Currently, Lords are not selected “due to good works”. They’re political appointments.
I would really like to see a cite on this, particularly for poverty levels.
The vast majority of Lords are not hereditary peers – they were appointed by political parties. And I find describing appointment by primogeniture as “random” to be bizarre.
Often when we complain about those inherit unearned wealth we describe the accident of birth as random. Or perhaps you think such a selection is somehow by merit. The members of Commons earned their seats through election. The life Lords at least got their seats by the random process of birthright,
As for cites, that would take quite a bit of work, and I would value your research. I can note that in three minutes on Wikipedia show that Baron Bird was born in a slum, became homeless, and later washed dishes in Commons. No member of Commons has such a background, I suppose.
But the very example you’ve chosen was not appointed randomly. Per the wiki article, Bird was nominated for a peerage by the House of Lords Appointments Commission based on a set of established criteria for appointing a “people’s peer.” He wasn’t chosen through a lottery.
I think I kind of get the point you’re trying to make, but “random” is not the word you’re looking for.
Might we agree that the life Lords at least are not generally members of the political class? I find value in that, although could imagine other ways to have the same sort of house.
(Life lord Baron Bethell was the manager of the Ministry of Sound, by the way. Not enough night club managers in Commons.)
I think it’s fair to day there are other ways of attempting to ensure a representative body than direct election as for the Commons. But what sort of representation you want to achieve depends on what sort of job you want the body concerned to do.
I promise I’m not trying to be argumentative, but . . . not really. Life peers are different from hereditary peers – the former are mostly political appointments and are a substantial majority of the Lords. But even which specific hereditary peers serve in the Lords is determined to an extent by party affiliation.
So almost all the Lords are appointed by political parties for political reasons. A significant number are former MPs. Others are donors or activists. All are appointed with an eye toward the political interest of the appointing party. They may not be subject to the same electoral considerations as the Commons, but that doesn’t mean they’re not political actors.
You are correct. I simply typed it wrong. I meant to type “hereditary.”
Here’s the list of the latest appointments o the House of Lords:
26 new lords. By my count 13 had former political roles. Two were leaders of labour unions and one was a leader of a labour advocacy group. Another six had served in the civil service or on political commissions. So you could up the count of politicians to 21.
Seven had the title of either Dr. or Professor. Six had the title of Sir or Dame. Another six were either CBE’s or OBE’s.
That list is thoroughly made up of high-status individuals. It is not representative of the British republic.
Personally, I like the idea of the House of Lords being made up appointed high achievers. I’d like the number of Lords with legislative duties reduced, and require them to treat it like a full-time job. But I don’t think turning the House of Lords into an elected chamber is going to solve that problem. If anything, it would put in less qualified individuals, which would create other problems.
I presume this is a typo.
In any case, to my way of thinking, hereditary peers are more representative of the British public than the life peers, always keeping in mind my caveats. Again, the Commons are more democratic, but the Lords are more representative.
Lords was even more representative before recent reforms. Now only Lords who have some interest in public affairs may sit. Previously Lords who preferred to live private lives were also allowed to sit.
That’s a bit over-categorical. Both hereditaries and life peers could take as great or little interest in the business as they wish. True, some are explicitly identified as"working peers", as party leaders perceive a need for active supporters in the Lords, but there isn’t anything to make them carry on being so once there: and of course there’s no such expectation for those appointed as a recognition of past careers.
Either way, any degree of representativeness among hereditaries is/was a matter of chance.
Yes. Rather like jury duty. There as many (hereditary) Lords in wheelchairs as there are in the British population of the same age. In the same way, these Lords ought to have as many left-handed people, vegetarians, or Spanish-speakers as the general population. (Again, keeping in my my caveats.)
The Commons are more democratic. The Lords are more representative.
More to the original point, reforming Lords yet again will not fix whatever ills there are in British governance.
You keep pulling these claims out of your ass without a single ounce of evidence to support them. Personally, I would assume that hereditary peers come from a more, privileged, wealthy and educated background than the public at large. I would assume this makes them less likely to experience health conditions that could render them wheelchair bound such as diabetic amputations. But I don’t have the evidence to support this claim, so I don’t make it.
The one example you’ve pointed to of a more “representative” Lord is NOT a hereditary peer.
I did not realize that cursing was allowed in this sub.
But in any case,
The Archbishop of Canterbury was born as a result of an extramarital affair to alcoholic parents. I am not aware of any members of Commons who have this sort of background. I am aware of some percentage of the British population who were raised in this sort of household.
Baron Aberdare is a businessman who is involved in charity. Can you name a member of Commons who is?
Baron Ashcombe has a degree in civil engineering, does any member of Commons have one? He has also worked in the insurance business. He also served in the military, so he brings that to the table as well.
Earl Attlee is in the business of towing trucks. He is also a combat veteran.
Baron Bethell as I mentioned managed a nightclub.
Baron Borwick has the valuable experience of founding a company and running into bankruptcy.
Viscount Bridgeman is a chartered accountant.
Viscount Brookeborough is a professional soldier. (Are there any such in the House of Commons?)
With that, you must excuse me. A friend is in the hospital and I must go.
This is just getting weird. “Businessman who is involved in charity”? “Founding a company and running into bankruptcy?” “Chartered accountant?” You feel these characteristics qualify these peers as more “representative” than MPs? On what basis? You’re only making half an argument. I’m sure I could cherry pick the biographies of MPs and come up with equally varied backgrounds. And yes there are dozens of MPs who have served in the armed forces.
Anyway, suffice it to say that I find the argument that the descendants of the landed aristocracy are more representative of today’s British people than their elected representatives to be ridiculous.
And you ain’t the only one. It’s patently absurd.
By @Paul_was_in_Saudi’s logic, the Monarch is representative of British society too, since they’re selected “at random”.
On the basis that (most likely) there are more chartered accountants in the general population than there are in Commons.
Do you find those who have devoted their lives to politics to be representative of the people as a whole? How do you figure that works? Maybe the exact number of overweight people win elections as their are in the population? What a modern mathematical miracle that would be.
How many members of Commons you figure ever went through the heartbreak of losing a company into receivership? How many of them you figure ever ran any sort of business at all?
British monarchs are too male, too White, and too Christian (as are the hereditary lords). Do you find the long parade of British monarchs to be more or less representative of the population than elected American or French presidents?
People who run for elections are drawn from the group of people who choose to stand in elections. The hereditary lords are selected from about 100 British families. They are representative of those families.
Because of this, they are too White, too male, and too Christian. Those problems could be easily fixed if we wished to.
But of course the real issue is what problem would abolishing the Lords solve?