House of Lords to be replaced
Discussion
BBC article today.
Miliband wants to replace HOL with a 'senate'.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
Silly name IMO and poor idea, HOL may be unelected but tend to be more expert in measures and moderate the more stupid and populous ideas. Also seems odd that he would prefer lords not to be from rural areas that historically are under represented (Maria Eagle for example), but then they are hardly Labour strongholds compared to the Northwest...
Miliband wants to replace HOL with a 'senate'.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
Silly name IMO and poor idea, HOL may be unelected but tend to be more expert in measures and moderate the more stupid and populous ideas. Also seems odd that he would prefer lords not to be from rural areas that historically are under represented (Maria Eagle for example), but then they are hardly Labour strongholds compared to the Northwest...
I prefer the House of Lords, yes they're all connected to different political parties but they don't constantly have to toe the party line if they disagree with it, because they can't be booted out except in certain exceptional circumstances, unlike politicians who'll say anything in the hope they'll get to stay put.
Also voter turnout is low enough as it is, I can see adding another set of elections to the system making that drop even lower as people get sick of A) seeing it all on TV, B) getting more polling cards in the post and C) disliking whoever gets voted in.
At least with the Lords we can't blame ourselves for voting more idiots in.
Also voter turnout is low enough as it is, I can see adding another set of elections to the system making that drop even lower as people get sick of A) seeing it all on TV, B) getting more polling cards in the post and C) disliking whoever gets voted in.
At least with the Lords we can't blame ourselves for voting more idiots in.
MentalSarcasm said:
I prefer the House of Lords, yes they're all connected to different political parties but they don't constantly have to toe the party line if they disagree with it, because they can't be booted out except in certain exceptional circumstances, unlike politicians who'll say anything in the hope they'll get to stay put.
Also voter turnout is low enough as it is, I can see adding another set of elections to the system making that drop even lower as people get sick of A) seeing it all on TV, B) getting more polling cards in the post and C) disliking whoever gets voted in.
At least with the Lords we can't blame ourselves for voting more idiots in.
I agree. And I'm uncomfortable with the number that get put there by political parties, quite happy with hereditary lords. That a political party seems to be confident enough to suggest it can just change our system of democracy does not seem right either (but then neither did the 'fixed term parliament' thing to me).Also voter turnout is low enough as it is, I can see adding another set of elections to the system making that drop even lower as people get sick of A) seeing it all on TV, B) getting more polling cards in the post and C) disliking whoever gets voted in.
At least with the Lords we can't blame ourselves for voting more idiots in.
Sounds a bit like the Canadian system. The Canadian upper house is called the Senate & there are 105 appointed members.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada
DonnyMac said:
Go to the Palace of Westminster.
I'm happy that the Lords are unelected - they're the brakes.
Same here. Look at the idiots and liars you get in based on the currrent popularity contest. In addition we errectively have a dictatorship when a party get in. Whatever the leader says goes, regardless of what the people want.I'm happy that the Lords are unelected - they're the brakes.
The upper house should be based on ability. It should be full of people who are regarded as experts and leaders who have a proven track record in their fields. They need to see the bigger picture, certainly beyond the next 4 years.
If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Why do politicians meddle with things that are working.
Being a politician should be one of the easiest jobs in the world but they have the constant need to be seen to be doing things. If they did their job correctly the system should be able to operate mostly without them.
Why do politicians meddle with things that are working.
Being a politician should be one of the easiest jobs in the world but they have the constant need to be seen to be doing things. If they did their job correctly the system should be able to operate mostly without them.
To suggest that the HoL has been instrumental in the stability of this country is wrong. It has, at best, a somewhat checkered history. It has refused to accept popular opinion for no other reason than vested interest. It has brought the country to the brink of major civil unrest, if not civil war, on a number of occasions.
If you look at emancipation, it was the unelected HoL that blocked what was, in essence, democracy, right up until the first decade of the 20thC. Even then it would not concede to popular opinion, nor the will of the HoC and give women he vote on the same criteria as men.
Since their fall, as that was in essence the end of their authority, the HoL has hardly been unpolitical. It has on a number of occasions taken a stand against being fair.
