[HN Gopher] Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliamen...
___________________________________________________________________
Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700
years
Author : divbzero
Score : 85 points
Date : 2026-03-11 21:06 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| "...a compromise that will see an undisclosed number of
| hereditary members allowed to stay by being 'recycled' into life
| peers."
|
| What? Are the membership roles and the text of this law
| confidential?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Doesn't need to be in the text of the law. The Crown can
| appoint an arbitrary list of life peers - possibly at any time
| (see Chiltern Hundreds).
|
| As the article points out, the life peers are arguably worse.
| People like Mandelson.
| graypegg wrote:
| Odd! I think this is the bill?
|
| https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3755/publications
|
| It's rather hard to read because the amendments are written as
| a diff, but it seems to imply the undisclosed number is 87
| peers. I guess they need to decide amongst themselves who the
| lucky 87 are?
|
| https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0295...
| Bill 295 2024-25 (Lords Amendments) "1. (2)
| (2) No more than 87 people at any one time shall be excepted
| from section 1."
|
| ---
|
| Edit: Wow, is this ever hard to pin down. I think section 1 of
| the lord's amendments were dropped here:
| https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3755/stages/20179/motionsa...
|
| which I guess means that the text remains the same as the
| original text in HL-49 (https://bills.parliament.uk/publication
| s/56858/documents/533...): # Exclusion of
| remaining hereditary peers Omit section 2 of the House
| of Lords Act 1999 (exception to exclusion of hereditary peers
| from membership of House of Lords).
|
| which is a patch onto another law, that is linked to in the PDF
| but for whatever reason does not resolve for me:
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/contents.
| KK7NIL wrote:
| > It's rather hard to read because the amendments are written
| as a diff
|
| That's a feature, not a bug ;).[0]
|
| 0: Any episode of "Yes, Minister!"
| alopha wrote:
| Now we're down to just an upper house absolutely stuffed with
| hundreds of washed up political hacks given a comfortable
| retirement and party donors. And a few priests.
| fmajid wrote:
| Including rapists like the Bishop of Lincoln.
| iberator wrote:
| Win for democracy and fair representation of the working class!
|
| Being Noble is like saying 'i used to have slaves(even if not,
| then feudalism was the de'facto slave system too!) and made
| profits from it'
|
| Such people are enemies of humanity and democracy and markets. I
| hope one day they all just go.
|
| King and his small family is fine btw. Cultural reason:)
| dude250711 wrote:
| Yep, getting rid of nobility is how USSR lived happily ever
| after.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, for all USSRs issues, getting rid of their nobility
| _was_ one of the best things they did.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's what fills the vacuum that matters, just as POTUS is
| finding out in Iran. If you don't have a plan for _after_
| creating the vacuum, you 're probably not going to be happy
| with how it is filled
| stvltvs wrote:
| Getting rid of hereditary nobility has worked out pretty well
| for the USA.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Has it? By what metric are using for that? Two Bush
| presidencies off the power of the senior patriarch. Current
| president comes from family wealth. Most of the oligarchs
| come from family wealth. It's not until the recent tech
| billionaires that became first generation oligarchs.
| stvltvs wrote:
| We've got work to do, but it could be worse. Point is
| that the problems of the USSR weren't caused by getting
| rid of the hereditary peerage.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Win for democracy and fair representation of the working
| class_
|
| In Britain? Good luck with that.
| pydry wrote:
| Until the UK military pledge allegiance to democracy rather
| than the king, the royal family is also a risk to democracy.
|
| Thailand is an object lesson in how monarchy is repeatedly used
| as a lever by military and business elites to overthrow
| democratic representation "in the name of the king".
|
| It almost happened in the UK once, too, in the same way it
| happened in Thailand.
|
| The reason the media is so keen on the institution is because
| it functions as a "break glass in case of emergency" for
| elites. It's not an organic part of the culture, it is shoved
| down our throats.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Should have used it to prevent Brexit.
|
| Just look at the US right now to see how civil military
| control can go off the rails too.
