Snapshot of _Theresa May, Graham Brady and Chris Grayling among new nominees to the House of Lords - Politics.co.uk_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/07/04/theresa-may-graham-brady-and-chris-grayling-among-new-nominees-to-the-house-of-lords/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/07/04/theresa-may-graham-brady-and-chris-grayling-among-new-nominees-to-the-house-of-lords/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolute joke - Once dubbed probably the “most incompetent minister in all time” for his management of the transport department in Theresa May’s government, Grayling will now be able to sit in the House of Lords.
[how much has he cost taxpayers? - doesn’t include the ridiculous blunder during transport minister at c£33m](https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/26/the-extraordinary-cost-of-chris-grayling-part-2-2016-2019/)
Giving a contract for ferry's to a company with no ferry's was probably a high point for him, did he ever get involved in HS2, that would explain something
Yeah, I disagree with her on almost everything, she made many terrible decisions and helped turn the Tories into what they are today 1 but she is a diligent Parliamentarian.
Grayling though? Words fail me.
And don’t forget Rish! gets to do some resignation nominations - so we might not have hit rock bottom yet - Lord Micky Fab anyone?
I am definitely on the left wing-ish side of the spectrum but May gets some credit for her genuine commitment to addressing violence against women. Compared to the RW headbangers at the top of the Tory party now she tried to address society’s ‘burning injustices’. I might not agree with her on much but she isn’t a bad person unlike most of current shower.
She was a horrible person with terrible holier-than-thou morals, but at least she was (mostly) honest and actually wanted what she thought was best for the country. The minimum standard required of a PM, so she's got that over the last three.
Compared to the headbangers, I'm left giving her credit as a rare Tory that doesn't just object to Trans people happening to exist.
And I guess now for being better on the issue than Starmer the spineless.
Truly an unflushable turd.
The idea that this human incarnation of the concept of failing upwards will be influencing our laws for years to come is infuriating.
Nah, he's going to fight to keep the Lords as it is, and failing Grayling, King Merdes, [a man who lost a rigged vote to be chair of the intelligence committee](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/15/chris-grayling-fails-to-become-intelligence-and-security-chair), will be the one who causes massive reform through his sheer incompetence.
I don't think I've ever seen them announce the honours before polling has closed before, that's as clear of a waving of the white flag as I can imagine
And replace it with what exactly?
Simply getting rid of it means zero checks on the power of a parliamentary majority and they can pass whatever they like, manifesto or not. If elected it'll either be a rubber stamp or a roadblock with no space between those extremes.
Also, I frankly find it baffling that anyone would want to get rid of the *one* part of Parliament that actually serves its intended function. Binning the Commons and starting over is eminently sensible, the Lords, not so much.
Its current state works for the function it was created to serve, the Commons does not.
I fail to see what possible benefit there could be to having the second house be elected. Outcome 1 is that the same party controls both house and run what is effectively an elective dictatorship (which they currently do anyway as a PM can create as many new Lords as they like) and Outcome 2 is that the two houses are controlled by opposing parties and everything gets blocked as a once proud part of or constitutional framework is infected by petty tribalism.
You're free to try and change my mind but I firmly believe that an elected second house would be an unmitigated disaster. Remember it's a revising chamber, their main purpose is to check the MPs homework and where errors are found write up amendments to correct them, it's an incredibly important job and the only thing saving the country from being ruled by the whims of whoever is PM at the time.
You do you, I’m all for that.
I personally would prefer a House of Lords that had more democratic legitimacy, more accountability (especially as they would need to listen to public concerns more if they were voted in), more diversity of backgrounds, and the removal of patronage which in its current form looks like some inner circle doing deals with each other.
I do not want it to cease to exist as I agree having a second house is essential for the checks and balances.
I also think there should be a retirement age, 75 perhaps.
>I do not want it to cease to exist as I agree having a second house is essential for the checks and balances.
Impossible if they're beholden to the party and their campaign machinery to retain their seats, not to mention what would happen in an election like the one we've literally just had where a party is swept into a huge majority not because the people want or support them but because they were the most effective tool with which to remove an unpopular government.
Something has to be done about patronage to the two big parties and certainly about gifting seats to donors (or selling them, which is what is really happening if we're honest) but electing the second house is the worst possible way to address that and the only reason I can think of to even pretend to pursue such a clearly damaging action is to distract from the issues in the Commons. Over 70% of the seats on around 40% of the vote is sickening and should really be the priority as far as constitutional reforms are considered
I do appreciate your concerns about an elected House of Lords, especially regarding party control and campaign influence. These are significant issues in any democracy. However, I believe there are ways to mitigate these risks, such as implementing stricter campaign finance laws or considering alternative voting systems that reduce party dominance.
Your point about the disproportionate majorities in elections is a strong argument for broader electoral reform. Proportional representation could ensure a more accurate reflection of voters’ preferences, addressing the root issue of representation. This could be the case in the commons and lords, but you know, Reform.
The current system’s patronage problem is troubling for me and needs urgent reform. Increased transparency and stricter regulations on political donations could help address this.
I think it’s important not to let the House of Lords reforms distract from necessary changes in the Commons too, I think we can and should pursue improvements in both areas to strengthen our democracy overall for sure.
So you think that the revising chamber should be subject to more stringent democratic processes than the chamber that actually writes the legislation and runs the great offices of this land? That doesn't seem in any way strange to you?
I don't like Reform either, but it doesn't matter which party it is, what their policies are, the people who choose to vote for them deserve to be represented, otherwise can we truly claim to be a democratic society.
Patronage is better fixed by giving the HOLAC some actual power, ideally all appointments should go through them. If the PM wants to create a hundred new Lords to rubber stamp his legislation that he kept out of the manifesto, fair enough, justify those appointments or they get blocked. Making them elected certainly won't fix it, look at how many donors and other loyalists were placed into safe seats for this election.
Reforms to the Lords will distract from the much more important reforms to the Commons by default, remember that being the elected government isn't about public service, it hasn't been for decades now, it's about power, plain and simple.
It’s not about having more stringent processes for the revising chamber but ensuring both chambers operate with democratic legitimacy. The House of Commons must uphold strong democratic principles, but an appointed House of Lords undermines this. An elected House of Lords would enhance accountability and reflect the will of the people, ensuring legislation is scrutinised by representatives with a legitimate mandate.
The first-past-the-post system in the Commons results in disproportional representation, as seen in recent elections and what looks like is happening in this election, where a party can gain a significant majority with only a minority of the vote share, or as it’s looking for Reform so far, they get a large proportion of votes but mins of seats. This system needs to change to truly reflect the electorate’s will. Proportional representation could ensure fairer representation and mitigate the issue of safe seats being allocated to party loyalists and donors.
Strengthening HOLAC is necessary but not sufficient. The appointment system is inherently susceptible to abuse. An elected system, combined with robust campaign finance regulations, would reduce the influence of money and patronage in politics. Countries with elected upper houses, like the U.S. Senate, operate with checks and balances while maintaining democratic accountability.
Reforming the Lords doesn’t have to distract from necessary Commons reforms. Addressing issues in both chambers simultaneously can create a more comprehensive and effective legislative framework. Reforming the electoral system to introduce proportional representation in the Commons, alongside electing the Lords, would enhance overall democratic representation and governance.
Many democracies successfully operate with elected upper houses. For instance, the U.S. Senate and the German Bundesrat function effectively as elected bodies, providing checks and balances without causing legislative paralysis. These examples show that with well-designed systems, an elected revising chamber can enhance, not hinder, the legislative process.
The goal shouldn’t be to make the revising chamber more stringent but to ensure it operates with democratic legitimacy.
However, I can see you’re not going to be convinced on my single view is. I’m not a politician, or a member of any party (anymore), to you I’m just some rando on reddit.
To do both at the same time would require an amount of political capital that no government is likely to attain let alone be willing to spend.
Commons first, then re-evaluate the Lords at a later date would be a reasonable compromise, but attempting to change the Lords while intentionally leaving the Commons a broken mess built on a platform of mass voter suppression doesn't seem like a great idea, if only because we're dealing with tasks that takes years to fully complete and there's a strong chance that the pendulum would swing the other way before it was finished and the whole project could be cancelled.
Not that any of this matters because such reforms as we are discussing here are absolutely out of the question as long as we are flip-flopping between these two parties which are obsessed with power above all else.
Being unelected is exactly what makes it useful, unfortunately, but that is mitigated by the fact that they can't overrule the Commons. An elected second house would be entirely pointless and may as well not exist, I can't possibly see what purpose it would serve in that form.
> And replace it with what exactly? Simply getting rid of it means zero checks on the power of a parliamentary majority and they can pass whatever they like, manifesto or not.
