Should we have an elected House of Lords?
Discussion
Get rid of the hereditary peers, the bishops, the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem donors and cut down on it's current 700 odd members and replace it all with a 300 member fully elected American style upper chamber.
Sounds better than the current set up so what is the other side of the argument then?
Anyone here prefer the current format? Would like to hear why.
Sounds better than the current set up so what is the other side of the argument then?
Anyone here prefer the current format? Would like to hear why.
Telegraph said:
Plans for abolition of House of Lords to be unveiled
Plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is this weekend consulting cabinet colleagues on a blueprint which would represent the biggest change to the way Britain is governed for several decades.
The proposals, which have been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph and which are expected to be announced soon, would sweep away centuries of tradition and set ministers on a collision course with the current 704-member House of Lords, which is resolutely opposed to having elected members.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7437230/Plans-for-abolition-of-House-of-Lords-to-be-unveiled.htmlPlans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is this weekend consulting cabinet colleagues on a blueprint which would represent the biggest change to the way Britain is governed for several decades.
The proposals, which have been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph and which are expected to be announced soon, would sweep away centuries of tradition and set ministers on a collision course with the current 704-member House of Lords, which is resolutely opposed to having elected members.
The old HOL was essentialy a sanity check of laws being passed by the elected government of the day, its gradual dilution (and not so gradual over the past 13 years) into the unelected party run organisation it is today, has pretty much made it unfit for purpose.
One of the things this country does not need, is more elected career politicians, by making the HOL another elected house, all we would be doing is increasing the cost at the expense of the quality of governance.............. we need less, but higher quality politicians, not more of the theiving buggers
One of the things this country does not need, is more elected career politicians, by making the HOL another elected house, all we would be doing is increasing the cost at the expense of the quality of governance.............. we need less, but higher quality politicians, not more of the theiving buggers
They've had thirteen f
king years to do this and now they start? With a month or two to go?
fk me. What a bunch of utter knobbers.
Should the revising house be elected? Absolutely.
If Call Me Dave gets in he'll have to abolish the fking thing anyway just to get rid of Mandy (Prince of Darkness and First Lord of the Sith). Just like Teflon Tony discovered CMD will find that he can't get anything through because of the fact that Labour have been appointing cronies for the last thirteen fking years and the first use of the Parliament Act will be to trash the Lords.
Now personally I think the upper House should be elected every five years or so and exactly half way through any administration so that when the fkers in the Commons start doing st we don't want we can elect an upper house that will frustrate their every effort. "Mid-Term Blues" will be something no party can afford to ignore.
Hah. I don't need to vote for Labour to see the end of Lords. That's coming anyway.
king years to do this and now they start? With a month or two to go?f
k me. What a bunch of utter knobbers.Should the revising house be elected? Absolutely.
If Call Me Dave gets in he'll have to abolish the f
king thing anyway just to get rid of Mandy (Prince of Darkness and First Lord of the Sith). Just like Teflon Tony discovered CMD will find that he can't get anything through because of the fact that Labour have been appointing cronies for the last thirteen fking years and the first use of the Parliament Act will be to trash the Lords.Now personally I think the upper House should be elected every five years or so and exactly half way through any administration so that when the f
kers in the Commons start doing st we don't want we can elect an upper house that will frustrate their every effort. "Mid-Term Blues" will be something no party can afford to ignore.Hah. I don't need to vote for Labour to see the end of Lords. That's coming anyway.
AndrewW-G said:
The old HOL was essentialy a sanity check of laws being passed by the elected government of the day, its gradual dilution (and not so gradual over the past 13 years) into the unelected party run organisation it is today, has pretty much made it unfit for purpose.
One of the things this country does not need, is more elected career politicians, by making the HOL another elected house, all we would be doing is increasing the cost at the expense of the quality of governance.............. we need less, but higher quality politicians, not more of the theiving buggers
One of the things this country does not need, is more elected career politicians, by making the HOL another elected house, all we would be doing is increasing the cost at the expense of the quality of governance.............. we need less, but higher quality politicians, not more of the theiving buggers
If there is to be reform, it should be done properly after a long period of careful consideration and debate and not as an election gimmick by a prime minister desperate to cling on to power. This is nothing but a cynical ploy to give Brown something to bash the conservatives with, should they object to his proposal.
