The House of Lords was a necessary and integral wing of this Kingdom’s government during eras of British greatness. What we see in the government now is a neutered, corrupted puppet of the political class that does not serve its purpose. A restored House of Limits would provide a necessary restriction on self-serving politicians.
During our golden age of imperialism, the House of Lords was filled with the finest experts who had received the best educations from patriotic, historic universities. Filling the chambers were Hereditary aristocrats who held deep, ancient ties to the land and people, which made their best interests align exactly with the best interests of Great Britain. Appointments to the second house were not party cronies, they were the greatest pioneers in their fields. These people put Great Britain on top of the world, making them the natural opposite and enemy of the Marxist politicians who desecrate the United Kingdom today. Over decades, not only did the political class butcher Parliament’s second house until it became nothing but a retirement home for parasitic ex-MPs, they removed the house’s veto over the rootless lower house. Once the House of Commons had primacy, Great Britain fell from a global empire that held a homogeneous population and the power to conquer entire continents. Now, politicians have reduced us to a self-destructive wreck, giving away our land and fortunes to the third-world. Restoring the House of Lords will allow the glorious empire of our past to flourish once again, as it did when the upper house was a potent force.
I propose the restoration of all hereditary peers, the removal of the Prime Minister’s right to push party cronies into the second house and the restoration of an absolute veto right over the House of Commons.
This is an interesting view, and total opposite to the common “abolish” narrative.
I think i find myself convinced by this, but we would need preventative measures in play to ensure this cannot be undone, and we need an effective transitional model to get it done.
I would definately suggest allowing Farmers to be among the first generation of a new house of lords.
Great idea. British farmers deserve that, especially after all the recent abuse.
I reject the idea that reducing Parliament to only the House of Commons would improve the country at all. Most of our problems are caused by MPs in the Commons.
I would wonder about how a possible direct democracy would run alongside this, because Nigel Farage has said about getting to Direct Democracy, of which I believe he means like how Switzerland runs, so that voting is directly further into the hands of the population.
Pioneers and people of notable capabilities would be an ideal, yeah, and I agree to put a humble farmer in, as they really have been messed over and would likely have the drive for making things better.
However before we do we need to make sure it isn’t just jobs for the boys. I think the honours system is corrupted and needs to be reviewed and amended. No one should have the ability of permanency. They should only be allowed to sit for the term of the elected government. People should be adopted into the Lords for their excellence not their political agenda
To that end we should research the transition from what made it so succesful and a force for good, what made it work, and what made it succumb to corruption.
We have a rich history to learn from and can use these lessons.
this could be achieved with some acts of devolution.
Obviously devolution under Blair was manufactured in a way to create more power for left wing areas, be that the mayorships of Manchester london birmingham or the governments of Wales and Scotland. These were meant to be labour strongholds, SNP up ended that.
If a right wing government wanted to do something similar giving some powers to ancestral lords may not be a bad idea. Even if it is just having veto powers on council decisions. It would allow for a better run country.
This is a lovely idea but I don’t think there will be much support amongst the general public probably due to the fact that the House of Lords does not have much publicity on the way it works so is a mystery to the general public. They just think that it’s not “fair” that aristocrats had/have the privilege of legislating when in fact it is more of a duty. However, what is really unfair is that the legislation to oust the last remaining 92 Hereditary Peers who sit in the House of Lords is going through the House of Lords at this very moment. I think that they should keep at least these 92 Hereditary Peers to give the House legitimacy, otherwise why should it be called the House of Lords? Some of the remaining 92 have given sterling service for many years and are being consigned to the scrapheap all because of political ideology and political expediency. I have listened to many Debates in the House of Lords and the Hereditary Peers really care about the effect of unintended consequences of legislation on the general public and are not merely “looking after their own interests”. When the Blair Labour government abolished the Hereditary Peers in 1999, they made a Privy Council Agreement to keep the 92 remaining Hereditary Peers until the whole House was reformed so this current Labour Government is going against that. They are bound in honour if not in law to keep that promise. The Labour Manifesto also wanted to make Peers retire at 80 years old but they have dropped that!
Much of my view on Lords reform can be found here. But as I see it, the problem is two-fold and all started with the Parliament Act 1911, where in order to remove power from the Lords, the King agreed to flood the chamber until enough people would vote the way that he and Askqith wanted. This was the start of the constitutional decline.
As such, we cannot, sadly, return to all hereditary peers, because a PM may come along and try something similar. Politicians ultimately are there for themselves and are encouraged to extract as much power and influence as they can in the short time they have. This stands opposed to the incentives of hereditary officials who want to ensure that they have something to pass down to their children.
However, because of public sentiment, I think that the hereditary officials need to be seen to be working, not just getting to vote on policy by right of blood. This is why I propose a system of “High Sheriffs” across the country who look after their local councils in the same way that the King looks (or is meant to look) after government. These would be people who officially represent the King when he is not there, do all of the civil ceremonies etc.
I also think that life peers should exist, but there should be a limit to minting new ones. I suggest in my proposal 5 per year, 4 from the PM, and 1 from the LotO, with all having to be nominated by local councils first, and not allowed to be (former) MPs or civil servants.
Lastly, I propose that all professors be allowed to stand for membership to the house and a life peerage, but that the title then becomes regulated and requires royal assent to grant, to ensure the quality of our highest-ranked academics.
