this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
260 points (100.0% liked)

World News

54624 readers
2980 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

This isn't them abolishing the house of lords, they're just kicking out the remaining "hereditary peers" who got their seat from inheritance. Most of the house these days are "life peers":

retired politicians, civic leaders and other notables appointed by the government, who now make up the vast majority of the chamber. Roughly 1 in 10 members are currently hereditary peers.

Even for those remaining hereditary peers they're supposed to be kicking out:

The lords put up a fight, forcing a compromise that will see an undisclosed number of hereditary members allowed to stay by being “recycled” into life peers.

So not that much of a change.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago

Eliminating the hereditary principle is a significant change.

The next useful reform would be to appoint peers for a fixed term rather than for life.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago

Technically the change will be when the old hereditary peers die off or leave the chamber. I'm not a fan of lifetime anything either, but at least those assholes mostly had to do something to earn their place rather than being born warm.

[–] West_of_West@piefed.social 6 points 9 hours ago

So it's now pretty similar to Canada's senate?

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 55 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Epstein brought down the fucking House of Lords, and here in the US we have not indicted or punished in any way anybody found in those files.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk -5 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Nothing to do with Epstein

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 24 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 1 points 25 minutes ago

This is reducing the proportion of hereditary peers and increasing the proportion of life peers. So more appointments like Mandelson’s, not fewer

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

Mandelson was a life peer, unaffected by this change.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

It was literally in the manifesto in 2024.

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 3 points 3 hours ago

In real life things happen for multiple reasons. I believe you.

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 4 points 7 hours ago

Reforming the House of the Lords has been in manifestos for more than one century now.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 27 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Did you click on the links in the article? I didn't just hallucinate Epstein out.of the blue.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Abolishing hereditary peers has been Labour’s objective for decades.

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 5 points 7 hours ago

Yes, and they weren't able to do anything this drastic before.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

The article does mention Epstein, but this Bill was first introduced to parliament way back in 2024

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

To give the devil his due, the reforms were started by Blair long before 2024.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

And Epstein was killed back in 2019, with his arrest and investigations obviously before that. The Epstein shit has been going on for over a decade, it is by no means new.

While new files have been released more recently, a lot was known before. A fairly large chunk of the files were already released previously as well.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 9 hours ago

It has, but the article is specifically associating this bill with the more recent reveals about Peter Mandelson. Both general public awareness of Mandelson's association with Epstein and his appointment as ambassador to the US that brought that connection to the current government's attention happened well after the introduction of the bill. The article draws no other connection to Epstein whatsoever, only Mandelson

[–] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 7 points 13 hours ago

Wait, this was still a thing? What in the fuck? Why?