But it's just getting rid of the remaining hereditary peers? Like, yes that's undemocratic, but the real problem with the lords is that they're in there for life. The second issue being that none of them are elected, hereditary or not. And what's even the point of House of Lords reform if the Lords Spiritual are kept around?
- he / him / his
Second-rate fruit.
Check out @Eurovision and @CollinsSubmissions
I don't have any hidden profile links, you're not missing anything.
Love Cycle: A Soap Operetta
youtu.be/jNaWwh-PVCINeocities (Everything else is here)
cofruitrigus.neocities.org/You must log in to comment.
in reply to @cofruitrigus's post:
The solution I heard recommended back in the day was that they should constitute the upper house by party based on a proportional number of votes received, but it's unlikely to happen because it would make them more democratic than parliament.
I think if we get something like that, it'd be paired with a new system for the commons that keeps constituencies. But nothing's going to happen unless one of the smaller parties ends up in coalition.
It would be a big improvement to just set a limit on how long anyone can sit in the Lords of, like, 20 years. Or ideally less.
I want you to know that every time I see this post headline, my brain halts for two seconds until I (re)realise that it doesn't say House of Leaves reform
I am very sorry. I don't know anything about House of Leaves so this just gives me delightful thoughts about tree democracy.