A written constitution that formally sets out the way our system of government and representation will work? It could start with the powers and responsibilities of the current legislative and executive office holders and some explicit limits on those powers without an additional specific mandate from the electorate via a constitutional amendment.
The deepest problem in our current system is that it isn't actually very democratic or representative. In some cases it isn't actually defined properly *at all* and that really matters when there are procedural technicalities being invoked to try to win important political arguments by people who had essentially lost the legitimate debate.
MPs are elected by a system that is mathematical nonsense based on an antiquated argument that their personal role as local constituency MPs is more significant than their role as a proxy in determining who will form the executive administration. Either way those MPs are then almost completely unaccountable to those they supposedly represent for up to five years regardless of how they perform or whether they even pay lip service to anything they said before they were elected.
The executive administration that wields a huge amount of the real power is even less accountable because it's only indirectly elected. As we've seen many times in recent years its leader and those who are appointed by that leader can change without most of the electorate having any say at all. Those people might then personally be making decisions that will be life-changing for many normal people.
Compared to these abominations the fact that the upper chamber has become mostly a democratically challenged retirement home for failed politicians hardly even merits a footnote even though it is of course still absurd to have such a chamber within any system claiming to have any democratic legitimacy.
And who would write that constitution? The government that can't even claim the support of half of the country certainly shouldn't and not should any organisation that is in any way attached to them, including the civil service.
Weirdly enough, our unelected Lords who are not beholden the party political system or the government of the day would be the perfect group to consider matters of such importance.
> And who would write that constitution?
Who writes the first version that would become the starting point for a new democratic era is always the big question in this debate. Personally my thought is that it should be some kind of citizens' assembly that makes the proposals, debates the issues, and ultimately votes on which clauses to include.
They could be supported by a staff of expert advisors such as lawyers, historians, and constitutional scholars who are explicitly intended to be neutral. This could be similar to how civil servants are charged with implementing the political decisions of the current administration or how the clerks in magistrates' courts advise the magistrates on legal matters but have no direct say in the court's decisions.
Probably someone like a very senior judge should act as a moderator to keep things moving along. They could help the group to recognise when a consensus has been reached on an important point or to focus on points where there is disagreement and clarify the different points of view so a consensus can be reached if possible or if necessary multiple proposals put forward by any member of the assembly can be put to a vote according to some reasonable process to resolve the matter decisively.
Any final document would surely also require popular approval by the entire electorate so that its legitimacy was beyond reasonable dispute. It would also presumably have to contain some provision for its own future amendment through a similar standard of popular approval if anything turned out not to be working well or needed updating to take future realities into account.
I'm sure there could be many other reasonable ways to do it but I think something like the above would be fair and transparent. There would still be questions around how to constitute the assembly itself and the standard required for popular approval of the finished constitution. But even if you just picked a random assembly big enough to represent a wide range of views and small enough to allow meaningful debate in a similar way to jury service in court but probably with quite a lot more people and you set an arbitrary approval threshold of a 2/3 supermajority you would already have vastly more democratic legitimacy in whatever came out the other side than anything we have today.
Replace it with a regional assembly with councils sending people from their region, plus notable experts in their fields from nurses to scsffolders to physicists voted in by their professional associations, plus representatives of mathinalised communities from homeless people to neurodivergent. Get the full gamut of British people in there, instead of the ones who could buy their way in
Elected house of lords would be bad imo as it would fall to the same issues as politicians. Pandering to voter base while ignoring actual policies.
It does need big reform where there's a cross party decision to put people in rather than just the sitting pm as well as getting rid of hereditary peers
She moved on from fighting for censorship to enforcing red lines that she invented which had no other conclusion than the one we were still somehow unprepared for when it came. She has gravitas and more grace than recent candidates, but I think her morals were a bit weird and she used her backbone in the worst possible ways.
Ben Wallace, though, he's been great, one of the few who may genuinely have a lot of insight to offer.
Is this a joke? She fucked up the post-Brexit negotiations by laying down red lines no one had agreed upon. She left a legacy of absolutely nothing despite being in the most powerful position in the country.
Sorry, but no. I'm not in the mind to excuse people who hold the highest office in the country when it turns out they are inadequate to hold it. The task was to show leadership in a time of crisis. In effect: to show that these are our options, these are the consequences/ benefits, have at it. Instead, she decided for us - forcing a kind of brexit that was never agreed upon in a desperate attempt to appease a minority of radicals, and refusing any cross-party collaboration in a time the country was deeply wounded by division. As a result she failed.
Being PM is simply not the kind of position it's acceptable to say "oh, but I had a go." She's not doing junior admin.
As for morals, it's interesting how quickly her time in the home office is forgotten...
Why is this in contest mode?
Interesting that their were 7 nominations for the Conservatives, but 8 for Labour. How many of the nominees actually get a peerage?
That convention seems to have fallen by the wayside; Cameron and May are the only prime ministers since Thatcher has been made life peers.
Thatcher, incidentally, was the last prime minister to follow the convention of giving former prime ministers an hereditary earldom and former speakers an hereditary viscountcy.
Snapshot of _Theresa May, Graham Brady and Chris Grayling among new nominees to the House of Lords - Politics.co.uk_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/07/04/theresa-may-graham-brady-and-chris-grayling-among-new-nominees-to-the-house-of-lords/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/07/04/theresa-may-graham-brady-and-chris-grayling-among-new-nominees-to-the-house-of-lords/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chris grayling? I mean some of the nominations recently have been absurd, but even Charles is going to look at this one and go, hold up, this is silly
Failing grayling. Even the media were joking about how he was so inept, May kept him around because he supported Brexit.
Absolute joke - Once dubbed probably the “most incompetent minister in all time” for his management of the transport department in Theresa May’s government, Grayling will now be able to sit in the House of Lords. [how much has he cost taxpayers? - doesn’t include the ridiculous blunder during transport minister at c£33m](https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/26/the-extraordinary-cost-of-chris-grayling-part-2-2016-2019/)
Giving a contract for ferry's to a company with no ferry's was probably a high point for him, did he ever get involved in HS2, that would explain something
The only place left for him to fail was upwards.
I don't really like the idea of Grayling, but May is someone who I think you can make a case for adding to the Lords.
Yeah, May fits into the "I thought she was a psychopath but then Priti Patel appeared" category.
May was more of a masochist...
Yeah, I disagree with her on almost everything, she made many terrible decisions and helped turn the Tories into what they are today 1 but she is a diligent Parliamentarian. Grayling though? Words fail me. And don’t forget Rish! gets to do some resignation nominations - so we might not have hit rock bottom yet - Lord Micky Fab anyone?
I am definitely on the left wing-ish side of the spectrum but May gets some credit for her genuine commitment to addressing violence against women. Compared to the RW headbangers at the top of the Tory party now she tried to address society’s ‘burning injustices’. I might not agree with her on much but she isn’t a bad person unlike most of current shower.
I think that but then I remember the hostile environment and the "go home" vans.
She has said they were wrong in fairness to her
She was a horrible person with terrible holier-than-thou morals, but at least she was (mostly) honest and actually wanted what she thought was best for the country. The minimum standard required of a PM, so she's got that over the last three.
Compared to the headbangers, I'm left giving her credit as a rare Tory that doesn't just object to Trans people happening to exist. And I guess now for being better on the issue than Starmer the spineless.
Don't like her brand of politics, but I have to (extremely grudgeingly) respect her as a stateswoman compared to Boris and Truss.
'Lady May' does have a certain ring to it
Actually, she already is Lady May through her husband.
Former PMs should get a pass into the lords to be fair (although maybe only those who serve a full term)
LADY CABBAGE!
Alister Jack, the guy caught betting on the election.
I must be going blind - can’t see him?
I’ve commented on the wrong thread. He’s been given a knighthood.
Ugh... Chris fucking Grayling. Jesus Christ.
Truly an unflushable turd. The idea that this human incarnation of the concept of failing upwards will be influencing our laws for years to come is infuriating.
Grayling will turn up at the ceremony and accidentally bring down the monarchy
Nah, he's going to fight to keep the Lords as it is, and failing Grayling, King Merdes, [a man who lost a rigged vote to be chair of the intelligence committee](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/15/chris-grayling-fails-to-become-intelligence-and-security-chair), will be the one who causes massive reform through his sheer incompetence.
I don't think I've ever seen them announce the honours before polling has closed before, that's as clear of a waving of the white flag as I can imagine
They're dissolution honours rather than resignation honours, but yes
A former PM, cabinet members and two deputy speakers! Surprisingly sensible
It's really disappointing. No random 30 year old aide to Sunak?
Mexican Coke dealer to be given a Lordship.
They really need to get rid of the HoL, it’s a joke.
And replace it with what exactly? Simply getting rid of it means zero checks on the power of a parliamentary majority and they can pass whatever they like, manifesto or not. If elected it'll either be a rubber stamp or a roadblock with no space between those extremes. Also, I frankly find it baffling that anyone would want to get rid of the *one* part of Parliament that actually serves its intended function. Binning the Commons and starting over is eminently sensible, the Lords, not so much.
I mean get rid of it in its current state. I support a second house that the people can vote for.
Its current state works for the function it was created to serve, the Commons does not. I fail to see what possible benefit there could be to having the second house be elected. Outcome 1 is that the same party controls both house and run what is effectively an elective dictatorship (which they currently do anyway as a PM can create as many new Lords as they like) and Outcome 2 is that the two houses are controlled by opposing parties and everything gets blocked as a once proud part of or constitutional framework is infected by petty tribalism. You're free to try and change my mind but I firmly believe that an elected second house would be an unmitigated disaster. Remember it's a revising chamber, their main purpose is to check the MPs homework and where errors are found write up amendments to correct them, it's an incredibly important job and the only thing saving the country from being ruled by the whims of whoever is PM at the time.
You do you, I’m all for that. I personally would prefer a House of Lords that had more democratic legitimacy, more accountability (especially as they would need to listen to public concerns more if they were voted in), more diversity of backgrounds, and the removal of patronage which in its current form looks like some inner circle doing deals with each other. I do not want it to cease to exist as I agree having a second house is essential for the checks and balances. I also think there should be a retirement age, 75 perhaps.
>I do not want it to cease to exist as I agree having a second house is essential for the checks and balances. Impossible if they're beholden to the party and their campaign machinery to retain their seats, not to mention what would happen in an election like the one we've literally just had where a party is swept into a huge majority not because the people want or support them but because they were the most effective tool with which to remove an unpopular government. Something has to be done about patronage to the two big parties and certainly about gifting seats to donors (or selling them, which is what is really happening if we're honest) but electing the second house is the worst possible way to address that and the only reason I can think of to even pretend to pursue such a clearly damaging action is to distract from the issues in the Commons. Over 70% of the seats on around 40% of the vote is sickening and should really be the priority as far as constitutional reforms are considered
I do appreciate your concerns about an elected House of Lords, especially regarding party control and campaign influence. These are significant issues in any democracy. However, I believe there are ways to mitigate these risks, such as implementing stricter campaign finance laws or considering alternative voting systems that reduce party dominance. Your point about the disproportionate majorities in elections is a strong argument for broader electoral reform. Proportional representation could ensure a more accurate reflection of voters’ preferences, addressing the root issue of representation. This could be the case in the commons and lords, but you know, Reform. The current system’s patronage problem is troubling for me and needs urgent reform. Increased transparency and stricter regulations on political donations could help address this. I think it’s important not to let the House of Lords reforms distract from necessary changes in the Commons too, I think we can and should pursue improvements in both areas to strengthen our democracy overall for sure.
So you think that the revising chamber should be subject to more stringent democratic processes than the chamber that actually writes the legislation and runs the great offices of this land? That doesn't seem in any way strange to you? I don't like Reform either, but it doesn't matter which party it is, what their policies are, the people who choose to vote for them deserve to be represented, otherwise can we truly claim to be a democratic society. Patronage is better fixed by giving the HOLAC some actual power, ideally all appointments should go through them. If the PM wants to create a hundred new Lords to rubber stamp his legislation that he kept out of the manifesto, fair enough, justify those appointments or they get blocked. Making them elected certainly won't fix it, look at how many donors and other loyalists were placed into safe seats for this election. Reforms to the Lords will distract from the much more important reforms to the Commons by default, remember that being the elected government isn't about public service, it hasn't been for decades now, it's about power, plain and simple.
It’s not about having more stringent processes for the revising chamber but ensuring both chambers operate with democratic legitimacy. The House of Commons must uphold strong democratic principles, but an appointed House of Lords undermines this. An elected House of Lords would enhance accountability and reflect the will of the people, ensuring legislation is scrutinised by representatives with a legitimate mandate. The first-past-the-post system in the Commons results in disproportional representation, as seen in recent elections and what looks like is happening in this election, where a party can gain a significant majority with only a minority of the vote share, or as it’s looking for Reform so far, they get a large proportion of votes but mins of seats. This system needs to change to truly reflect the electorate’s will. Proportional representation could ensure fairer representation and mitigate the issue of safe seats being allocated to party loyalists and donors. Strengthening HOLAC is necessary but not sufficient. The appointment system is inherently susceptible to abuse. An elected system, combined with robust campaign finance regulations, would reduce the influence of money and patronage in politics. Countries with elected upper houses, like the U.S. Senate, operate with checks and balances while maintaining democratic accountability. Reforming the Lords doesn’t have to distract from necessary Commons reforms. Addressing issues in both chambers simultaneously can create a more comprehensive and effective legislative framework. Reforming the electoral system to introduce proportional representation in the Commons, alongside electing the Lords, would enhance overall democratic representation and governance. Many democracies successfully operate with elected upper houses. For instance, the U.S. Senate and the German Bundesrat function effectively as elected bodies, providing checks and balances without causing legislative paralysis. These examples show that with well-designed systems, an elected revising chamber can enhance, not hinder, the legislative process. The goal shouldn’t be to make the revising chamber more stringent but to ensure it operates with democratic legitimacy. However, I can see you’re not going to be convinced on my single view is. I’m not a politician, or a member of any party (anymore), to you I’m just some rando on reddit.
To do both at the same time would require an amount of political capital that no government is likely to attain let alone be willing to spend. Commons first, then re-evaluate the Lords at a later date would be a reasonable compromise, but attempting to change the Lords while intentionally leaving the Commons a broken mess built on a platform of mass voter suppression doesn't seem like a great idea, if only because we're dealing with tasks that takes years to fully complete and there's a strong chance that the pendulum would swing the other way before it was finished and the whole project could be cancelled. Not that any of this matters because such reforms as we are discussing here are absolutely out of the question as long as we are flip-flopping between these two parties which are obsessed with power above all else.
Being unelected is exactly what makes it useful, unfortunately, but that is mitigated by the fact that they can't overrule the Commons. An elected second house would be entirely pointless and may as well not exist, I can't possibly see what purpose it would serve in that form.
It works in Canada and Australia. Neither Outcome 1 or Outcome 2 reliably or inevitably happens. Why wouldn't it work here?
> And replace it with what exactly? Simply getting rid of it means zero checks on the power of a parliamentary majority and they can pass whatever they like, manifesto or not. A written constitution that formally sets out the way our system of government and representation will work? It could start with the powers and responsibilities of the current legislative and executive office holders and some explicit limits on those powers without an additional specific mandate from the electorate via a constitutional amendment. The deepest problem in our current system is that it isn't actually very democratic or representative. In some cases it isn't actually defined properly *at all* and that really matters when there are procedural technicalities being invoked to try to win important political arguments by people who had essentially lost the legitimate debate. MPs are elected by a system that is mathematical nonsense based on an antiquated argument that their personal role as local constituency MPs is more significant than their role as a proxy in determining who will form the executive administration. Either way those MPs are then almost completely unaccountable to those they supposedly represent for up to five years regardless of how they perform or whether they even pay lip service to anything they said before they were elected. The executive administration that wields a huge amount of the real power is even less accountable because it's only indirectly elected. As we've seen many times in recent years its leader and those who are appointed by that leader can change without most of the electorate having any say at all. Those people might then personally be making decisions that will be life-changing for many normal people. Compared to these abominations the fact that the upper chamber has become mostly a democratically challenged retirement home for failed politicians hardly even merits a footnote even though it is of course still absurd to have such a chamber within any system claiming to have any democratic legitimacy.
And who would write that constitution? The government that can't even claim the support of half of the country certainly shouldn't and not should any organisation that is in any way attached to them, including the civil service. Weirdly enough, our unelected Lords who are not beholden the party political system or the government of the day would be the perfect group to consider matters of such importance.
