Blair's Thousand Days: The Lady and the Lords
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- New Labour came to power pledging to abolish the 800-year-old right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Michael Cockerell tells the story of the efforts made by Lady Jay, the first female Labour Leader of the Lords, to get the bill through Parliament. Prod Charles Miller; Editor Anne Tyerman. TX BBC Two, 6 February 2000 8pm - 9pm
![⚔️จำกัดเวลา⚔️ [พากย์ไทย] ซอร์ดอาร์ตออนไลน์ ซีซั่น 1 - ฉบับมัดรวมทุกตอน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ohkfBVDXLSA/mqdefault.jpg)
Michael Cockerell doesn't get the credit of some of the more flashy documentary makers, but his documentaries are wonderful visual documents of post-war British politics.
It's not just that Jay was the daughter of a PM, Callaghan, but that Callaghan made her husband Peter Jay ambassador to the US, which was a highly controversial thing to do. So she benefitted twice from family ties but then sneers at those who got peerages and preferment in the same way as she did.
I would even go so far as to say her case has more opportunity to be nefarious than the traditional hereditary peer system. The whole point was that is wasn't just some new appointee whose views you could foresee or even manipulate, but to get people who are there, more or less independent and with a different perspective.
Love these docs , thanks for the upload!
What do we have to replace the hereditary peers? Unelected nominated cronies, who are all self serving has beens who grab a daily allowance of £300 a day and are often seen sound asleep in the chamber. Some of those appointed are of very dubious backgrounds (research it). Whereas the hereditary peers had more of a sense of purpose, of conviction and were more ‘conservative’ in approach, they had been prepared on the whole to take on the role of advocate and sense of duty to crown and country. The replacement is nowhere near as satisfactory for purpose.
Me too!! I can’t enough of old BBC 90’s programs about 🇬🇧 government
The point of an "upper house" is to revise legislation, make suggestions and amendments and to provide advice to the "lower" house. Not to control power and block legislation because they don't like an elected government. The House of Lords should be drastically reduced to be 50% of what the Commons is, so around the 300 amount. Those 300 are to be appointed not for life, but for a set amount of time, say every 10 years. After 10 years, a new batch will be appointed. Appointments will be processed through an independent appointments board. Anyone can apply, and the appointments board will process applications to see if they are suitable and are decent for the house. Simple as that.
And what a dog’s dinner Blair made of it ,
It’s just a new old boys club - as nothing to do with democracy at all .
The hole thing is a disgrace.
There is no reason at all why it can’t be 6 year parliamentary election using proportional representation.
Thank you so much for making this excellent account of the removal of the hereditary peers available. I think I first spotted it some years ago and did not express my thanks at the time. The current Prime Minister (Johnson) is busy packing the Lords with life peers, presumably to try to shift the balance in his favour, and for the first time has given a life peerage to someone found unsuitable by the House Of Lords Appointments Committee, responsible for vetting nominations. Not sure how this is an improvement!
I enjoyed that. Thanks for uploading.
The obvious solution is Randomocracy/Citizens' Jury idea, serving for three years, retiring by thirds.
When the logic of your opponent is impenetrable, argue about stupidities like tone, tenor, attitude, hidden intention etc. Life peers hate giving up power. The era of clinging to those seats without being elected is over. So they choose to fight on superficialities.
What is not explained whatsoever is: why would the House of Lords, specifically the Hereditary Peers, agree to a reduction of their numbers (seats) and thereby influence and powers? Why didn't the 800+ Hereditary Peers vote 'no' to whatever proposition was being made? Further, how does a Prime Minister have the power to legislate over an upper chamber?
Because the Lords had ultimately to give way to the democratic vote of the people and the elected House. The Lords could only retain power so long as the demos was willing to allow them, and by 1998 that consent had gone. The hereditary peers could argue for continuing their power but only the extreme anti-democrats would ever attempt to obstruct something put to the electorate and supported by a clear majority in the Commons. The Commons also had the power to enact the change under the Parliament Act, should the Lords try to veto it.
Jim Callaghan and Peter Shore sitting next to each other is so adorable.
