|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 20, 2022 13:13:55 GMT
On the other hand, a strong majority of elected people of one side of politics, or even a combination of political views might develop an attitude of --'we are also elected so we also speak for the people'. With the demand to make changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 20, 2022 13:24:50 GMT
Make the House of Lords directly elected and double the membership.
I doubt that Starmer will do it as it means he won't have anywhere to dump his friends ans opponents, but it seems a simple enough solution to the problem
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 20, 2022 13:25:21 GMT
Anyways, enough of this irrelevant lefty infighting, let's get back to the plot: I'm ambivalent about scrapping the Lords but if it's replaced by a second elected chamber then I really don't see the point. It's replacing one set of jobs-for-the-boys with another. The point ought to be blatantly obvious. Replacing a bunch of unelected cronies we never voted for and cannot remove who sit for life with elected representatives of some kind whom we vote for and can vote out of office again gives us the final say in who gets to sit and represent us there. One of the main arguments of Brexiteers was all about returning sovereignty to the British people. Same argument can be made for replacing a bunch of unelected cronies with elected representatives of the people, elected by the people and for the people, and accountable to the people. Squeeze identifies the main point which is that the Lords would simply become a clone of the Commons. If the Lords is to be a scrutinising and revising chamber, selecting its make up would need to be distinctly separate operation from how the Commons is chosen. One way to ensure this would be to return to Fixed-term Governments, with Lords elections taking place mid-term of Government elections. Other decisions such as length of terms of the Commons and the Lords would need to be made. But, as long as the Lords is a scrutinising and revising chamber of a smaller size (say from 100 to 500 — depending how it’s constituted) with a limit to its actual powers, I’ve no worry about whether the Lords is an appointed or elected chamber, although if appointed their appointments would need to be ratified by a cross party committee. Personally, with other local assemblies around the UK administering their own budgets, choosing their Police heads, in charge of local welfare, etc, I’d also limit the number of MP’s to 500… |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 20, 2022 13:34:02 GMT
Could you imagine this happenning,
Q. 'Sir Branson (he used to be very popular) would you be able to organise a commission to investigate sexual abuse within state institutions?'
A. 'Me, why me? What do I know about sexual abuse or organisng commissions?'
The H of L would benefit from reform, yet would need careful consideration, has Captain Hindsight done this or is it just smoke and mirrors to give them a new selling point?
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 20, 2022 13:34:48 GMT
The point ought to be blatantly obvious. Replacing a bunch of unelected cronies we never voted for and cannot remove who sit for life with elected representatives of some kind whom we vote for and can vote out of office again gives us the final say in who gets to sit and represent us there. One of the main arguments of Brexiteers was all about returning sovereignty to the British people. Same argument can be made for replacing a bunch of unelected cronies with elected representatives of the people, elected by the people and for the people, and accountable to the people. Squeeze identifies the main point which is that the Lords would simply become a clone of the Commons. If the Lords is to be a scrutinising and revising chamber, selecting its make up would need to be distinctly separate operation from how the Commons is chosen. One way to ensure this would be to return to Fixed-term Governments, with Lords elections taking place mid-term of Government elections. Other decisions such as length of terms of the Commons and the Lords would need to be made. But, as long as the Lords is a scrutinising and revising chamber of a smaller size (say from 100 to 500 — depending how it’s constituted) with a limit to its actual powers, I’ve no worry about whether the Lords is an appointed or elected chamber, although if appointed their appointments would need to be ratified by a cross party committee. Personally, with other local assemblies around the UK administering their own budgets, choosing their Police heads, in charge of local welfare, etc, I’d also limit the number of MP’s to 500… I would increase the number of MPs and Lords.
Trim the number of our elected representatives and the cost of administration might drop. But not by much and it is a racing certainty that we won't see the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 20, 2022 14:03:19 GMT
Keir Starmer: I will abolish House of Lords to ‘restore trust in politics’ Keir Starmer will abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a new elected chamber as part of plans to “restore trust in politics”, the Observer understands. In a sweeping constitutional overhaul, the Labour leader has told the party’s peers that he wants to strip politicians of the power to make appointments to the Lords as part of the first-term programme of a Labour government. Starmer said that the public’s faith in the political system had been undermined by successive Tory leaders handing peerages to “lackeys and donors”. It is understood that Labour will hold a consultation on the composition and size of a new chamber as well as immediate reforms to the current appointments process. Final proposals will be included in the party’s next election manifesto. www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/19/keir-starmer-i-will-abolish-house-of-lords-to-restore-trust-in-politics
Considering this issue only, do you agree with Starmer? It is perfectly feasible to abolish the House of Lords if the political will is there. Sadly, I think it will be lacking with Starmer. He is far too much of an establishmentarian to go for such radical constitutional change. This is just another one of his false promises. Those of us who used to be in Labour are well used to those. Which is a pity because I actually agree with abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber of some sort. Pity you have to crowbar this view into every thread. Kier has said its his intention. Do you support the idea, how would you implement it, what would you want to see gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 20, 2022 14:08:31 GMT
Starmer has no chance of abolishing the house of Lords, there's more chance of Putin and Zelenskyy having a Gay relationship,
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 20, 2022 14:10:37 GMT
I would still have the HOL electable, but candidates should be elected by majorities in the HOC of 70% or more.
They should be elected for their experience in business, education, health, law etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2022 14:10:56 GMT
Could you imagine this happenning, Q. 'Sir Branson (he used to be very popular) would you be able to organise a commission to investigate sexual abuse within state institutions?' A. 'Me, why me? What do I know about sexual abuse or organisng commissions?' The H of L would benefit from reform, yet would need careful consideration, has Captain Hindsight done this or is it just smoke and mirrors to give them a new selling point? You saying trashing our constitutional makeup is a selling point. If it is then we are doomed.
The problem with the mentality is the mentality only want to destroy and it feels by destroying stuff then that will somehow cause us to build what we need. Very counter-intuitive eh?
It has been running since 1707 and much earlier, like right back to medieval times for England. What right does Starmer have to wreck it? Bloody idiot. He is making himself unelectable, probably because he is a Tory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 20, 2022 14:12:39 GMT
On the whole I'm probably against the HoL, although it's not an overly important issue for me. My concern is, if it were abolished what would it be replaced with? The Electoral Reform Society have long campaigned for an elected second chamber, which may on the face of it sound good, but the more you read about such an arrangement the more you realise it's a legislative minefield.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Nov 20, 2022 14:13:04 GMT
One of the main arguments of Brexiteers was all about returning sovereignty to the British people. Same argument can be made for replacing a bunch of unelected cronies with elected representatives of the people, elected by the people and for the people, and accountable to the people. That argument was proved wrong when the British Parliament itself ceded sovereignty to the British people in 2016 referendum and acted on the result. And elected Lords are likely to be more politically motivated and less independent than the current make up which is not all political appointees… |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 20, 2022 14:27:51 GMT
I'm open to getting rid of the Lords but I would like to know what is replacing it first - and that would involve cross party agreement about its role and powers. They have tried this on numerous occasions and the result has been to drop it. Wilson made major efforts and Powell was quite lucid in his opposition. He agreed the Lords was a problem but at the end of the day it worked and no one could envisage what could replace it. The problem of late has been the stuffing of that house with party lackey's from the departing PMs |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 20, 2022 14:56:27 GMT
Could you imagine this happenning, Q. 'Sir Branson (he used to be very popular) would you be able to organise a commission to investigate sexual abuse within state institutions?' A. 'Me, why me? What do I know about sexual abuse or organisng commissions?' The H of L would benefit from reform, yet would need careful consideration, has Captain Hindsight done this or is it just smoke and mirrors to give them a new selling point? You saying trashing our constitutional makeup is a selling point. If it is then we are doomed.
The problem with the mentality is the mentality only want to destroy and it feels by destroying stuff then that will somehow cause us to build what we need. Very counter-intuitive eh?
It has been running since 1707 and much earlier, like right back to medieval times for England. What right does Starmer have to wreck it? Bloody idiot. He is making himself unelectable, probably because he is a Tory.
A certain element on the Left have a chip on their shoulders about inherited wealth and so salivate at the prospect of being able to knock those more prosperous than themselves. Of course this also plays into the hands of the current Labour party. I can see the H of L is in need of reform yet also has important roles that most might be unaware of yet falling into the wrong hands could make things much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2022 15:05:55 GMT
You saying trashing our constitutional makeup is a selling point. If it is then we are doomed.
The problem with the mentality is the mentality only want to destroy and it feels by destroying stuff then that will somehow cause us to build what we need. Very counter-intuitive eh?
It has been running since 1707 and much earlier, like right back to medieval times for England. What right does Starmer have to wreck it? Bloody idiot. He is making himself unelectable, probably because he is a Tory.
A certain element on the Left have a chip on their shoulders about inherited wealth and so salivate at the prospect of being able to knock those more prosperous than themselves. Of course this also plays into the hands of the current Labour party. I can see the H of L is in need of reform yet also has important roles that most might be unaware of yet falling into the wrong hands could make things much worse. Definitely, and the problem is our backup for a failing Rishi is about to go down the rabbit hole as well. I'm convinced this country is now a dictatorship. These leaders are being paid off after they get booted out. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 20, 2022 17:30:20 GMT
Which is Bravo Seirra. It will only work if the clowns I vote for get in. In terms of Brexit. England sabotage itself. The only country in the world ever. To vote to make itself poorer. As it is now very clear exports of goods to the European Union fell by 40% between December 2020 and January 2021, while imports dropped by almost 30%. Even Hunt who has succeeded in following you that there will not be a tax rise till after the next election. Agreed. Brexit is a disaster. In term of Johnston and his landslide victory. The choice was between two clowns. Johnston and Corbyn. The choice was death by a thousand cuts or freeze and starve to death. Johnston manage both. As you swallow the fanny it was the fault of Putin and covid. And the magic fairy. Not even got onto the meaningless soundbites. We will take back control of our borders, and Brexit means Brexit.
The facts have not changed in the last few hours.
|
|
