Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years • Hacker News Board

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#201

Post by glaucon » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 3:41 AM UTC

tomatocracy wrote: post #128

derriz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simply a fact that common law jury trials are time-consuming and expensive and cause long delays and bottlenecks in the justice system. Different common-law countries have addressed this issue in various ways. Restricting jury trials for more serious offenses (in this case for more serious charges - ones that could potentially result in a sentence of more than 3 years) is one way than many common law jurisdictio…

The thing is, the reason for the delays and inefficiencies is not really juries. It's mostly much more mundane things like the prison service not sending defendants to court at the right time, translators not turning up when they are supposed to, buildings which are falling apart, technology not working properly, and court time being double-booked. It's an administrative failure, not a problem with the system. Alongs…

The plan is not to "remove trial by jury" but to "remove trial by jury for some types of offense".

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#202

Post by SllX » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 3:44 AM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #160

kennywinker wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.

> To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. While I agree - this has been an issue long before Obama. Any reasonable country should be able to decide on the legality of abortion through the normal political process - the public deliberates, they elect representatives, the representatives hammer out the fine print and pass legislation. But in th…

> Why doesn't America deal with political questions using their political process?

Since 2022 we do. But it’s through the political process of the States. This has made a lot of people very angry because a bunch of States have got it all wrong, and the exact way they got it wrong depends on your point of view on the subject, but no matter which side of the debate you’re on, some on your side most assuredly want to preempt all the States that got it all wrong with Federal law.

That Congress hasn’t come to a political consensus is the Federal political consensus.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#203

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 3:45 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #174

skissane wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages But that political deal is just an informal extralegal “understanding”, it isn’t actually in the text of the bill-having the…

> The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.

> Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.

They don't have any expectation against losing their seats entirely when hereditary peers are ejected from the House, and, even with a sufficient number of life peers voting with them, they couldn't actually prevent such a bill from passing, only delay it. Securing a commitment of life seats is getting something they didn't have.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#204

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 3:50 AM UTC

mastax wrote: post #185

thaumasiotes wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.

Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; the deal only needs to be seen as fair enough by the other peers. Or really, it only needs to be seen as fair enough to the House of Commons.

> Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree;

As I understand it, it was necessary (in order to pass the bill without the delay the Lords can impose) to secure a deal on the hereditary peers (not with them), because the Conservatives (the largest Lords faction) and many of the cross-benchers among the life peers, a sufficient number in total to delay the bill (the Lords can't actually block it permanently) oppose the bill, not just a group among the existing hereditary peers.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#205

Post by hunterpayne » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 3:56 AM UTC

martythemaniak wrote: post #181

alexpotato wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Some people argue that the difficulty of passing laws in the United States is "a feature not a bug" b/c it prevents the US from creating laws too quickly. You could argue the House of Lords did the same: by vetoing bills, it acted as a "speed bump" to laws that might cause too much change too quickly.

That view is a leftover from a bygone era, when others could look at the US with often grudging admiration. Today? The US itself doesn't think much of itself, and to the rest of us it is a cautionary tale.

"The US itself doesn't think much of itself"

If you ever find yourself wondering why US voters elected someone like Trump...if you ever wondered why institutions in the US are crumbling and experts don't have much credibility, this is why. I assure you, most Americans think very highly of the US compared to the rest of the world (especially if they have traveled). Only the out of touch don't and the reasons why most US voters don't give them much credibility is the absolutely crazy amount of twisting of facts to align to that POV.

As people like that are slowly removed/aged out from those institutions, the institutions will magically start working well again and regain public trust. In case you wondered how a potted plant like Trump can somehow perform better than those experts, that's how. Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have. Its also how people who claim to be for peace and democracy somehow end up supporting a religious oligarchy that funds terrorism across an entire region. Ideology makes you dumb to the degree that you are smart.

PS Europe is the cautionary tale here. Again, your leaders are far smarter than Trump. Does that seem to matter? Nope, because ideology destroys the effectiveness they (you) should have.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#206

Post by glaucon » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 3:59 AM UTC

If you're not British please don't assume that "ejecting heriditary nobles" from the upper house of parliament is automatically going to increase the quality of governance.

For more than a century the majority of those who sit in the House of Lords have been "Life Peers", appointed by a politician and without any heriditary aspect. They include such towers of statepersonship as : Evgeny Lebedev (Russian businessman, son of a KGB officer); Alexander Lebedev (another Russian businessman, he's actually been in the KGB); Charlotte Owen (junior aide to Boris Johnson for three years) ... the list goes on.

This isn't new (although in recent time the dodginess has risen to new highs) and many of those appointed to Life Peerages meet the goal of having significant life experience they can use to illuminate aspects of legislation that might otherwise be missed. Equally heriditary peers are not all some Wodehousian stereotype of bumbling idiots.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#207

Post by JCattheATM » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 4:10 AM UTC

glaucon wrote: post #206

If you're not British please don't assume that "ejecting heriditary nobles" from the upper house of parliament is automatically going to increase the quality of governance. For more than a century the majority of those who sit in the House of Lords have been "Life Peers", appointed by a politician and without any heriditary aspect. They include such towers of statepersonship as : Evgeny Lebedev (Russian businessman,…

> many of those appointed to Life Peerages meet the goal of having significant life experience

This is a poor justification for what still amounts to an unelected ruling class.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#208

Post by kelnos » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 4:11 AM UTC

jjmarr wrote: post #177

michaelt wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. While I agree - this has been an issue long before Obama. Any reasonable country should be able to decide on the legality of abortion through the normal political process - the public deliberates, they elect representatives, the representatives hammer out the fine print and pass legislation. But in th…

Because that requires compromise and Americans are raging absolutists that need immediate results. In 1791, abolitionists tried to end slavery in the British Empire but couldn't get it passed by the House of Commons. Henry Dundas changed the bill so it would be phased-in. Existing slaves wouldn't be emancipated but their children would be. That bill did pass. Slavery naturally ended over the following decades until t…

> But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required.

I really hope you were being sarcastic here... Emancipating the slaves during/after the Civil War was not an orderly, immediate process. And even once all slaves were freed, they continued to live second-class lives due to the laws of the time.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#209

Post by dotancohen » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 4:18 AM UTC

hunterpayne wrote: post #197

trebligdivad wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this change is not getting rid of the Lords; it's just getting rid of Hereditary piers - i.e. those passed down through generations. We'll still have Lords who have been selected by previous governments within their lifetime; so they still provide that speed bump; but do it in a way that means they were at some point chosen by an elected body.

Not sure how you think this will improve things. None of these people are elected. They likely got these positions by doing political favors. They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate. They are even more likely to make decisions based upon ideology instead of practical quality of life considerations. Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few. And that's the last thing th…

You argue that a lot of things are likely. Why don't you take the time to check instead of slander?

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#210

Post by kelnos » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 4:19 AM UTC

Affric wrote: post #188

trimethylpurine wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The framers didn't realize that most changes would be blocked by at least one party, out of fear that it would advantage the other guys." Check out some of the founders' essays. This is no accident, or oversight. It's absolutely intentional and for good reason. The Constitution grants power to all three branches of government, which is the same as granting power to none of them. The more they disagree, the less po…

Working very well as we can see currently.

It's worked well as a honeypot, but I don't think it's working well as a device for paralysis. The executive has seized an alarming amount of power (with the tacit approval of the party in control of the legislature), and the constitution isn't doing much of anything to stop it.