| kbelder wrote:
| It's not "I used to have slaves...", it's "My ancestors used to
| have slaves...".
|
| Having a class of nobles is an embarrassment for a country, and
| they should have been kicked out of parliament a century ago.
| But don't attribute to the child the sins of the father; that's
| the same category of error that the concept of hereditary
| nobility falls into.
| fmajid wrote:
| Sure, they are parasites descended from thugs as opposed to
| thugs descended from thugs. But you don't see them renouncing
| their unearned wealth built on rapine, slavery and colonial
| exploitation, which is to this day largely exempted from
| property taxes.
| throw_rust wrote:
| From hereditary buffoons to patronage pissoir and party hack
| retirement home, not much better off methinks.
| meitham wrote:
| It's not just about the seat they must lose their "lord" title
| theodric wrote:
| The point of the hereditary peerage was the same as the point of
| having a non-elected Senate. Now both will have been lost in the
| name of "democracy" - a system of government that constantly
| fails to do either what is the desire of the people OR what is
| truly in their interests. From here on out it'll just be whoever
| manages to connive their way into power through connections,
| payola, corruption, island meetups, and so on. I strongly suspect
| this will lead to a worse government, not a better one.
| Chinjut wrote:
| The Senate is, while not the whole story, a significant part of
| the reason the government constantly fails to do what is either
| the desire of the people or what's in their interests. I
| wouldn't lament losing the Senate.
| jfengel wrote:
| The US Senate is designed to check and balance the House of
| Representatives. But that often puts the Congress as a whole
| in deadlock, meaning it can no longer balance the other two
| branches.
|
| When they could get anything done they delegated a lot of
| power to the Executive. Which worked ok, but eventually a
| "unitary executive" appropriated even more power, and the
| Legislature is powerless to prevent it.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Unpopular opinion: deadlock is fine. Most legislation is
| bad. What really matters is the budget. And the rule that
| failing to pass a budget can automatically force an
| election avoids the absurd US "shutdown" that isn't a
| shutdown.
| tartoran wrote:
| Why would a hereditary system work any better? Plenty of
| monarchies based on heredity ran themselves into the ground.
| theodric wrote:
| It provides an additional check. Much like a monarch, a
| noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country
| itself. Without the country, they're just a toff with some
| money and an overinflated sense of self-importance.
| pkaodev wrote:
| This is the most convincing argument for the house of
| lords/monarchy that I've ever heard. Going to be thinking
| about this for a while, thanks.
| consp wrote:
| > a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the
| country itself.
|
| I'd argue their interest is tied to the welfare of the
| country for themselves, not the country itself or the
| general public.
| taylorius wrote:
| Heredity is only one of many flavours of cronyism.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| It's interesting how people never even learn about any
| upsides to that. Even if the balance comes out on the side of
| elected officials, it's good to at least have some idea of
| why so many societies have worked like that (other than "they
| were dumb and evil I guess").
|
| The main thing is long-term stability and limits on
| backstabbing and ruthless competition. Sure it doesn't bring
| it to zero, plenty of bloody examples from history. But when
| someone gets close to power for the first time and might be
| out of there quite soon, and have to watch out for being
| replaced quickly, they will behave quite differently than
| someone who plans ahead in decades and generations (if all
| things go well). If you have a short time under the sun, you
| better extract all you can while it lasts.
|
| It's kind of like a lifetime appointment or like tenure,
| except also across generations. Tenure allows professors to
| ignore short-term ups and downs and allows them some
| resilience and slack (though funding is still an issue).
| Similarly a nobleman can "relax" and take a longer-term view
| on things. The failure mode is that they stop caring and
| become lazy and just enjoy their position.
| kbelder wrote:
| How about a chamber populated by random lottery? Like jury
| duty?
| KK7NIL wrote:
| Perhaps you're joking, but Athenian democracy had a
| significant amount of randomness, with candidates being
| chosen randomly from the top vote winners. Terms were also
| only 1 year for most positions.
|
| These, and other systems, helped prevent any one person from
| monopolizing power.