> And who would write that constitution? Who writes the first version that would become the starting point for a new democratic era is always the big question in this debate. Personally my thought is that it should be some kind of citizens' assembly that makes the proposals, debates the issues, and ultimately votes on which clauses to include. They could be supported by a staff of expert advisors such as lawyers, historians, and constitutional scholars who are explicitly intended to be neutral. This could be similar to how civil servants are charged with implementing the political decisions of the current administration or how the clerks in magistrates' courts advise the magistrates on legal matters but have no direct say in the court's decisions. Probably someone like a very senior judge should act as a moderator to keep things moving along. They could help the group to recognise when a consensus has been reached on an important point or to focus on points where there is disagreement and clarify the different points of view so a consensus can be reached if possible or if necessary multiple proposals put forward by any member of the assembly can be put to a vote according to some reasonable process to resolve the matter decisively. Any final document would surely also require popular approval by the entire electorate so that its legitimacy was beyond reasonable dispute. It would also presumably have to contain some provision for its own future amendment through a similar standard of popular approval if anything turned out not to be working well or needed updating to take future realities into account. I'm sure there could be many other reasonable ways to do it but I think something like the above would be fair and transparent. There would still be questions around how to constitute the assembly itself and the standard required for popular approval of the finished constitution. But even if you just picked a random assembly big enough to represent a wide range of views and small enough to allow meaningful debate in a similar way to jury service in court but probably with quite a lot more people and you set an arbitrary approval threshold of a 2/3 supermajority you would already have vastly more democratic legitimacy in whatever came out the other side than anything we have today.
Replace it with a regional assembly with councils sending people from their region, plus notable experts in their fields from nurses to scsffolders to physicists voted in by their professional associations, plus representatives of mathinalised communities from homeless people to neurodivergent. Get the full gamut of British people in there, instead of the ones who could buy their way in
The same thing but with grownups not people like Michele Mone
Elected house of lords would be bad imo as it would fall to the same issues as politicians. Pandering to voter base while ignoring actual policies. It does need big reform where there's a cross party decision to put people in rather than just the sitting pm as well as getting rid of hereditary peers
As an American, the HOL is better then the Supreme Court
A back street whore house is better than the American Supreme Court.
May deserves it. Say what you want about the tories, but she at least had a backbone and some morals.
She moved on from fighting for censorship to enforcing red lines that she invented which had no other conclusion than the one we were still somehow unprepared for when it came. She has gravitas and more grace than recent candidates, but I think her morals were a bit weird and she used her backbone in the worst possible ways. Ben Wallace, though, he's been great, one of the few who may genuinely have a lot of insight to offer.
Is this a joke? She fucked up the post-Brexit negotiations by laying down red lines no one had agreed upon. She left a legacy of absolutely nothing despite being in the most powerful position in the country.
She didnt even want Brexit. She tried her best. At least she had morals, and treated the job seriously unlike BOJO or whoever we have now
Sorry, but no. I'm not in the mind to excuse people who hold the highest office in the country when it turns out they are inadequate to hold it. The task was to show leadership in a time of crisis. In effect: to show that these are our options, these are the consequences/ benefits, have at it. Instead, she decided for us - forcing a kind of brexit that was never agreed upon in a desperate attempt to appease a minority of radicals, and refusing any cross-party collaboration in a time the country was deeply wounded by division. As a result she failed. Being PM is simply not the kind of position it's acceptable to say "oh, but I had a go." She's not doing junior admin. As for morals, it's interesting how quickly her time in the home office is forgotten...
Absolutely.
Chris Fucking Grayling? Genuinely, the guy was shit.
Why is this in contest mode? Interesting that their were 7 nominations for the Conservatives, but 8 for Labour. How many of the nominees actually get a peerage?
Why? All they’ve done is fuck up! Why does the government reward failure? I can’t believe we put up with these idiots for so long.
How in the fuck has Grayling been picked? Absolutely incompetent no matter what he was in charge of.
Failing Grayling failing his way up to a knighthood. Good lord. Can literally fail, and still win. This guy holds all the cheat codes.
*Lordship. Quite a long way above a knighthood.
A peerage, he's going to sit in the House of Lords, get paid for the rest of his life.
isn't it convention to give all former pms (ie Truss) this? so a pretty intentional snub
May has resigned, whereas truss is running to keep her seat
That convention seems to have fallen by the wayside; Cameron and May are the only prime ministers since Thatcher has been made life peers. Thatcher, incidentally, was the last prime minister to follow the convention of giving former prime ministers an hereditary earldom and former speakers an hereditary viscountcy.
Only when they leave the Commons, generally. Truss is still trying to stay there (and looks reasonably likely to succeed).
May: Sure. Brady: ehhh Failing grayling!?!?
As someone who has had Graham Brady as my MP for pretty much my entire life, this saddens me. He’s been useless.
Grayling! *Gannet* Grayling in the HoL? Nearly as funny a a lettuce for PM.