as the US.

      • By brailsafe 2026-03-1123:56

        But they're cycled through much more rapidly, and seem generally more vulnerable than the dictators in the U.S or otherwise. A small concession to be sure.

        It seems like a fundamental failure of government that in many cases, there are no consequences for deliberately or accidentally screwing your people. You either get murdered eventually or the country is just left to fix itself later, which disproportionately affects people with little resources.

      • By charcircuit 2026-03-122:422 reply

        Being able to vote in a strong leader to fix things directly is a feature. Democracy is not always the answer and when it is it can be too slow when time matters.

        • By Someone 2026-03-129:08

          For “fixing things” there are well-defined mechanisms such as state of emergency declaration of war.

          Those give the leader extra powers, but do not give them carte blanche to do as they wish. Those extra powers are limited to handle specific problems.

        • By subscribed 2026-03-127:361 reply

          I think it's quite obvious now how this leads to the erosion of rights and laws, looking at the current state of the affairs.

          • By charcircuit 2026-03-128:06

            That's the point? Adding laws and rights is not necessarily a good thing. People tried to work towards a local maxima but it turns out that the approach is no good so it needs to be torn down and another direction of hill climbing needs to be tried. Or circumstances where a law made sense are no longer the same. Problems that the law makers did not foresee may come into the picture.

      • By 01jonny01 2026-03-1123:235 reply

        Britain's problems are due to uncharismatic Blairite socialist.

        • By ordinaryradical 2026-03-1123:291 reply

          This comment may or may not be wrong but it is quintessentially low effort.

          The point of HN is to discuss, not to tweet about your political enemies.

          • By 01jonny01 2026-03-1223:05

            I'm parroting back the opposite of the original reply, which was upvoted

            That leaves me to conclude HN is a left leaning circle jerk echo chamber, much like reddit. With any dissent to the right triggering the non-hateful liberal lefties.

        • By kitd 2026-03-127:231 reply

          A populist far-right racist would fix all the potholes and bring HS2 in under budget? Got it.

          • By 01jonny01 2026-03-1223:081 reply

            You don't understand the core issue at heart in Britain.

            The real distraction is the economic argument. The truth of the matter is natives feel like a stranger in their own country. I say this as someone who is mixed race and 2nd gen before you try and label me a racist. Yawn.

            • By kitd 2026-03-136:47

              You need to change your social media algorithm.

        • By skibble 2026-03-1123:27

          All of them? Hmmm.

        • By b00ty4breakfast 2026-03-1123:38

          I don't know much about UK politics but I definitely know enough to know that there's no such thing as a "Blairite socialist".

    • By pjc50 2026-03-1122:34

      I go back and forth on this. It's a lot like the palace of Westminster itself: charming, whimsical, historical, connected to the past, hopelessly impractical, postponing repairs until things break, and at significant risk of being burned down.

      On the other hand it avoids the illusion that power resides in a text and that you can legal-magic your way past a power structure.

    • By bartread 2026-03-1122:383 reply

      There is something to be said for your written constitution though: having the fundamental principles on which your nation is founded enshrined in that way should, at least in theory, make it a lot easier to settle arguments (though in practice, and particularly recently, that does seem not to be the case). Constitutional wrangling in the UK is always really fraught though because it's all done by precedent and is therefore incredibly hard work to get to a clear understanding of what the situation really is.

      • By runako 2026-03-125:39

        The USA's written constitution should not be used as an exemplar of written constitutions in general because the founders didn't even enforce it the day after it was ratified. It took a civil war to even turn towards the words as written. The document itself was more aspirational than a reflection of how the founders intended to live and govern.

        As a result of all of that, we have developed a culture of sophistry around simple words. We pretend the Constitution binds us, but in practice the structures that govern the country are much more opaque and therefore more difficult to change.

        (This is why every so often we have to ratify a new amendment codifying rights that are clearly enumerated in the articles of the Constitution or in an earlier amendment. At some point, the sophistry tips over and we have to amend it to say what was plainly written in at some earlier point.)

      • By inglor_cz 2026-03-1123:292 reply

        Well, SCOTUS sometimes produces really weird Humpty-Dumpty explanations for very common words.

        Such as that growing marijuana plants in your own home for your own consumption influences interstate commerce and is therefore within powers of the Congress to regulate/ban.

        • By wileydragonfly 2026-03-121:54

          Well, they used that same logic to force integration… so.. sometimes good sometimes bad?

        • By laughing_man 2026-03-121:27

          That's ultimately the result of the threats FDR made to pack the court if they didn't do what he wanted.

      • By scj 2026-03-1122:51

        The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established in 1982. We're still in the process of figuring out what it means (and as a living document, the interpretation will change over time).

        It's messy. But I'd much rather that than need to ask "What would Pierre Trudeau think of this situation?"

    • By protocolture 2026-03-1122:34

      I see brits describing it as "Dictatorship with Democratic characteristics" and "3 weasels leading the 4th rabid weasel around by the tail" it doesnt seem "cool" by any stretch, except maybe if it was fictional and the people it hurt were not real.

    • By anon291 2026-03-124:50

      England's 'democracy' is cool insofar as the freemasons are cool. Old men in goofy hats sound fun until they end up raping some kid on an island somewhere in their old colonial posessions.

    • By themafia 2026-03-122:48

      It's significantly ruined by automated royal assent. The balance that's meant to protect the realm has not functioned for decades.

    • By zrn900 2026-03-1122:59

      What part of hereditary aristocrats and religious and otherwise lifetime appointees being able to send back bills to the parliament an infinite number of times until they are changed as they want them. There are cases in which they sent bills back as many as 60 times until they got them changed.

    • By JCattheATM 2026-03-1123:481 reply

      > gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy.

      And yet, they are still not quite there.

      There is something to be said for design over stumbling.

      • By t43562 2026-03-1212:101 reply

        The stumbling is natural - it's a sort of stable thing deriving out of the state of now.

        Design is something put out there which may not stand up to the test of how people actually behave i.e. it may not be stable.

        • By JCattheATM 2026-03-1213:06

          It's fine to stumble initially, like discovering fire, but design gets us lighters and ovens. Good design allows for some flexibility without leaving everything to chance like pure stumbling does.

    • By fleroviumna 2026-03-126:48

      [dead]

    • By MichaelRo 2026-03-125:072 reply

      [flagged]

      • By justonceokay 2026-03-125:57

        At least we know this wasn’t written by AI

      • By watwut 2026-03-127:451 reply

        Yeah everyone in Britain is mandatory gay now.

    • By rvz 2026-03-1122:314 reply

      > British democracy and government is cool.

      Oh sweet summer child.

      The government there does not care about you and will promise anything to get another 5 years in power despite causing the issues they promised to solve in the first place.

      You are essentially voting in the same party to be in government and progress there moves in the hundreds of years; hence the riddance of the scam that is unelected hereditary nobles which it took more than 700 years to remove them.

      • By t43562 2026-03-1212:15

        The governments don't really cause the issues. The big issues are just things that face the country no matter who is in control - how to pay for everything, how to deal with population aging etc.

        It's not a simple country - it's a machine with millions of complicated parts and therefore it's difficult to come up with simple things to do that will make everyone happy.

        The public don't all have a 10000 foot view, which I don't think any 1 person could comprehensively understand anyhow, and are susceptible to being sold "simple solutions" by politicians - in fact they won't elect anyone who doesn't pretend at least to offer simple solutions.

      • By pjc50 2026-03-1122:351 reply

        In fairness, this is not unique to Britain. For America read "4" instead of "5".

        • By rvz 2026-03-1122:554 reply

          Are there unelected hereditary nobles somewhere in the US that is entitled to having a seat in congress and can vote against laws being passed?

          Nope. I don't think so, not even the length of the term is the same.

          • By xp84 2026-03-120:051 reply

            unelected hereditary nobles

            Let's break down what Senators are:

            > Unelected

            In most states a single party will always win statewide elections, so our Senators are what I'd call "marginally elected" since they only have to face a quiet low-turnout primary election and then they sail to an easy re-election. They're nearly always guaranteed to win their primaries as long as The Party supports them, and they'll do so as long as you're loyal to The Party agenda.

            > Hereditary

            Many of them come from generational wealth, and a few suspiciously just happen to become wildly wealthy while in office, including through their stock trades, which has been decided to be 100% not illegal even when they know things the public does not know.

            > nobles

            Ours are called "elites," but most things are the same - they tend to all have gone to the top 2-4 colleges, and you can't 'break into' this set unless you were born into old money. Seems close enough from the perspective of those of us who aren't nobles or elites.

            So, you can think of the Senate as the House of Lords lite.

            • By hunterpayne 2026-03-126:321 reply

              Just checking, but you do realize that this kind of unhinged, populist takes are exactly the kind of propaganda you use to destroy a democratic system. You know that right?

              Only a couple of states are like you describe and none of them are red. The governor of KY (the reddest state) for example is a Dem. One of the Senators for Montana is a Dem, etc. In fact, if you want the Dems to win the presidency in 2028, one of those folks is your best bet. The other thing we can do it get rid of gerrymandering but that's unlikely and the most recent gerrymandering attempts are likely to end up blowing up in the face of the party drawing the lines. Politics is nothing if not ironic.

              PS Look at who is running for governor of CA right now and ask yourself if any of those folks actually represents CA in any real way. Also, ask yourself why there is only 1 Dem in that race?

              • By xp84 2026-03-138:40

                You can't destroy a democratic system that isn't democratic and already doesn't serve the people. The Senate was never designed to be democratic in the first place. The House was, but its main problem is just campaign finance decadence that means to the extent those guys do any governing during their 2-year terms, it's a part-time gig in between fundraising. And together, the legislative branch has become a joke. They now just fart around, either rubber-stamping whatever the President says, or shutting down the government whenever the party out of power can't accept that the public has rejected their policies. So I hope I can be forgiven for being pessimistic about whether this "democratic system" even serves any purpose at this point.

                But back to the Senate. Jon Tester was defeated in 2024. There is a peppering of Democrats in statewide office here and there -- Fetterman and Beshear, and the Virginia and Georgia Democrats, the latter of which got really lucky to both run in the election that was a referendum on Trump's COVID chaos, and the one getting to run against a proud child molester. They are also the exact kind of politicians that don't get support from the blue-state Democrats in primaries for national elections, because they are too moderate. If you don't check every box, the primaries will destroy you. To be fair, Republicans have the exact same problem. Blue-state moderates certainly could have been persuaded to support say, Jeb Bush, but the party only supports... well, since the phenomenon became locked in, they have only given their support to one man. Sorry to ramble, my point is that the practice of split-ticket voting is dying off faster than discounted DRAM.

                There used to be a lot of these cross-party appeal people like Bill Clinton, Ann Richards, Jon Tester, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and on the Republican side George Pataki, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie. But this is now massively the exception, and trending down.

                BTW I'm all for getting rid of gerrymandering, but the Democrats have set that cause back by 100 years by selling out their supposed deeply held beliefs last year in California. Now we're just being honest that it's only about power.

                I don't remember who's running for governor in California, but I am guessing there is only one Dem running it's because the California Democratic Party is powerful and disciplined in ways neither national party is, and has told everybody but the party's favorite to sit down and shut up. That's speculation - let me know if I'm wrong.

          • By BigTTYGothGF 2026-03-121:08

            In the US our unelected hereditary nobility just buys candidates.

          • By fc417fc802 2026-03-1123:20

            And yet all of your objections apply to us in equal measure. Almost as though hereditary nobles don't have much to do with them.

          • By pjc50 2026-03-127:17

            Not hereditary, but SCOTUS functions somewhat worse than the House Of Lords: unelected, unremovable, life appointments, but ability to change the law. Hence the decades spent shifting the balance to reverse Roe v Wade.

            A lot of important US freedoms only came from the courts in spite of the legislatures, which I think is an under appreciated problem of the system.

            The US system skews much older for some reason too. The only president born after 1946 was Obama. Like being stuck in a time warp.

      • By tjpnz 2026-03-120:03

        What on earth are you talking about? They were elected in 2024. If anything its the issues caused over the previous 14 years which must be fixed.

      • By jongjong 2026-03-1122:511 reply

        No idea why this was down-voted, it's true. It's replacing one hereditary system based on inheritance of titles with another hereditary system based on inheritance of capital.

        • By pseudalopex 2026-03-1122:521 reply

          > No idea why this was down-voted

          > Oh sweet summer child.

          And Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.[1]

          [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

          • By jongjong 2026-03-1122:581 reply

            You need to have a very cynical worldview already to find my comment boring; as in; no information content. I really don't think most people are there yet.

            • By pseudalopex 2026-03-1123:121 reply

              > You need to have a very cynical worldview already to find my comment boring; as in; no information content.

              Boring does not mean no information content. But the part of your comment about comment voting was boring and noise.

              • By koakuma-chan 2026-03-120:551 reply

                I think that guideline means that if your own comment gets downvoted, don't reply complaining about it. A "why was this downvoted? it's true" from another user is fine, I think.