A wholly elected second chamber would do nothing for the United Kingdom. It would either simply replicate the House of Commons, or create a complete reverse of the House of Commons make up. So it would either provide a platform for an elected government to get all of its bills through the second house, or create a complete stalemate. We see this in the USA, with both their houses elected, and utter stalemate created, with no cross party support and an approval rating in the toilet. An appointed upper house is better and stable.
You are correct about the upper chamber (the Senate) in US, but you should take note of the history. In the original US Constitution, Members of the Senate were not elected by the people at all, but were appointed by the state legislatures. (It’s important to remember that we have a federal system, unlike the U.K.). That only changed in 1912, and the reason it changed was because essentially prospective Senators were buying their seats, thus creating a dire need for reform.
The other problem with our system is that there was a huge dispute in the Constitutional Convention between large states and small states over the allocation of seats to the Congress. More populous states wanted proportional representation, less populous states wanted equal numbers of legislators for each state. The compromise arrived at was that the lower house would have proportional representation, and the upper house would have equal representation (two Senators per state). That outcome has led to a disproportionate amount of power to fall to less populated states, which has become a real problem, and is part of the reason for gridlock, though changes in partisan politics itself has played a larger role.
It was not that long ago, say before 1980, that the parties were not so ideological. You could easily find conservative Democrats (especially in the South) and liberal Republicans, especially in the Northeast. That has changed gradually over time, especially with the toxic 1994 midterm elections, especially as run by Newt Gingrich, who encouraged his fellow Republicans to depict their Democratic opponents not as opponents, but as enemies, and encouraged the usage of extremely divisive vocabulary to depict Democratic candidates.
A big part of the problem is also that the U.S. House of Representatives is limited to 435 members, even though the population of the U.S. is now over 330 million. So each Representative represents over 700,000 people, which makes it almost impossible for most constituents to even meet their representative. We would be better off abolishing the Senate, and expanding the size of the House, and while we are at it, holding US House elections every four years, instead of every two years, thus ending “midterm” elections, which many voters ignore.
That would help reduce the gridlock, allow the president to get more of his legislative agenda passed, and at least somewhat reduce the continual campaigning.
I don't understand why the hereditary peers did not argue that they had a property or proprietary right to their seats in the House of Lords. They are entitled to their titles and their estates -- why are they not entitled to their seat in House of Lords as asset of their aristocratic estate.
The point was taken in the Committee of Privileges. Lord Mayhew of Twysden (a former Attorney General) argued that an Act of Parliament could not deprive someone of a seat in the House of Lords if they had a Writ of Summons. They found against him: publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/106i/106i01.htm
Lord Mereworth (who had succeeded to the Peerage in 2002) later argued it in court. In 2011 he sued the Crown Office for denying him a writ of summons to the House of Lords when the Letters Patent for his Peerage entitled him to one. He failed www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1589.html and was refused permission to appeal www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1796.html.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I will have to look up Writ of Summons.
I'm a foreigner but how can state property, seats in parliament be a private person's property?
@@lukealadeen7836 Not really state property. It evolved out of Lords claiming rights against the Crown.
@@johnnotrealname8168 yep, magma carta, and ironically the original reason for a parliament existing in the first place.
Now we get the Truss Turds instead. The Lettuce Leavings. Good job tony. Go find some wmds
And what a dog’s dinner Blair made of it ,
It’s just a new old boys club - as nothing to do with democracy at all .
The hole thing is a disgrace.
There is no reason at all why it can’t be 6 year parliamentary election using proportional representation.
Thank you for this, really interesting!
Earl Longford rather burst Lady Jay's balloon at the end!
Learned something new today. Many thanks 👍
It's a disgrace that there are still today hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Hopefully Starmer keeps to his promise and finally abolishes them
Tony Blair always looked uncomfortable at most formal ceremonies (e.g. the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams), and around the royals. It all makes perfect sense now. He became Roman Catholic after attempting to bring down the establishment. Oh my ! A jelly bean inside boxed chocolates...
After he became Catholic, he started trying to tell the Pope how to run the show... what a jackass!
How could any sane adult convert to Catholicism unless there were some tremendous financial incentive?
Well if tony orders us mere mortals who are we to argue. Its not as if he'd lie to us or decieve us or commit war crimes......
@@DCFunBud. Perhaps because his wife is a lifelong Catholic?
How did Margaret Jay get her peerage? If you get a life peerage, you should have cured some disease or something. From what I read she was a daughter of a former prime minister and a TV producer for about 10 years and done some charity work. That's hardly worthy of a life peerage.
Funny you should mention curing some disease - she was chair of the National Aids Trust which did a great deal of work in helping to treat that disease and lower HIV transmissions. Plenty of life peers have worked only for themselves and their own business. And being the daughter of a PM doesn't disqualify anyone from getting a peerage.
@@DBIVUK Just because she was chair of a worthy charity doesn't warrant a lifetime of unelected power? The bar needs to be higher.
It does make it somewhat hypocritical though. If she was born to another man she wouldn’t have got that peerage, but because she was involved in politics via familial connection from a young age she got the chance to be rewarded with a seat in the lords.
And what a dog’s dinner Blair made of it ,
It’s just a new old boys club - as nothing to do with democracy at all .
The whole thing is a disgrace.
There is no reason at all why it can’t be 6 year parliamentary election using proportional representation.
Great documentary that exposes the vacuous way New Labour approached the constitutional reform of UK. Jay is imperious in her attitude and as was pointed out was only there due to her father’s previous position.
28:38 nailed it!
exactly!!
As one of them said, the motive was that the executive refused to have anyone who might be independent of it have any power at all.
If you look at recent Parliamentary history it's only been the Lords who have attempted to hold back the excesses of BOTH Thatcher and Blair. With rigorously enforced whips in the commons, the only people who are not beholden to party discipline are the hereditary peers in the Lords.
And the Lords power is already very circumscribed, they can't even block legislation passed by the commons. Only delay it and send it back, asking the commons to spend more time considering it. And, again looking at their record, some hereditary peers (even on the conservative benches) can be far more radical, and on the side of the ordinary citizen, than the arse lickers who wheedle their way into the commons (or are nominated to the Lords).
Cross benchers stop whatever. No one controls the lords even 15 years after Blair.
No one controlled it before but now anyone the prime minister favours can get in. Why was it necessary, and don’t say accountability, the lords will never be elected and shouldn’t because then they’d have the authority to contend with the commons.
@@kb4903 The Lords now are just a bunch of liberals they opposed brexit after the vote.
Tony Blair was a power house in the late 90’s. What a sorry state the Labour Party is in today
Absolutely fascinating to see highly esteemed MP's argue their cases with an enormous emphasis on phraseology. Which tends to sway the arguments in one's favor. A rather preponderate tactic to aid business of the House.
i am sure Lady Jay has a sense of humour but she hides it well (Tory peers 'attitude' to women etc) - also when is stage 2 of the reforms she talked about going to happen? Labour were in power for 12/13 years..didn't get around to it i guess
Yeah the House of Lords is a mess, Labour got a PR boost from this, but didn’t have to crack on with the much more difficult reform after this.
They never intend to have the promised second stage of reform. Now the prime minister appoints people to the lords and they are far more allied to party politics than before.
actually i think she was quite funny
It's Thelma Rice from Heartburn
Note Irvine's £400 a roll wallpaper.
They shouldn't have done that. And I'm a republican saying this. They serve as a check and balance, and as far as I know, there's absolutely nothing stopping the Commons from passing whatever legislative agenda they want to pass, and the Sovereign, whom for some stupid reason, has no veto power at least not one that can be exercised because you don't have a written constitutional, has to sign it. That the fatal flaw of having an unwritten constitution and a Sovereign who can't exercise the powers of their offices without being stripped of said powers or abolished all together.
Tony Benn: *opens his mouth*
Me: *eyes roll so far back into my skull i can see grey matter*
Elizabeth Johnson he’s got more moral fibre in his pinkie than both of us in our whole bodies combined!
Lord Strathclydes comments are rather curious considering his recent opinions...
