Time To Abolish The House of Lords
Discussion
Leaving aside the Brexit issue is it not time the HOL was abolished? Do we need an unelected chamber in the 21st century?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/10/the-house...
A place where you can become a member for being Boris Johnston's brother or for writing a report whitewashing Corbyn's Labour party's problem with antiisemitism.
"As the world’s second-largest legislative body, surpassed only by communist China’s National People’s Congress, the growing size of the Lords – and now spiralling cost – has come under fire. The UK’s upper chamber far exceeds that over its European counterparts, Spain (348 members) and France (348), as well as the largest democracy, India (245 members)."
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/spiralling-siz...
Having seen how the Scottish Parliament works without a second chamber and the current stuation where the committee enquiring into the Alex Salmond affair is being blocked at every turn (committees were supposed to be the check) I would favour radical reform rather than just abolishing it and not replacing it..
So, an elected second chamber. Probably by PR. Possibly with elections held at a fixed interval so they don't coincide with HofC elections.
In any case a HoL made up of those there by accident of birth and party appointees for various reasons is not democracy.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/10/the-house...
A place where you can become a member for being Boris Johnston's brother or for writing a report whitewashing Corbyn's Labour party's problem with antiisemitism.
"As the world’s second-largest legislative body, surpassed only by communist China’s National People’s Congress, the growing size of the Lords – and now spiralling cost – has come under fire. The UK’s upper chamber far exceeds that over its European counterparts, Spain (348 members) and France (348), as well as the largest democracy, India (245 members)."
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/spiralling-siz...
Having seen how the Scottish Parliament works without a second chamber and the current stuation where the committee enquiring into the Alex Salmond affair is being blocked at every turn (committees were supposed to be the check) I would favour radical reform rather than just abolishing it and not replacing it..
So, an elected second chamber. Probably by PR. Possibly with elections held at a fixed interval so they don't coincide with HofC elections.
In any case a HoL made up of those there by accident of birth and party appointees for various reasons is not democracy.
Edited by irc on Friday 13th November 23:06
loafer123 said:
A smaller Lords makes a lot of sense, but a second elected chamber is a recipe for disaster.
Is the right answer.An elected second chamber might make sense if one gives it absolutely no thought. It shouldn't, but might.
Who better to act for the greater good than those not answerable to the vagaries of their constituents?
Edited by iphonedyou on Friday 13th November 22:41
I've thought about this a lot. The HOL heriditary peers were archaic and had to go but a second elected chamber is not what it needs. Parliament has become so short term as it's about getting re-elected -which at least the Lords need not concern themselves with.
I would build on the law Lords and bishops. A large part made up of ex officio roles on retirement. Subject to tenure and confirmation of ethics checks. For example something like senior figures in the biggest unions, churches, companies, the Armed forces, charities, chief constables, the security services, major government bodies, mayors, retired officers of state, heads of the opposition, sporting bodies, the arts, universities, schools, scientists, media, doctors etc.
I would build on the law Lords and bishops. A large part made up of ex officio roles on retirement. Subject to tenure and confirmation of ethics checks. For example something like senior figures in the biggest unions, churches, companies, the Armed forces, charities, chief constables, the security services, major government bodies, mayors, retired officers of state, heads of the opposition, sporting bodies, the arts, universities, schools, scientists, media, doctors etc.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 13th November 23:06
Landcrab_Six said:
The HoL is what mostly stops governments with large majorities doing bats
t crazy things.
If you have an elected 2nd chamber, they'll either pass everything without scrutiny or block everything because they can.
I'm all for keeping the HoL as it is, but shrinking the numbers.
Quite - it’s a revising chamber intended to ensure better legislation. We don’t have a constitutional framework to support the idea of a democratically elected upper house.t crazy things.If you have an elected 2nd chamber, they'll either pass everything without scrutiny or block everything because they can.
I'm all for keeping the HoL as it is, but shrinking the numbers.
Frankly ill thought out tinkering constitutional upheavals are very ‘90s and I would have thought that by now we might have learned enough to avoid repeating that mistake (the role of the Lord Chancellor and devolution I’m looking at you).
Graveworm said:
I've thought about this a lot. The HOL heriditary peers were archaic and had to go but a second elected chamber is not what it needs. Parliament has become so short term as it's about getting re-elected -which at least the Lords need not concern themselves with.
I would build on the law Lords and bishops. A large part made up of ex officio roles on retirement. Subject to tenure and confirmation of ethics checks. For example something like senior figures in the biggest unions, churches, companies, the Armed forces, charities, chief constables, the security services, major government bodies, mayors, retired officers of state, heads of the opposition, sporting bodies, the arts, universities, schools, scientists, media, doctors etc.
Agree with all that with the exception of the Bishops. I'm not sure any group predisposed to delusions, paranormal experiences, belief in the supernatural, strong religious beliefs or any other mental illnesses should get an automatic 20 seats no matter how nice they are. One maybe on account of them owning half the country. How many are actually needed though? 100?I would build on the law Lords and bishops. A large part made up of ex officio roles on retirement. Subject to tenure and confirmation of ethics checks. For example something like senior figures in the biggest unions, churches, companies, the Armed forces, charities, chief constables, the security services, major government bodies, mayors, retired officers of state, heads of the opposition, sporting bodies, the arts, universities, schools, scientists, media, doctors etc.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 13th November 23:27
Lords reform has been a topic for many years. By and large most ppl think it needs some kind of reform, unfortunately nobody can quite agree on what form that takes. The Lords then makes things really tricky by continually showing up the “democratic” Commons, with its competency and professional ability.