|
| This is a good video on this: https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q
| npunt wrote:
| Read/watch this interview [1] with Ada Palmer on her new book
| about the Renaissance. Florence did this for a time.
|
| > You put names in a bag. You examine all of the merchant
| members of guilds. You choose which ones are fit to serve,
| meaning not ill and dying, not insane, not so deeply in debt
| that they could be manipulated by the people whom they owe
| money to. Their names go in a bag. You choose nine guys at
| random. They rule the city. They are put in a palace where
| they rule the city from that tower.
|
| > They're actually locked in the tower for the duration of
| their time in office because if they left the tower, they
| could be bribed or kidnapped. They rule the city for two or
| three months. At the end, they are thanked for their service
| and escorted out, and then a different nine guys share power
| for the next three months. It's a power sharing that is
| designed to be tyrant-proof because you need consensus of
| nine randomly selected guys to decide to do anything.
|
| [1] https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/ada-palmer
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > The case of Peter Mandelson, who resigned from the Lords in
| February after revelations about his friendship with the late sex
| offender Jeffrey Epstein, drew renewed attention to the upper
| chamber and the problem of lords behaving badly.
|
| But Mandelson wasn't a hereditary noble. His example is an
| argument for abolishing the House of Lords entirely (which I
| agree with in any case) but not specifically for ejecting
| hereditary nobles.
|
| > Labour remains committed to eventually replacing the House of
| Lords with an alternative second chamber that is "more
| representative of the U.K." If past experience is anything to go
| by, change will come slowly.
|
| Why does the House of Lords need to be replaced at all? Most
| countries are gridlocked enough with one chamber of parliament.
| throwaway7783 wrote:
| Does House of Lords have any real power today?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Sort of. They can and do amend bills, but they can't overrule
| the Commons on anything the latter regards as important.
| protocolture wrote:
| >Why does the House of Lords need to be replaced at all? Most
| countries are gridlocked enough with one chamber of parliament.
|
| Depends how it is designed. The australian senate, before 2015
| or so, used to contain enough fun cooks that legislation had to
| get broad support to make it through. It was a pretty decent
| check against the beige dictatorship. But since they updated
| the voting rules to prevent the cool minor parties from holding
| the balance, its just been a massive rubber stamp. I loved
| seeing randos from minor parties getting to grill public
| servants on whatever their constituents were complaining about,
| particularly firearm legislation.
| mindwok wrote:
| British democracy and government is cool. It's not enshrined in
| some document they got together and wrote down like the US
| constitution, it's this organic thing that they've stumbled
| towards over the last ~800 years with small changes like this one
| gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy.
| rvz wrote:
| > British democracy and government is cool.
|
| Oh sweet summer child.
|
| The government there does not care about you and will promise
| anything to get another 5 years in power despite causing the
| issues they promised to solve in the first place.
|
| You are essentially voting in the same party to be in
| government and progress there moves in the hundreds of years;
| hence the riddance of the scam that is unelected hereditary
| nobles which it took more than 700 years to remove them.
| pjc50 wrote:
| In fairness, this is not unique to Britain. For America read
| "4" instead of "5".
| rvz wrote:
| Are there unelected hereditary nobles somewhere in the US
| that is entitled to having a seat in congress and can vote
| against laws being passed?
|
| Nope. I don't think so, not even the length of the term is
| the same.
| jongjong wrote:
| No idea why this was down-voted, it's true. It's replacing
| one hereditary system based on inheritance of titles with
| another hereditary system based on inheritance of capital.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| > No idea why this was down-voted
|
| > Oh sweet summer child.
|
| And Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It
| never does any good, and it makes boring reading.[1]
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| jongjong wrote:
| You need to have a very cynical worldview already to find
| my comment boring. I really don't think most people are
| there yet.
| protocolture wrote:
| I see brits describing it as "Dictatorship with Democratic
| characteristics" and "3 weasels leading the 4th rabid weasel
| around by the tail" it doesnt seem "cool" by any stretch,
| except maybe if it was fictional and the people it hurt were
| not real.