59:26. "An" by all means. Readers of The Washington Post ridiculed me for making the same point of English grammar as the Conservative hereditary peers of the House of Lords. I used the example, "an historic event." Really, "a historic event!" Sounds like the huffing and puffing of the Big Bad Wolf. The more aspirant the h, the more necessary the preceding an.
Well, that's standard here, and it also happens to be English. The fact that your fellow Americans *always* react like that and will waste hours and hours of time referring to foreign dictionaries like the Merriam Webster one to justify not speaking English is exactly why now I'm very firm in asserting to them that it is not English, as in from England.
You don't call the French Spoken in France "French French", it's just French, you distinguish the Canadian.
So you need to distinguish whatever that is you insist on writing and talking there, where you ignore unaspirated h's, aspirate them where you should not and exceptionally like with behemoth is English or not, it necessarily is not.
There's also the grammar issue and new affectations, like with refusing to use the past tense with spat, fitted, using the noun dove instead of the regular verb dived (Bokuwski, anyone, that's what passes for "literature" over there?), and of course, the refusal to use adverbs at all. Stresses on the wrong part of the word are not really choices or "both valid" where we use then to denote if something is in a noun form or verb form.
Therefore if you put the stress in the wrong part of the word for building permit, not only does it sound jarringly wrong, you'd be confusing non-native speakers of English, since they are taught that there is a consistency in English with denoting those things with stress, as opposed to everyone else in the English-speaking world doing it except for one foreign dialect, where if you challenge it for correct grammatical reasons, they instead say "they're both valid", when they necessarily cannot be.
This is why the foreign, degenerated form needs to be rejected as both not native and not English. The mistake everyone made in the first place was being so charitable to your dialect in the first place.
Great documentary. And, a quarter of a century later, it looks like Labour are going to finish the job.
They should have kept the hereditary peers! But i don't feel that strongly about it
Came across this as I read an article of what Keir Starmer is further removing remaining hereditary peers in general election in two weeks time.
Yes - the Labour manifesto for 2024 says 91 out of the 92 remaining hereditary peers will lose their seats (the Earl Marshal keeps one, because of a role in House of Lords Royal ceremonies)
In Ireland they have a Senate, called the Seanad. 60 members, 43 appointed by five panels, (admin, agriculture, culture/educational, industrial/commerce and labour), 11 nominated by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of the day, 6 nominated by the Irish universities. The elections to the chamber happens at the same time a general election occurs. I wonder of the House of Lords would be revamped to this form?
The Seanad i's a useless chamber too, used by the Taoiseach to give politicial positions to those who failed in general elections and to those who do favours for his party.
As an Australian with our Proportional Representation elected upper house, this is just insane.
It is , as you say, insanity.
Moral Immoral.
" Lord we do not find anyones are lawyers they are the lord of the house of whole kingdom comes."
One of the most disgusting acts of the abuser Blair, it is an eternal shame for Labour to try to have absolute control instead to have better governance and government
Why should unelected peers be permitted to sit, vote and debate in the House of Lords?
You’re never going to get an elected house because it would grant them equal status to the commons and bog down parliament.
@@johnking5174 because that was their right for centuries it was why their is a House of Lords. They already gave up so much power. You already have an elected House of Commons
@@LeComtedeSaintDomingue But it is unelected and undemocratic.
@@johnking5174 that's how it should be too much democracy is a bad thing. Not everyone should vote
My suggestion - Liberal Democrats have wanted PR in elections, then let us have an elected House of Lords, with peers elected by PR, single transferable vote which is used in the Irish republic elections. Have around 300 peers representing multi-seat constituencies throughout the UK every 7 years.
agreed
John King I wanted all unelected peers gone as it's usually the EU that has unelected staff!
What are you going to do when the lords block a bill from the commons and both houses have equal legitimacy?
Collette Post, all unelected peers gone? What of the civil service or private persons who have an influence on the government?
Irish senators are appointed (for the most part), same as peers. Only difference is not for life (not title!). Having an elected upper house may end up turning the UK into the US from a legislative point of view.
@@dionysius-germanicus_digna3740either just make the upper house one of review, not veto or just copy Australia
We need our hereditary peers back. To think that we sacrificed the greatest ruling class to ever exist, in the name of “equality”, for the one we have now.
Excuse my ignorance, but, where is lesofa?
that's what i was thinking...lol
Lesotho
Within South Africa
just get rid is your pay £300 a day all thay do is sit there job,s for the boys
You bloody lunatic
Lady Jay is evil! Why, with 850 hereditary peers did they not just all (or at least a huge majority of them) stand with one voice and say, "um, I don't think so". I don't get how this horrible thing happened at all.
Not sure I understand the 'evil' comment. She was certainly effective. Labour had won the 1997 election in a landslide, with an explicit pledge to remove the hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Under the Salisbury-Addison convention, the House of Lords doesn't block any measure which is mentioned in the governing party's election manifesto, so it wouldn't have been appropriate for the hereditary peers to vote down the change. It would also have meant the government using the Parliament Act to pass it (for which the Lords' consent is not needed), and it would have created a very difficult atmosphere in British politics. In reality Lord Strathclyde probably got the best compromise available.
I withdraw the term 'evil' when referring to Lady Jay. However, I don't like the way she laughed, tittered and rolled her eyes every time a Peer spoke. She seemed more than eager to destroy an institution in England that had been around for hundreds of years. It just all seems so sad to me. The way the British Constitution is it would have been nary impossible for the Lords to have caused any trouble. It simply seems a waste to dump all of that rich tradition in the junk heap of time by some liberal agenda. That's all I was trying to express. Please forgive me if I seemed hateful...it was not my intention.
@@johnestle2748 She didn’t destroy an institution, she just stopped most unqualified upper class pricks from having influence on our government. The House of Lords still exists and is mostly successful now that people are appointed to the Lords based on competency or in Boris’ case whoever his friends are.
Oh please, JH. The majority of peers didn’t turn up on a regular basis and the day to day operations of the lords were done by 200-300 peers in committees. When they did appear it was either for bills they had knowledge about or for things they cared about. The lords then were independent and more representative of the country than the grandees and big beasts and financial persons or politically favoured individuals that have a seat there now.
Boris this, Boris that. Grow up. All governments appoint people to the lords.
@@johnestle2748 Some traditions aren't good. People literally being "born to rule" is one of them.
Seems to me to be a terrible mistake. The house of lords was an element of stability among the career politicians in the Commons. Now almost only career politicians will remain in the lords aswell.
I don’t think, that stuffy old aristocrats are preferable to career politicians.
@@Bliefking Oh yes, they would be a catastrophe if ONLY they governed. I mean a combination of career politicians in the Commons, whose mandate depends on them pleasing the people, and an extremely stable, unelected Lords, who are destined to keep the Commons from running amoc with the political constitution. In my country we have had a monocameral parliament for more than a hundred years now, and I think it has done us a lot of harm, because this element of stability that used to be offered by an unelected house was missing.
I do not necessarily want rich aristocrats to be in the unelected house! For all I know it could be a house full of the top university professors of the country. The point is for them to be free of the pressures of popular demand so that they can focus on keeping the consitution intact.
@@martonk This documentary is about getting rid of the aristocrats and reforming the HoL. The second part never even happened, so I thought you were especially miffed about getting rid of the hereditary peers^^
I still disagree with your argument for an upper chamber in no way connected to the sovereign, the people. As a German I quite like our arrangement with a directly elected lower chamber and a upper chamber representing the governments of the states of our federal republic. Their votes being weighted by their population size.
I do believe getting rid of hereditary peers is a good idea, but they should also take away the Prime Minister’s power to appoint those people and give the HoL appointment commission for discretion on who they want to appoint.
Instead of them, serving for life, they should serve until they reach a certain age like 75 in which they must retire and required by law and set a Seat limit on the upper house.
I do believe my opinions are logical and justified since members of the supreme court in the UK, serve until they reach a certain age. It’s the next best thing then attempting to elect a upper house, which would bring political chaos.
Long live Henry Fowler! (32:00-34:00)
in 3 years they got rid of hereditary peers in 11 years they never got to stage two, I say those toffs saying there was no stage two seem to have been on the money. Baroness Jay is still there because of something her ancestor did, badly.
Horrible to see the sexist attitudes towards Margaret Jay. She said it well as 'anachronistic attitudes towards women'
Jay comes over as arrogant, humourless and an inverted snob who 'inherited' her position from her father.......and a question for Jay; 'where is Stage 2?'
Remember, Tony knows what's best...History has proven otherwise. Complete Bogus!
I opposed this bill
what did it do for the ordinary man on the street
Save money in taxes - Lords get 300 quid a day just for turning up- and still get a big salary on top. So getting rid of loads saves quite a bit of money
Well your child now have a chance to make it in there through hard work.
Bring em back!
Margaret Jay may be characterised as effective, but she is decidedly arrogant and condescending.
Arrogant and condescending served Margaret Thatcher well.
No it didn’t, it brought her down.
Can you turn on the CC
Done, I think. Don't know why it was set to off.
@@DBIVUK Thanks U
The ending of peerage began the death of the parliamentary system of Great Britain.
Ending hereditary peers' automatic right to seats didn't end the Peerage system. If Parliamentary government has come under pressure in Britain, it is more through the concentration on party leaders and introduction of referendums which have an undefined constitutional status; however the difficulties in 2019 demonstrated that the UK remains a Parliamentary democracy.
@@DBIVUK - Jay had no interest in having a democratic 2nd chamber, she comes over as arrogant, snobbish and totally humourless.
@@marcokite Removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords was in the Labour manifesto when Labour won the largest post-war landslide majority. Opponents of the change could not credibly claim to be upholding democracy; they were attempting to obstruct it, which is why Jay was right to insist on pushing through the reform.
49:02. "Never trust a Cecil."
Is the House of Lords any better after their recent performances?
Blair wanted to amek the House of Lords, "more democratic". Well by stuffing it full of his funders and Pro-EU allies he certainly has made it far more democratic to the wants and needs of Tony and the EU Empire.
How is pro-EU Tony Blair supporters any worse than un-elected right wing hereditary peers who always provide the Conservative Party with a built in majority?
@@johnking5174also in 2023 the Lords are still majority Conservative
@@basehead617 You have 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections to thank for that - the tories won (2017 didn't exactly) those general elections which meant their prime ministers could send a whole truck load of new people to the Lords.
It had to be done; Lady Jay just has a rather direct manner! Some of the things the peers say in this programme, be it in interview or in the chamber, are pretty jawdropping.
Getting paid £300 plus expenses to laugh and debate a and an. Worlds most expensive old persons home.
33:01. Here! Here!
An here!
The rebuttal was top notch
*hear hear
@@chrisharrison763 Thanks for the correction. How gauche of me!
What I see is a bunch of geriatrics with an ancestor trying to preserve some semblance of power in what they perceive as some exclusive club/debating society. Should have gotten rid of them all.
blanchelincoln No just keep the minimum necessary Just as many as counties or like EU, regions and get rid of the 3 useless UKIP lords
They scrutinise legislation,speeches and bills proposed.When a bill goes from the Commons to Lords, it's known as "ping pong"
And what a dog’s dinner Blair made of it ,
It’s just a new old boys club - as nothing to do with democracy at all .
The whole thing is a disgrace.
There is no reason at all why it can’t be 6 year parliamentary election using proportional representation.
Erode your heritage 👍
Now he is Sir Tony Blair you watch he will ask for an Earldom in like 10 years
So The Tories won.
What a depressing spectacle. The lowest dregs of society playing power games at the public's expense. No wonder the country is going to the dogs with these backside sniffers jockeying for position. The problem with this country is politics itself.
What "an" a waste of money.. There is the real reason to do away with ther house of lords. Spend it on the schools and hospitals..
Get rid of the upper house, and you will have a situation where you will have a House of Commons controlled by which ever party, pushing through their agenda with no scrutiny, and no second chamber revising the mess that the Commons pushes through. That would allow governments to do what ever they want. You want that?
you know we didn't pay them back then
The House of Lords in 2017 needs to be radically reduced. Over 800 members, why? Time for this chamber to be reduced to a half the size of the Commons. 300 peers at maximum. For the time being, keep them appointed. No hereditary. Having an elected second chamber means two elections every 5 years, Oh God!! Keep them appointed for the time being.