There have been a number of occasions when they have acted properly, all too few though. In essence though it is political and any suggestion it is not can be refuted by history.
The main problem with the HoL is that it represents nothing. It has been over the years a dumping ground for failed politicians and a source of income for political friends and close friends. Wilson's secretary was dumped on us all when he left parliament and she decided she wanted to stir things up. In those days the left was anti-police and the silly woman would tell outright lies (on the questionable assumption she knew the basics of what she was talking about) on conditions and pay of the service.
There are no checks on who is allowed in, what they do and when they commit offences there is normally no way of excluding them.
We pay some £thousands to turn up, write their name in a book, and then p'ss off to spend their ill gotten.
On top of that we have vicars in there making decisions on what you and me are allowed to do.
It is long overdue for reform and a substantial one at that.
Whether the members should be made up of 'for lifers' or short term, from members of the public or from industry, sport or such, is open to discussion. I've got no evidenced conclusions on the matter. My belief is that we should do away with the accolade of lord, both heredity and life time, and replace it with a function.
One idea I've had is for a person to be debarred if they have ever been an MP or tried to be. But I'm willing to listen to ideas.
But it is broken at the moment. It does not perform its function well, it is made up of some of the dregs of humanity, and those who could do a good job never get the opportunity.
And get rid of the godly.
If you look at emancipation, it was the unelected HoL that blocked what was, in essence, democracy, right up until the first decade of the 20thC. Even then it would not concede to popular opinion, nor the will of the HoC and give women he vote on the same criteria as men.
Since their fall, as that was in essence the end of their authority, the HoL has hardly been unpolitical. It has on a number of occasions taken a stand against being fair.
There have been a number of occasions when they have acted properly, all too few though. In essence though it is political and any suggestion it is not can be refuted by history.
The main problem with the HoL is that it represents nothing. It has been over the years a dumping ground for failed politicians and a source of income for political friends and close friends. Wilson's secretary was dumped on us all when he left parliament and she decided she wanted to stir things up. In those days the left was anti-police and the silly woman would tell outright lies (on the questionable assumption she knew the basics of what she was talking about) on conditions and pay of the service.
There are no checks on who is allowed in, what they do and when they commit offences there is normally no way of excluding them.
We pay some £thousands to turn up, write their name in a book, and then p'ss off to spend their ill gotten.
On top of that we have vicars in there making decisions on what you and me are allowed to do.
It is long overdue for reform and a substantial one at that.
Whether the members should be made up of 'for lifers' or short term, from members of the public or from industry, sport or such, is open to discussion. I've got no evidenced conclusions on the matter. My belief is that we should do away with the accolade of lord, both heredity and life time, and replace it with a function.
One idea I've had is for a person to be debarred if they have ever been an MP or tried to be. But I'm willing to listen to ideas.
But it is broken at the moment. It does not perform its function well, it is made up of some of the dregs of humanity, and those who could do a good job never get the opportunity.
And get rid of the godly.
I think they do have Mullahs and Rabbis, don't they?
Being unelected is surely half the point. A brake on the whims and short term populism of elected politicians, and a guard against a tyranny of the majority.
Not keen on a house full of experts. Who assesses their expertise and appoints them? And anyway being an expert in one area is no guarantee of bbeing any good at anything else, let alone at revising and refining legislation put forward by the government. I imagine it would be like academia, cliquey and incestuous.
How about doing it on the same basis as jury duty? A cross section of 100 members of the public chosen at random for eaxh bill that passes the commons.
Being unelected is surely half the point. A brake on the whims and short term populism of elected politicians, and a guard against a tyranny of the majority.
Not keen on a house full of experts. Who assesses their expertise and appoints them? And anyway being an expert in one area is no guarantee of bbeing any good at anything else, let alone at revising and refining legislation put forward by the government. I imagine it would be like academia, cliquey and incestuous.
How about doing it on the same basis as jury duty? A cross section of 100 members of the public chosen at random for eaxh bill that passes the commons.
Agrispeed said:
BBC article today.
Miliband wants to replace HOL with a 'senate'.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
Silly name IMO and poor idea, HOL may be unelected but tend to be more expert in measures and moderate the more stupid and populous ideas. Also seems odd that he would prefer lords not to be from rural areas that historically are under represented (Maria Eagle for example), but then they are hardly Labour strongholds compared to the Northwest...