                • By pseudalopex 2026-03-1317:13

                  It could have said your comments if it meant your comments. And It never does any good, and it makes boring reading was not less true.

  • By scrlk 2026-03-1123:001 reply

    The irony is that, on a technicality, the hereditary peers were the only members of the Lords who had to win an election to get their seats.

    > Under the reforms of the House of Lords Act 1999, the majority of hereditary peers lost the right to sit as members of the House of Lords, the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Section 2 of the Act, however, provides an exception from this general exclusion of membership for up to 92 hereditary peers: 90 to be elected by the House, as well as the holders of two royal offices, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who sit as ex officio members.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excepted_hereditary_pe...

    • By cm2187 2026-03-1123:143 reply

      Yeah, the assumption is that the non hereditary peers are somehow more representative, but all they represent is being friends of the PM of the time. It's a historical oddity of questionable usefulness. Meanwhile the house of commons can wipe out any civil liberty with a majority of 50% plus one vote. It is remarkable how a system that seems so unstable and prone to abuses of power has served the longest continuously running democracy for so long.

      • By skissane 2026-03-120:101 reply

        > Yeah, the assumption is that the non hereditary peers are somehow more representative, but all they represent is being friends of the PM of the time

        There is an informal understanding that the government gives a certain number of life peerages to the opposition and minor parties, subject to the government being able to veto individual appointments they find objectionable. So it literally isn’t true that everyone gets one by being friends with the PM-although it certainly helps

        Some parties reject their entitlement-the only reason why there are no SNP life peers, is the SNP has a longstanding policy to refuse to appoint any. There are currently 76 LibDem peers, 6 DUP, 3 UUP, 2 Green and 2 Plaid Cymru. SNP would very quickly get some too if they ever changed their mind about refusing the offer. The Northern Ireland nationalist parties (Sinn Fein and SDLP) likewise have a policy against nominating life peers.

        • By cm2187 2026-03-125:38

          So the correction is “friends of the PM, and a few other key politicians”. Still a club of people who represent no one. And more problematic, are accountable to no one.

      • By scrlk 2026-03-1123:30

        As Walter Bagehot wrote in The English Constitution: "An ancient and ever-altering constitution is like an old man who still wears with attached fondness clothes in the fashion of his youth: what you see of him is the same; what you do not see is wholly altered."

        Absent ideological capture, it is perhaps one of the best forms of government ever created due to its pragmatic nature and its Lindyness is proof.

      • By tehjoker 2026-03-1123:492 reply

        50% + 1 is called democracy. Civil liberties are more liable to be swept away by minorities that come to power. In the US, the republicans often do this because they have minority popular support but a disproportionate representation in government. So the key is to make sure that it's 50% + 1 but also representative of the real population.

        The nobility is another example of a minority with disproportionate power. It's important that they are reduced to ensure civil liberties.

        • By cm2187 2026-03-120:081 reply

          All other democracies have safeguards against the tyranny of the majority. Whether it is representativity by state in the US or in the EU, a constitution requiring a large consensus to change in the US, or the senate being elected by the elected officials of small cities in France, it is not true that democracy is just 50% + 1 vote.

          • By hunterpayne 2026-03-126:37

            What you describe is called a Republic. Pure democracy is precisely 50% + 1 vote.

        • By troad 2026-03-131:18

          Worth noting that the distinction between democracy and republic that you're clearly advocating here is a usage particular to Americans. It doesn't have much currency elsewhere.

          Countries like the Netherlands, Denmark etc all have safeguards the dilute the power of 50% + 1, and yet they are clearly not republics, being monarchies.

          Political scientists tend to talk more of 'liberal democracy' (whether republican or monarchical) v 'electoral autocracy' etc. This depends on the classical use of the term 'liberal' of course, which is another word that Americans tend to use differently from everyone else.

          > The nobility is another example of a minority with disproportionate power. It's important that they are reduced to ensure civil liberties.

          Alexis de Tocqueville would disagree - he believed that intermediate institutions (churches, professions, elites, etc) blunt the power of the state before it reaches average people. A society without intermediate institutions is one where you have an all-powerful state on the one hand, and a largely un-coordinated mass of average people on the other. He thought this was the highway to democratic despotism. (Worth noticing that totalitarian governments focus a lot of their energy on destroying alternative centres of power such as these.)

HackerNews