John King Correct I would have one peer for each county/City and If No Sinn Fein or SNP the space goes to others
It’s meant to be a pool of expertise to inform the legislation as it passes through parliament, so in theory a big house with a lot of different backgrounds makes it more useful, how diverse the expertise is in the lords is up for debate admittedly but imposing arbitrary limits at such a low number is to reduce its ability to do its job.
No abolish life peers and bring back hereditary peers who don't owe their position to a Prime Minister and aren't at the beck and call of an ill informed and stupid public that are swayed so easy by whatever greedy and greasy politician that wants to be elected. Being elected and democracy doesn't equal good it simply means rule of the majority and in turn you get tyranny of the majority
And what a dog’s dinner Blair made of it ,
It’s just a new old boys club - as nothing to do with democracy at all .
The whole thing is a disgrace.
There is no reason at all why it can’t be 6 year parliamentary election using proportional representation.
Lady Jay really could not have cared less about the rights of hereditaries. I love it.
You love it? When the Commons come after your rights don't complain Mr. Hunter
I salute Lady Jay & her 3 lawyers for carefully & skillfully steering this legislation through parliament. This reform was necessary, in order to increase the House of Lord's accountability to the electorate.
How did it increase accountability to the electorate? The 1999 reform replaced the independent members of the house with ones selected by the government of the day.
@@dionysius-germanicus_digna3740 Yeah and they are ridiculously liberal opposing Brexit for example.
You’re taking the piss I hope!
We got rid of the greatest ruling class in human history for 'equality'
the queen will be next
Nope you are wrong
No they’re right. If you say the lords need reform because some of the members are hereditary members then what’s the argument in favour of hereditary monarchy? They’ll never try and remove the Queen simply because she’s too popular, but we’re already a de facto republic so it’s not as her heirs have much to stand on.
Hooray
Are these Lords the most boring people on earth? God help us all!
Better they are boring but capable rather than being interesting and chaotic, our best example of someone being interesting and chaotic is Mr Trump.
People in the lord of the house they follow the Queen of law. They speak rightiousness and they perform for what matter most the Queen obeys also the sinerity and loyalty of whole British of England from the century to the latest history of the Lord of Kingdom to raise what needs and human that understand more of the world that exist from the day it was born in a good society and it explain every word with the right politic that delivered more for what it can analyse about rich and what the differences from the poor and from marriage to what same sex married that most countries has freed millions of lives that has not and cant changed anybody who only runs business in the market or banks because its done right and it shares to the community is a good society not anyone can find how it is do what more cant do in anyways.
No wonder the Tories take the piss and laugh at us with the pro hereditary comments.
Make the upper house like a senate
Jay did her master's bidding and had no interest in a democratic 2nd chamber.
Just look at the US Senate - fully elected and totally useless
and they don't no how to spell
MrVorpalsword Know*
Good!! Thank you Mr Blair.
What is UK now is because this hereditary is effectove. If not, then identify only the ineffective lord then discipline/d by the present Good. Just replace if not worthy.
Arguing over "a" or "an".....and yep taxpayer's paid for that argument & they wonder why people get so angry! 🙄🙄
Lady Jay did the right thing. The house of lords should have been abolished. It`s a blast from the past!
And what a dog’s dinner Blair made of it ,
It’s just a new old boys club - as nothing to do with democracy at all .
The whole thing is a disgrace.
There is no reason at all why it can’t be 6 year parliamentary election using proportional representation.
These toffs refer to war as if it’s a game as they would have been miles behind the line. They care only about themselves rather than the country. Whole lot and any lordships should be gone.
Imagine referring to people as toffs in this day and age.
@@dionysius-germanicus_digna3740 imagine defending them.
Lords used to at least be a part of the military. World War I is a recent example I guess since a lot of the nobility died.
get rid of tham all out of date
And replace them with what?
why replace tham cost a lot of £££££ do you get £300 a day
stphn44 No reform it and reduce it
stphn44 Reduce it to £200 if attending properly and also a bonus for extra work