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

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

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

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

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝OPA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s a start but I won’t be happy with anything less than sortition - a true upper house of our peers.

    • Risk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’d like for it to be people with previous careers as well though, not career politicians. Which is what it would end up being if open to anyone standing.

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sortition means you dont stand to get elected, instead you get randomly selected to serve, its how jury service works. That said I’d prefer 2/3rds sortition 1/3 appointed cross-bench experts, they are the only good thing about the current lords and it would be a shame to lose them.

      • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝OPA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

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

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

        • Risk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

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

          Yes, I very much agree with your idea then.

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