I am afraid the rumours are true.Miliband wants to replace HOL with a 'senate'.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
Silly name IMO and poor idea, HOL may be unelected but tend to be more expert in measures and moderate the more stupid and populous ideas. Also seems odd that he would prefer lords not to be from rural areas that historically are under represented (Maria Eagle for example), but then they are hardly Labour strongholds compared to the Northwest...
When he first floated this idea to me, I reminded him of two things.
1.That he e is complete d
head and needs to cut loose the unions.2. Mandelson (enough said).
AJS- said:
I think they do have Mullahs and Rabbis, don't they?
Being unelected is surely half the point. A brake on the whims and short term populism of elected politicians, and a guard against a tyranny of the majority.
Not keen on a house full of experts. Who assesses their expertise and appoints them? And anyway being an expert in one area is no guarantee of bbeing any good at anything else, let alone at revising and refining legislation put forward by the government. I imagine it would be like academia, cliquey and incestuous.
How about doing it on the same basis as jury duty? A cross section of 100 members of the public chosen at random for eaxh bill that passes the commons.
The vicars are there by right. They are appointed by the church with the final decision resting with the PM. One point: the church of England has these blokes whilst the churches of Scotland, Wales and NI do not. So partial.Being unelected is surely half the point. A brake on the whims and short term populism of elected politicians, and a guard against a tyranny of the majority.
Not keen on a house full of experts. Who assesses their expertise and appoints them? And anyway being an expert in one area is no guarantee of bbeing any good at anything else, let alone at revising and refining legislation put forward by the government. I imagine it would be like academia, cliquey and incestuous.
How about doing it on the same basis as jury duty? A cross section of 100 members of the public chosen at random for eaxh bill that passes the commons.
So nothing like the religion held by someone appointed for other reasons.
You say you feel experts are of limited use. I'd suggest that so are secretaries and those who are able to pay the government enough to be appointed. Lord Archer, now there's a winner. But he can still pass judgement on us despite being a criminal.
What we need is a function for the HoL. At the moment it doesn't have one. So it is not very good at what it is doing as it has, in essence, nothing to do. It used to be the high chamber but now that role has been kicked into touch, why is it there.
We have this suggestion from many that it is a check on popularism, but that's not been shown in the past. Quite the opposite.
HOL should stay, but with 4 modifications IMHO:
a) Abolishing all the remaining hereditary peers
b) Allowing peers to retire: they retain the title and non-money privileges, they just don't get to sit in the house, vote, or contribute to law-making.
c) Having a limit on the number of 'active' (non-retired) peers. If a government wants to appoint some more, it has to convince some existing ones to retire.
d) Have a proportion of the house (e.g. 30%) elected, on non-renewable 10-year terms.
a) Abolishing all the remaining hereditary peers
b) Allowing peers to retire: they retain the title and non-money privileges, they just don't get to sit in the house, vote, or contribute to law-making.
c) Having a limit on the number of 'active' (non-retired) peers. If a government wants to appoint some more, it has to convince some existing ones to retire.
d) Have a proportion of the house (e.g. 30%) elected, on non-renewable 10-year terms.
brickwall said:
HOL should stay, but with 4 modifications IMHO:
a) Abolishing all the remaining hereditary peers
b) Allowing peers to retire: they retain the title and non-money privileges, they just don't get to sit in the house, vote, or contribute to law-making.
c) Having a limit on the number of 'active' (non-retired) peers. If a government wants to appoint some more, it has to convince some existing ones to retire.
d) Have a proportion of the house (e.g. 30%) elected, on non-renewable 10-year terms.
I agree with all of those.a) Abolishing all the remaining hereditary peers
b) Allowing peers to retire: they retain the title and non-money privileges, they just don't get to sit in the house, vote, or contribute to law-making.
c) Having a limit on the number of 'active' (non-retired) peers. If a government wants to appoint some more, it has to convince some existing ones to retire.
d) Have a proportion of the house (e.g. 30%) elected, on non-renewable 10-year terms.
A sensible further evolution and far better than a senate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff