There's a Bill making the rounds, currently under consultation in the House of Lords, to remove hereditary peers. But the Bishops and all clergy from all religions and denominations should have been removed first. Surely!
Besides, in 1999, the House of Lords Act meant most hereditary peers could not automatically 'sit' and vote in the House of Lords. Hence, the majority of hereditary Peers that are there now have been elected by fellow hereditary Peers. So they are somewhat elected. This Act restricts hereditary Peers from 'sitting' in the House of Lords as a birthright but no longer disqualifies these Peers from 'sitting' and voting in the House of Commons, providing they're not also sitting in the House of Lords, which prior to this Act was disallowed.
The 1999 Act makes clear:
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
So what's the point of this current Bill? To override the 1999 Act?
Come on, hereditary Peers, fight this Bill!
Hereditary Peers are aristocratic and, therefore, relevant and unique in the British political system and should be represented just as much as anyone else.
They're also a group that the government can't use power over and can't introduce through bias selection. For instance, Evgeny Lebedev was made a life Peer in the House of Lords in 2020 and is referred to as 'Lord Lebedev'. He is the Moscow-born son of a Russian Oligarch and KGB Officer. They moved to England when Evgeny was eight years old but he didn't bother to acquire British citizenship until 2010. So when he was elected to the House of Lords he was only a British Citizen for around 10 years. His is a dual Citizenship because he has retained his Russian Citizenship alongside his British Citizenship, which is surely politically problematic in itself in the House of Lords because he could introduce either personal bias or he could be prone to outside pressure from the President of Russia, Putin, which could negatively impact on his voting patterns and thus, British democracy. If someone is 'sitting' in the House of Lords, they should either only hold a British Citizenship, or be a dual citizen of Britain and another commonwealth country, so they don't introduce foreign political influence/bias, undermining British democracy from the inside.
Explain this: How is a British hereditary Peer worse for our democracy than someone like Lord Lebedev? 🤔
Yes, on the simplistic, hypothetical level of elected/not elected level. And, I agree with the principle that having only elected representatives is the most truly democratic system. But, in practice, the contemporary problem is that there's a good deal of corruption undermining this ideal and, as far as I can see, we won't live happily ever after if we go down this route. If we look across the pond, we see that the American President is elected by the people but elections are deceptively difficult to conduct democratically, the voting doesn't always add up and who has been declared the winner? An unpopular, dictatorial oligarch, Donald Trump!
So frankly, in practice, I'd rather have Kirsty Allsopp's father than a Russian oligarch and son of a KGB Officer impacting on the laws of our country! And, at least if its 'by birth' it introduces an element of random selection, as opposed to a biased selection of choosing whoever can buy their way in, which introduces corruption and bias into the political system. How's that fair and democratic!? And in terms of wealth, oligarchs are far wealthier than aristocrats. So why are people more resentful of an aristocrat's inherited wealth? This, despite their contribution to our British heritage eg in the preservation of our architecture, artworks, land, and stately homes that we can all visit and enjoy.
It's also in danger of tipping the balance of British democracy towards an undemocratic Oligarchy, especially given how incredibly wealthy Prime Ministers can be these days. Sunak is a very recent example of this. Even when they are not oligarchs, PMs are still invariably among the ridiculously wealthy who don't have an aristocratic background so they haven't simply accumulated it over generations, they've somehow acquired vast amounts in a short space of time. 🤔 Small wonder PMs don't identify with us. And can even look down on us. They have become part of the ruling class in virtue of their powerful leadership role as Prime Minister.
Having hereditary Peers in the House of Lords is in itself of great value and keeps the system democratic. The hereditary Peers give a different perspective from the religious clergy and the elected Peers in the House of Lords, and they provide an excellent contrast to the (elected) House of Commons.
The hereditary Peers also provide a very British perspective and value system. Is it not strange how British Nationalists who claim they love everything 'very British' and 'traditional', nevertheless, don't support British hereditary Peers? So what do they really mean by 'British'? What's their ideology? Because simply being far-right/Nazi-like is actually anti-British, isn't it? 🤔
With the hereditary Peers coming into every debate, we are able to see different sides to every argument, different perspectives on every issue, instead of just the one ideology set out by a particular government with its own agenda that it wants to force into law through, 'come hell or high water'.
We can't have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet! That's not democracy that's totalitarianism.
In Britain, we have a three tier political structure to give balance of power: The Monarchy; the House of Lords, which should consist of hereditary Peers who are aristocratic; bishops/clergy 😡 (why these?) and elected Peers; and the all elected House of Commons.
If you rid yourself of hereditary Peers you might never quite get round to ridding yourself of the religious representatives who, frankly, have nothing extra to offer just backward medieval religious prejudices we can well do without.😡
I thought Starmer was an atheist.🤔 Doesn't look like it from where I'm standing. An atheist would have sent the clergy packing. But then his mother was an Anglican Church goer. And mothers are often more influential than fathers.
However, Starmer has no problem rushing through a ban on puberty blockers which is an anti-trans move.
And he's happy to ride roughshod over the environment and build on a grey belt, green belt and just about any other belt that I'm not aware of, labelling anyone who objects as NIMBY and other such-like pejorative name-calling. A Labour PM wouldn't think or talk like this. Even ex PM Cameron thought empathy was important in politics, and he's a Conservative! 🤯
I'm not sure Theresa May would agree with Starmer's attitude either. She was positive towards trans people and studied Geography at uni so understands environmental issues. All Starmer seems to have caught off her, by working with her while being a Crown Prosecutor for a few years (which is something he keeps reminding us about) was the less appealing side of how to be a Tory.
Why people don't vote LibDem in elections defeats me. Their leader, Ed Davey has had a much tougher life than other party leaders. So he is more empathetic with those who have a life full of challenges. He's more one of us.
If people had voted LibDem back in July this year we'd be better off right now instead of moaning about the present government - again!
And all people come up with as a Labour /Tory alternative is the Reform Party. 😱 Just go even more right, why don't you. No wonder Hitler was elected. People are remarkably ignorant and blinkered when it comes to politics which is why the will of the people isn't always a helpful barometer.
I think British Politics is a subject that needs to be taught at school to A Level students but in an objective, unbiased way. Otherwise, how do you navigate politics ethically and understand who to vote for and why?