The second House does an outstandingly good job. Should it be smaller? In theory yes. In practice? Hmm, I’m not overall sure on that.
The second House does an outstandingly good job. Should it be smaller? In theory yes. In practice? Hmm, I’m not overall sure on that.
fblm said:
Agree with all that with the exception of the Bishops. I'm not sure any group predisposed to delusions, paranormal experiences, belief in the supernatural, strong religious beliefs or any other mental illnesses should get an automatic 20 seats no matter how nice they are. One maybe on account of them owning half the country. How many are actually needed though? 100?
I'll agree with bishops, but we need to ensure we also have rabbis, imams, pujaris, gurus, etc. represented. This isn't some kind of 'woke' thought - some of the most intelligent and balanced people I know are leaders within their religions, I'm atheist, but do value what they bring to the wider community.Landcrab_Six said:
I'll agree with bishops, but we need to ensure we also have rabbis, imams, pujaris, gurus, etc. represented. This isn't some kind of 'woke' thought - some of the most intelligent and balanced people I know are leaders within their religions, I'm atheist, but do value what they bring to the wider community.
Disagree. By force of numbers alone there are far more highly intelligent, well balanced people who are not religious leaders so I don't see why as a group, irrespective of which particular fantasy they believe in, they should get any kind of outsized say in the way the rest of us live. Let them fight it out for who gets their 1 seat.Why would an elected upper house be a bad idea - as long as it doesn't follow the same constituency structure as the HoC?
I understand how having people who need to get elected every few years encourages short-term, populist thinking, however is this worse than a bunch of faceless, unaccountable sycophants which we have currently?
I understand how having people who need to get elected every few years encourages short-term, populist thinking, however is this worse than a bunch of faceless, unaccountable sycophants which we have currently?
CzechItOut said:
...however is this worse than a bunch of faceless, unaccountable sycophants which we have currently?
Because the Lords continually and regularly shows itself to not be such a description. To the frustration and annoyance of every sitting govt that I can remember in my lifetime. Generally speaking I am fully in favour of a constitutional awkward squad. CzechItOut said:
Why would an elected upper house be a bad idea - as long as it doesn't follow the same constituency structure as the HoC?
I understand how having people who need to get elected every few years encourages short-term, populist thinking, however is this worse than a bunch of faceless, unaccountable sycophants which we have currently?
I think you just answered your own question there.I understand how having people who need to get elected every few years encourages short-term, populist thinking, however is this worse than a bunch of faceless, unaccountable sycophants which we have currently?
The priority of any MP is to retain his seat at election time and this is reflected in the government that we get who’s priority is also to remain in power.
It’s self fulfilling that a government is populist because that’s what gets them votes to remain in power.
How you would have an elected HoL without the same problems I don’t know.
It's also that at the moment the HoL not only has an incentive to be awkward and to consider the longer term and broader issues because they're not trying to get re-elected, but precisely because of that it also ultimately lacks democratic legitimatecy. The HoL can question, criticise and revise legislation from the Commons but it can be overridden because in our democracy as it has developed, the elected chamber is superior.
If the Lords was also an elected chamber then it could claim its own mandate and legitimacy, leading to stalemates as lower and upper houses each claim to be acting in the electorate's best interests (see the logjams that happen in America between Congress and the Senate). And if the Lords was reformed as an elected chamber, it would probably be with a voting system that was arguably more democratic than the FPTP used in the Commons (although conceivably Lords reform could be teamed with the introduction of a new voting method for the Commons) which would make it seem like the upper chamber had a better mandate than the lower.
It would make the impasse last year over Brexit into a regular occurrence, and I don't think that would be an improvement.
If the Lords was also an elected chamber then it could claim its own mandate and legitimacy, leading to stalemates as lower and upper houses each claim to be acting in the electorate's best interests (see the logjams that happen in America between Congress and the Senate). And if the Lords was reformed as an elected chamber, it would probably be with a voting system that was arguably more democratic than the FPTP used in the Commons (although conceivably Lords reform could be teamed with the introduction of a new voting method for the Commons) which would make it seem like the upper chamber had a better mandate than the lower.
It would make the impasse last year over Brexit into a regular occurrence, and I don't think that would be an improvement.
DeejRC said:
Because the Lords continually and regularly shows itself to not be such a description. To the frustration and annoyance of every sitting govt that I can remember in my lifetime. Generally speaking I am fully in favour of a constitutional awkward squad.
Can you give some examples of when the HoL have been a frustration and annoyance to the Govt? It seems to be there are more of a minor disruption to business as usual than a meaningful check of Govt incompetence.I'm not so sure that getting rid of all of the hereditary peers was such a great idea. Some of them were owners of very large estates and to run a large estate/farm you need to be switched on forward thinker, something sadly lacking in modern politics.
I think we should volunteer BV72 for a place in the Lords, he's a very switched on lawyer and his predilection for rusting British Leyland products and slightly leftfield Italian motorcycles shows a suitably eccentric streak.
He will probably post that he wouldn't want the job which also marks him out as an ideal candidate, sign him up for an 8 year stretch with the promise of letting him out in 4 if he does a good job
I think we should volunteer BV72 for a place in the Lords, he's a very switched on lawyer and his predilection for rusting British Leyland products and slightly leftfield Italian motorcycles shows a suitably eccentric streak.
He will probably post that he wouldn't want the job which also marks him out as an ideal candidate, sign him up for an 8 year stretch with the promise of letting him out in 4 if he does a good job
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff