|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 20, 2022 17:34:51 GMT
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. Correct. The same conclusion was arrived at by Ken Clarke. The UK is “dangerously close” to becoming an “elected dictatorship” under Boris Johnson, veteran Tory Ken Clarke has warned – as he branded the prime minister’s handling of Brexit clashes “laughable”. When you ref to this country. make it clear you mean England. Scotland voted for none of them. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/johnson-ken-clarke-elected-dictatorship-b1964326.html |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 20, 2022 17:40:17 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 PMsIf that is the major problem with the Lords then leave it as it is and just change the selection process - perhaps only have working peers appointed by the Privy Council? |
|
|
|
Post by vlk on Nov 20, 2022 17:55:22 GMT
If the House of Lords didn't exist would anybody propose to create it?
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Nov 20, 2022 18:04:37 GMT
Yes political types as things go wrong through poorly made legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 20, 2022 18:24:45 GMT
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 PMsIf that is the major problem with the Lords then leave it as it is and just change the selection process - perhaps only have working peers appointed by the Privy Council? It was along these lines if I recall that they decided back in 1968-9 with the Parliament No2 Bill which Wilson had to drop. The problem with appointees as we can see they tend to be partisan as opposed to having the best interests of the public at heart. It is a problem that needs reformation but the eternal question is always how and the alternatives have their own unique potential problems. Abolishing is quite worrying as it is a reforming house irrespective of how many times the act of reforming may be thoroughly irritating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 6:41:54 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… I fail to see how ceding sovereignty to the British people in one instance disproves the notion that giving them a democratic say over who legislates over them is also granting sovereignty to the people. Because it obviously does. The current set up is an affront to democracy and is utterly lacking in accountability. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 6:53:28 GMT
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. I make the point about Starmer because it is valid and whenever I think it is relevant because I don't trust a proven liar. But as for the issue at hand, yes I believe in an elected second chamber, and if a Labour government actually brings that about I will voice my approval about it. I just have my doubts about it happening, that's all. The second chamber though needs to be elected on a very different franchise to that of the Commons, perhaps going for more gradual long term tenures. Perhaps something like 9 year terms with one third of them up for re-election every 3 years. Thus the second chamber will have greater longevity and will change more gradually to reflect longer term changes in the outlook of the people. But that is just a suggestion, I would seriously consider any proposals that anyone comes up with for democratic reform. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 7:00:22 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. Not if it were elected under a different franchise designed for more gradual change and greater longevity as I suggested in my previous post. It all depends on what system of election is introduced. Certainly a chamber full of party donors and other cronies there for life, failed politicians rejected at the ballot box, bishops and hereditarians, is not really fit for purpose at all and brings the very notion of democracy into disrepute. And it totally lacks democratic legitimacy and accountability. How anyone who truly believes in democracy can defend this affront to it is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 21, 2022 7:04:27 GMT
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… I fail to see how ceding sovereignty to the British people in one instance disproves the notion that giving them a democratic say over who legislates over them is also granting sovereignty to the people. Because it obviously does. The current set up is an affront to democracy and is utterly lacking in accountability. Don't forget the HOL powers are limited and they cannot over rule the HOC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 7:05:44 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. The problem with an elected chamber is that you give them a mandate - they are no longer subservient to the Commons. As such you will end up at some point with the US problem where one chamber is controlled by one party and the other by a different party - with the result you have gridlock and nothing can be done. That is a valid point but sometimes we could do with a break on some of the more dubious stuff governments voted in by a minority under FPTP want to get done. Because on that basis their own absolute mandate is ethically and democratically questionable. A house of cronies, party donors, failed politicians, hereditaries, bishops, and geriatrics bordering on gaga is hardly democratically defensible or fit for a 21st century democracy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 7:06:58 GMT
I fail to see how ceding sovereignty to the British people in one instance disproves the notion that giving them a democratic say over who legislates over them is also granting sovereignty to the people. Because it obviously does. The current set up is an affront to democracy and is utterly lacking in accountability. Don't forget the HOL powers are limited and they cannot over rule the HOC. I have not forgotten that. It doesn't justify the wholly undemocratic nature of a house of cronies. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 21, 2022 7:13:25 GMT
Squeeze identifies the main point which is that the Lords would simply become a clone of the Commons. Not if it were elected under a different franchise designed for more gradual change and greater longevity as I suggested in my previous post. It all depends on what system of election is introduced. Certainly a chamber full of party donors and other cronies there for life, failed politicians rejected at the ballot box, bishops and hereditarians, is not really fit for purpose at all and brings the very notion of democracy into disrepute. And it totally lacks democratic legitimacy and accountability. How anyone who truly believes in democracy can defend this affront to it is beyond me. I like the idea of the HOL being made up of educated people with proven experience in various areas. What I and most folks who dislike it object to is it being used as a reward system for party donors and the idea life peers. So what I would change is the election process. I think those put forward for the role should be elected by a significant majority of the HOC circa 70%. I think terms should be limited to 10 years, with a vote for a member to remain if they wish to. I also think we need to look at the payment system and benefits going to those in the HOL. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 7:17:27 GMT
By the way, while reforming the HOL, I hope Starmer at the same time reforms HoC by introducing PR. He wants power. If he gets a workable absolute majority, he will never deliver PR. If we get a hung parliament and delivering PR is the price of support from other parties for him being in number 10, then we might well get it. So I am hoping for a hung parliament for that very reason. So that leaves me in the curious position of hoping that the Tories - whom I loathe - actually improve their polling sufficiently to deny Labour a majority. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 7:22:29 GMT
I think we do need a second revising chamber. It does need to be clearly subservient to the HoC as no It does need to be effective rather than just a place for favours given to PMs to be received. It doesn’t need all the pageantry bollocks It doesn’t need an illusion of democracy - just a low turnout vote on the current governments popularity I would go for a chamber of experts appointed by a committee of themselves. If you need democratic legitimacy let a subcommittee of MPs approve its membership. I agree we need a second revising chamber and what you propose would at least be an improvement upon what we have now. But it still largely lacks democratic accountability. Elected second chambers seem to work well enough in most other western democracies. Why should they be able to do democracy better than us? It is not as if our own nation is incapable of devising such a system. It was mostly us who devised the German one after all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 7:29:29 GMT
Not if it were elected under a different franchise designed for more gradual change and greater longevity as I suggested in my previous post. It all depends on what system of election is introduced. Certainly a chamber full of party donors and other cronies there for life, failed politicians rejected at the ballot box, bishops and hereditarians, is not really fit for purpose at all and brings the very notion of democracy into disrepute. And it totally lacks democratic legitimacy and accountability. How anyone who truly believes in democracy can defend this affront to it is beyond me. I like the idea of the HOL being made up of educated people with proven experience in various areas. What I and most folks who dislike it object to is it being used as a reward system for party donors and the idea life peers. So what I would change is the election process. I think those put forward for the role should be elected by a significant majority of the HOC circa 70%. I think terms should be limited to 10 years, with a vote for a member to remain if they wish to. I also think we need to look at the payment system and benefits going to those in the HOL. That would be a big improvement but could tie up a lot of Commons time politically, with the possibility of a lot of prolonged inter-party wrangling over certain candidates. I still believe that direct democracy with the people having the final say is important. Second chambers in most other western democracies are directly elected and it seems to work well enough in most of them. Why not here? |
|