I believe that there is little advantage to making the House of Lords fully elected. It should exist as a revising chamber and as a temper to ill thought out legislation from the commons. In that respect it should have people who are not beholden to a party whip, and are therefore free to vote with their conscience. In an elected chamber, they would forever have one eye on their re-election prospects. People appointed to the lords should be chosen for their experience and expertise, not their loyalty to a particular party. The other disadvantage of having an elected second chamber would be that it would tend to follow the electoral trend, in that you would likely end up with two chambers both with majorities held by the party in power. This would make it extremely difficult for there to be any meaningful opposition to the sitting government, allowing them to pass almost anything they wanted.
I believe that there is little advantage to making the House of Lords fully elected. It should exist as a revising chamber and as a temper to ill thought out legislation from the commons. In that respect it should have people who are not beholden to a party whip, and are therefore free to vote with their conscience. In an elected chamber, they would forever have one eye on their re-election prospects. People appointed to the lords should be chosen for their experience and expertise, not their loyalty to a particular party. The other disadvantage of having an elected second chamber would be that it would tend to follow the electoral trend, in that you would likely end up with two chambers both with majorities held by the party in power. This would make it extremely difficult for there to be any meaningful opposition to the sitting government, allowing them to pass almost anything they wanted.
tank slapper said:
If there is to be reform, it should be done properly after a long period of careful consideration and debate and not as an election gimmick by a prime minister desperate to cling on to power. This is nothing but a cynical ploy to give Brown something to bash the conservatives with, should they object to his proposal.
I believe that there is little advantage to making the House of Lords fully elected. It should exist as a revising chamber and as a temper to ill thought out legislation from the commons. In that respect it should have people who are not beholden to a party whip, and are therefore free to vote with their conscience. In an elected chamber, they would forever have one eye on their re-election prospects. People appointed to the lords should be chosen for their experience and expertise, not their loyalty to a particular party. The other disadvantage of having an elected second chamber would be that it would tend to follow the electoral trend, in that you would likely end up with two chambers both with majorities held by the party in power. This would make it extremely difficult for there to be any meaningful opposition to the sitting government, allowing them to pass almost anything they wanted.
Interesting stuff. Cheers for the insight.I believe that there is little advantage to making the House of Lords fully elected. It should exist as a revising chamber and as a temper to ill thought out legislation from the commons. In that respect it should have people who are not beholden to a party whip, and are therefore free to vote with their conscience. In an elected chamber, they would forever have one eye on their re-election prospects. People appointed to the lords should be chosen for their experience and expertise, not their loyalty to a particular party. The other disadvantage of having an elected second chamber would be that it would tend to follow the electoral trend, in that you would likely end up with two chambers both with majorities held by the party in power. This would make it extremely difficult for there to be any meaningful opposition to the sitting government, allowing them to pass almost anything they wanted.
I also don't think we should have an elected second chamber. I'm totally fed up with elected politicians, we certainly don't want more of them following the party whip.
I think the second chamber should be full of people who have plenty of experience in all areas - industry, entrepreneurs, government, finance, law etc - and there should be an element of randomness as well, which is why I'm not per se against a limited number of hereditary peers.
I think the second chamber should be full of people who have plenty of experience in all areas - industry, entrepreneurs, government, finance, law etc - and there should be an element of randomness as well, which is why I'm not per se against a limited number of hereditary peers.
Plotloss said:
No, we shouldn't even have life peers.
The idea is that we have an uncorruptable ruling class.
Yes but the reality is HUGELY differentThe idea is that we have an uncorruptable ruling class.
I quite like the idea of a bunch of grumpy old buggers telling some little fart of a career politician to f
k off and stop being so bloody stupid Fittster said:
Doesn't the house of lords currently have to back down to the houses of Parliament because it's non-elected (parliament act).
The Parliament act of 1911 was introduced by Asquith's Liberal government to prevent the House of Lords blocking a law for a maximum of three sessions (reduced to two sessions in 1949 under the Labour Government of Atlee), after which it could become law over their objections.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff