UK Politics

3089 readers

49 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

Labour rules out immediately packing Lords with party peers after election (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 11 months ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Labour has ruled out immediately packing the House of Lords with dozens of peers if Keir Starmer wins the next general election.

The Labour leader has already scaled back on his previous pledges to abolish the Lords and replace it with a fully elected second chamber in his first term.

Angela Smith, Labour’s leader in the Lords, said on Monday the party would need to “refresh our numbers” since the Tories have more than 100 peers in the upper chamber than Labour. However, she dismissed the idea that Starmer would rush through the appointment of his own peers after an election win.

Smith told the House magazine: “The idea that Keir Starmer is on day one going to have a list of 100 people to put here is cloud cuckoo … If you look at the numbers at the moment, the Tories have over 100 more than us, and they still lose votes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Good (ish) on them not replacing the lords:

The lords being unelected is a good thing, as they can call out braindead policies by the commons without needing to worry about losing the next election as they shot down a "but think about the children!" style law. What's bad is that the political party in power can appoint lords - it should be impartial (ie political views and affiliations should not be considered) and ideally a full time job to allow the lords to build up knowledge on the laws they vote on, however it's not really possible to tell a random person "this is your job now"... The closest you can get is either the current system or a jury duty style public obligation to be a lord for a day when called at random, but the only certainty is replacing it with an elected chamber is a terrible move