| pjc50 wrote:
| I go back and forth on this. It's a lot like the palace of
| Westminster itself: charming, whimsical, historical, connected
| to the past, hopelessly impractical, postponing repairs until
| things break, and at significant risk of being burned down.
|
| On the other hand it avoids the illusion that power resides in
| a text and that you can legal-magic your way past a power
| structure.
| bartread wrote:
| There is something to be said for your written constitution
| though: having the fundamental principles on which your nation
| is founded enshrined in that way should, at least in theory,
| make it a lot easier to settle arguments (though in practice,
| and particularly recently, that does seem not to be the case).
| Constitutional wrangling in the UK is always really fraught
| though because it's all done by precedent and is therefore
| incredibly hard work to get to a clear understanding of what
| the situation really is.
| scj wrote:
| The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established
| in 1982. We're still in the process of figuring out what it
| means (and as a living document, the interpretation will
| change over time).
|
| It's messy. But I'd much rather that than need to ask "What
| would Pierre Trudeau think of this situation?"
| s_dev wrote:
| If cool means interesting then yes, it is cool because it's
| archaic and different but it's not effective. It's the
| equivalent of a verbal contract. It's simply not as clear or
| coherent as a written one.
|
| Irish democracy in contrast uses STV voting and a written
| constitution and is modeled between the best of what the UK,
| the US and France had to offer when it was drafted and is a
| very representative democracy with many political parties
| compared to the duopolies in the US and the UK. It's also why
| Ireland is largely immune to hard shifts to the left or right
| relative to the UK and US.
| kimos wrote:
| I love this about Ireland because they are such a young
| republic. And democratic systems are a technology. Something
| that we understand better over time, and somewhere new can
| pick and choose from what is best, where it is _extremely_
| hard to change existing systems in established countries.
| aaronrobinson wrote:
| The title makes it sound like they're removing the remains of
| lost Lords gathering dust on the seats although that's probably
| not too far from the truth.
| sb057 wrote:
| Also in the pipeline: elimination of jury trials
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2x01yne13o
| infotainment wrote:
| _> The proposals, which return to Parliament on Tuesday, would
| replace juries in England and Wales with a single judge in
| cases where a convicted defendant would be jailed for up to
| three years._
|
| Wow, this is literally the plot of the Phoenix Wright: Ace
| Attorney video games. I'm sure it will go great with no
| downsides.
| jongjong wrote:
| This is a dark day for the monarchy... and for democracy in the
| UK.
|
| Remove the only people who actually have a long-term vested non-
| financial interest in the system and replace them with more
| revolving-door politicians backed by the big money so that the
| big money can operate with even less friction than before. Great.
| Just great.
|
| The problem with our current democratic systems with unlimited
| government fiat money is that capital is in control. Not voters.
| Capital. This should be obvious by now. Someone deprived of food
| will vote for whoever you tell them to vote for.
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| Unlike many progressives I actually think the lords works well
| as a location for people who are expert in fields other than
| getting reelected.
|
| But heredity lords, no I don't get that at all
| fmajid wrote:
| But they still haven't kicked out the Church of England bishops,
| including the rapist bishop of Lincoln.
| kgwxd wrote:
| To make room for something worse no doubt.
| endoblast wrote:
| When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte, As every child can
| tell, The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did
| nothing in particular, And did it very well; Yet
| Britain set the world ablaze In good King George's glorious
| days!
|
| (from _Iolanthe_ by Gilbert and Sullivan)
|
| Gather a group of the most powerful people in the land; give them
| ermine robes and manifold privileges; require of them nothing
| other than that they meet regularly to converse and debate in a
| prestigious and historical chamber. Allow them only the power to
| veto or delay legislation.
|
| Gilbert and Sullivan were satirising but I think their point
| stands. It is possible to _do nothing and to do it very well_.
| While they 're busy doing nothing they're not interfering or
| messing everything else up, even though they probably could
| outside the chamber.
|
| The fact that heriditary peers are being ejected means nothing
| beyond the fact that these nobles have lost their inherent power.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-11 23:00 UTC)