Is there currently a petition to abolish the house of lords?
Discussion
Think of the Lords as a sort of institutional memory. It's the long term conscience of the country. It sends overly politically motivated legislation back to the Commons with a post-it saying "are you really, really sure?".
The legislative debates in the Lords are of another quality entirely to the Commons. And I've come across quite a few Lords with strong interests who spend time and influence getting the topic focused on across the country. Not quite the case in the Commons who are long term more concerned with being re-elected.
I agree there are too many political appointments. I also think the hereditaries worked well. Those that had an interest, spent time there and got paid for it. Those that didn't, didn't.
The legislative debates in the Lords are of another quality entirely to the Commons. And I've come across quite a few Lords with strong interests who spend time and influence getting the topic focused on across the country. Not quite the case in the Commons who are long term more concerned with being re-elected.
I agree there are too many political appointments. I also think the hereditaries worked well. Those that had an interest, spent time there and got paid for it. Those that didn't, didn't.
philv said:
I think it absurd that the lords might be able to force the goverment to give assurances on foreign nationals, before we have the same assurances for our expats
Quite rediculousl
As for am annendment that mps and then the lords should have basically a veto on tne deal........
Why exactly should tne lords have a veto on tne final brexit deal?
Ah so you has been completely fine with it up until this exact point. Thought so.Quite rediculousl
As for am annendment that mps and then the lords should have basically a veto on tne deal........
Why exactly should tne lords have a veto on tne final brexit deal?
BlackLabel said:
Not sure I understand the whole "if it's elected it will become too political" argument - even with the appointee system we end up with loads of politicians in there, just look at all the former MPs.
We do, as I said it's going that way now. But simply making it elected will only make that worse. Look at elected Crime Commissioners (which I don't think is an entirely bad idea) - you immediately get people standing on a party ticket, which completely misses the point of local accountability. If we wanted to make it "fair" then we'd be best looking at some sort of random selection from the population, like jury service. The hereditary system was not "fair" but it was less corruptable; however it did have a skew in political leaning.
It's served us reasonably well - I'm not keen on it being a semi-working retirement home for ex HOC politicians or a "political gift" from Political parties or even on it being a place for landed aristocracy.
I like that it has all three - It doesn't need to be as many of all three to do an effective second check or balance on the HOC
I like that it has all three - It doesn't need to be as many of all three to do an effective second check or balance on the HOC
XCP said:
If you do away with hereditary peers, you might as well do away with the Monarchy at the same time. Pointless to have one without the other.
Most hereditary peers were abolished from the Lords in 1999 by Tony Blair, there are only 92 there now, but there are 689 life peers (ex-MPs & political cronies) and 26 Bishops.My opinion...
The elected commons provides an idealistic representation of the population. People vote based on promises of the direction the government will take the country in.
The second house should then provide representation for the realities of our current society. It should be proportionally filled with experienced representatives of the public/private sectors, the NHS, the armed forces, the police, manufacturing, financial services etc...
It should provide specialist input on new legislation based on the real world impact.
The elected commons provides an idealistic representation of the population. People vote based on promises of the direction the government will take the country in.
The second house should then provide representation for the realities of our current society. It should be proportionally filled with experienced representatives of the public/private sectors, the NHS, the armed forces, the police, manufacturing, financial services etc...
It should provide specialist input on new legislation based on the real world impact.
alock said:
My opinion...
The elected commons provides an idealistic representation of the population. People vote based on promises of the direction the government will take the country in.
The second house should then provide representation for the realities of our current society. It should be proportionally filled with experienced representatives of the public/private sectors, the NHS, the armed forces, the police, manufacturing, financial services etc...
It should provide specialist input on new legislation based on the real world impact.
That always sounds like the most reasonable approach to me too, a kind of meritocracy.The elected commons provides an idealistic representation of the population. People vote based on promises of the direction the government will take the country in.
The second house should then provide representation for the realities of our current society. It should be proportionally filled with experienced representatives of the public/private sectors, the NHS, the armed forces, the police, manufacturing, financial services etc...
It should provide specialist input on new legislation based on the real world impact.
I'm still not convinced how it would work in practice. You'd still have cronyism, deals being done to offer support for someone in exchange for influence if they got appointed, etc. Though since that all happens already, perhaps that's not an argument at all.
Actually I think what is perhaps even more important than how people get put into positions of power is the ability to recall them; It becomes less important for the first bit to appear "fair" if there is a way that the public can get rid of people who are found to be poorly performing or corrupt.
It is vital we have a second chamber and it's just as vital that the members are not whipped by a party and are not voting on legislation.with an eye on regaining election.
The HoL does already have the basics and doesn't need huge change as the parliament act keeps the HoC supreme.
As said, the final hereditary peers need to go but also the bishops as the church should no longer have direct influence on legislation.
Problem is, how do you keep a balanced chamber that represents the country fairly.
The HoL does already have the basics and doesn't need huge change as the parliament act keeps the HoC supreme.
As said, the final hereditary peers need to go but also the bishops as the church should no longer have direct influence on legislation.
Problem is, how do you keep a balanced chamber that represents the country fairly.
CrutyRammers said:
alock said:
My opinion...
The elected commons provides an idealistic representation of the population. People vote based on promises of the direction the government will take the country in.
The second house should then provide representation for the realities of our current society. It should be proportionally filled with experienced representatives of the public/private sectors, the NHS, the armed forces, the police, manufacturing, financial services etc...
It should provide specialist input on new legislation based on the real world impact.
That always sounds like the most reasonable approach to me too, a kind of meritocracy.The elected commons provides an idealistic representation of the population. People vote based on promises of the direction the government will take the country in.
The second house should then provide representation for the realities of our current society. It should be proportionally filled with experienced representatives of the public/private sectors, the NHS, the armed forces, the police, manufacturing, financial services etc...
It should provide specialist input on new legislation based on the real world impact.
I'm still not convinced how it would work in practice. You'd still have cronyism, deals being done to offer support for someone in exchange for influence if they got appointed, etc. Though since that all happens already, perhaps that's not an argument at all.
The current system is not working, which is why we end up with people like Lord Lloyd Webber.
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 26th February 18:36
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 26th February 18:44
98elise said:
I think all members should be life peers, and that new peers should be elected by a public vote. Candidates would not be aligned to a political party, they would stand on their personal merits, not a political colour. Obviously for ex-MP's and PM's we would know their political views, however if they have not served their country well, then the country will not elevate them to the Lords.
The current system is not working, which is why we end up with people like Lord Lloyd Webber.
But how do you stop candidates belonging to parties? I'm not sure there's a way to do that.The current system is not working, which is why we end up with people like Lord Lloyd Webber.
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 26th February 18:36
Edited by 98elise on Sunday 26th February 18:44
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff