|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2022 21:02:22 GMT
You would have to give me some significant examples of the Lords preventing bills out of self interest. For me they are to wide a body for self interest to prevail. I object strongly to the number who just turn up, take a cheque and contribute nothing, the amount given for travel costs and a place in town is obscene. But I would be really worried about swapping them out for a bunch of Boris's, Farages and other folks the good old public would vote for. As for my Sarcasm. To me it was aimed at the strength of your comment, not you personally. Not implying you are naïve or stupid or a sheep. However I will take it on the chin. I have already given the example of many voting through the poll tax unamended - out of self-interest - in spite of the furore in the country about the gross unfairness of it Many of them were wealthy landholders who stood to save a fortune personally. Some who turned up to vote for it were amongst those who never normally contributed at all. Most on here do not share your view. The HOC was in favour of the Poll tax, they didn't need the HOL to get it through. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 24, 2022 21:52:26 GMT
I think we should keep the system as it is, but set up a second house of commons. The first (original) house of commons has the power to create new legislation (as it does now) and the second house of commons only has the power to repeal any existing existing legislation.
I think this would massively increase democratic engagement
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 24, 2022 22:47:21 GMT
You haven’t answered the questions you were asked SRB and have simply restated your poll tax example even after the considerable flaws in your argument were exposed. Rather feels like your defence of your argument has imploded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2022 5:43:23 GMT
I have already given the example of many voting through the poll tax unamended - out of self-interest - in spite of the furore in the country about the gross unfairness of it Many of them were wealthy landholders who stood to save a fortune personally. Some who turned up to vote for it were amongst those who never normally contributed at all. Most on here do not share your view. The HOC was in favour of the Poll tax, they didn't need the HOL to get it through. The HOL could have done their job and attempted to force the HOC to think again. They could have forced it to use the parliament act. They could have laid down amendments to make it fairer. They did none of those things. They voted for their own self interest ahead of that of the people, secure in the knowledge that they never had to seek the approval of the people in a democratic vote. This is always the inherent danger with lack of accountability. They failed to do their job at all when we most needed them to. And what a majority of people on a politics forum with a few dozen active members think is neither here nor there in the big scheme of things. It is what the majority of the people at large think that matters. How representative of them our little group is is open to question. I mean for starters - unlike most of them - we here are a bunch of political anoraks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2022 5:54:15 GMT
You haven’t answered the questions you were asked SRB and have simply restated your poll tax example even after the considerable flaws in your argument were exposed. Rather feels like your defence of your argument has imploded. You attempted to show the downsides of an elected second chamber without addressing my criticisms of it. I responded by demonstrating the downsides of an unelected chamber. Is that not fair enough? I saw no flaws in my argument exposed, merely assumptions in yours For example, that an elected second chamber would have equal legitimacy to the Commons, but this need not be so. It depends how it is elected and what role is reserved for it. Anyway, I doubt Starmer is serious in the first place. But if he is I will consider whatever proposals he and his party come up with on their merits when the time comes. Then we can debate what is actually on the table as opposed to anything and everything we can imagine being on the table or think should be on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 25, 2022 6:06:56 GMT
Most on here do not share your view. The HOC was in favour of the Poll tax, they didn't need the HOL to get it through. The HOL could have done their job and attempted to force the HOC to think again. They could have forced it to use the parliament act. They could have laid down amendments to make it fairer. They did none of those things. They voted for their own self interest ahead of that of the people, secure in the knowledge that they never had to seek the approval of the people in a democratic vote. This is always the inherent danger with lack of accountability. They failed to do their job at all when we most needed them to. And what a majority of people on a politics forum with a few dozen active members think is neither here nor there in the big scheme of things. It is what the majority of the people at large think that matters. How representative of them our little group is is open to question. I mean for starters - unlike most of them - we here are a bunch of political anoraks. So now you're are suggesting this unelected house should have usurped the elected house because that's what you wanted on that occasion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2022 7:41:04 GMT
The HOL could have done their job and attempted to force the HOC to think again. They could have forced it to use the parliament act. They could have laid down amendments to make it fairer. They did none of those things. They voted for their own self interest ahead of that of the people, secure in the knowledge that they never had to seek the approval of the people in a democratic vote. This is always the inherent danger with lack of accountability. They failed to do their job at all when we most needed them to. And what a majority of people on a politics forum with a few dozen active members think is neither here nor there in the big scheme of things. It is what the majority of the people at large think that matters. How representative of them our little group is is open to question. I mean for starters - unlike most of them - we here are a bunch of political anoraks. So now you're are suggesting this unelected house should have usurped the elected house because that's what you wanted on that occasion. No. I am saying the HOL should have done their job as you have stated it to be by asking the HOC to think again and by making amendments. Seldom has the need for a rethink or for amendments to awful legislation been so stark. But they voted for self interest instead. They should have done their job and used their powers in the public interest and not their own. But hey, they didn't have to care what the public thought anyway, did they? Your very argument about what the Lords are for, scrutinising, amending, and asking the Commons to think again, fell down in the face of their own vested self interest. And why are you portraying the very job you describe as theirs as somehow something that would be usurping the HOC if they did it? Surely you don't want a rubber stamp chamber? The Lords failed to do their duty on this issue because being unaccountable they chose to put self interest ahead of the public interest and ahead of doing their job properly. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 25, 2022 7:47:31 GMT
Most on here do not share your view. The HOC was in favour of the Poll tax, they didn't need the HOL to get it through. The HOL could have done their job and attempted to force the HOC to think again. They could have forced it to use the parliament act. They could have laid down amendments to make it fairer. They did none of those things. They voted for their own self interest ahead of that of the people, secure in the knowledge that they never had to seek the approval of the people in a democratic vote. This is always the inherent danger with lack of accountability. They failed to do their job at all when we most needed them to. The introduction of the Poll Tax was a manifesto commitment. The Lords are very wary of blocking policies that Governments are elected by the people to enact - that would be undemocratic. |
|
|
|
Post by vlk on Nov 25, 2022 14:17:41 GMT
All countries with unicameral arliaments seem to be relatively small. 10 million people at most.
Do you think the UK is too big not to have a second chamber?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 25, 2022 19:23:35 GMT
So now you're are suggesting this unelected house should have usurped the elected house because that's what you wanted on that occasion. No. I am saying the HOL should have done their job as you have stated it to be by asking the HOC to think again and by making amendments. Seldom has the need for a rethink or for amendments to awful legislation been so stark. But they voted for self interest instead. They should have done their job and used their powers in the public interest and not their own. But hey, they didn't have to care what the public thought anyway, did they? Your very argument about what the Lords are for, scrutinising, amending, and asking the Commons to think again, fell down in the face of their own vested self interest. And why are you portraying the very job you describe as theirs as somehow something that would be usurping the HOC if they did it? Surely you don't want a rubber stamp chamber? The Lords failed to do their duty on this issue because being unaccountable they chose to put self interest ahead of the public interest and ahead of doing their job properly. Nope. You are assuming that because the HOL did not stop the poll tax it was out of self interest. I am saying they didn't attempt to overrule the elected house. But your argument keeps switching between they are unelected so shouldn't have a say to they should overturn the decisions of the elected chamber. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2022 6:12:29 GMT
The HOL could have done their job and attempted to force the HOC to think again. They could have forced it to use the parliament act. They could have laid down amendments to make it fairer. They did none of those things. They voted for their own self interest ahead of that of the people, secure in the knowledge that they never had to seek the approval of the people in a democratic vote. This is always the inherent danger with lack of accountability. They failed to do their job at all when we most needed them to. The introduction of the Poll Tax was a manifesto commitment. The Lords are very wary of blocking policies that Governments are elected by the people to enact - that would be undemocratic. The introduction of a fair system of local taxation to replace the rates was the manifesto commitment, not specifically the poll tax. And since the poll tax was in the eyes of the vast majority of fair-minded people anything but fair, it did not really conform to the manifesto pledge. It was very poor legislation for which the Commons could have been asked to think again and come up with a fairer alternative, or the legislation itself could have been improved by constructive amendments. Instead, on a piece of legislation crying out for the Lords to do its job, they instead nodded it through motivated by self-interest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2022 6:24:02 GMT
No. I am saying the HOL should have done their job as you have stated it to be by asking the HOC to think again and by making amendments. Seldom has the need for a rethink or for amendments to awful legislation been so stark. But they voted for self interest instead. They should have done their job and used their powers in the public interest and not their own. But hey, they didn't have to care what the public thought anyway, did they? Your very argument about what the Lords are for, scrutinising, amending, and asking the Commons to think again, fell down in the face of their own vested self interest. And why are you portraying the very job you describe as theirs as somehow something that would be usurping the HOC if they did it? Surely you don't want a rubber stamp chamber? The Lords failed to do their duty on this issue because being unaccountable they chose to put self interest ahead of the public interest and ahead of doing their job properly. Nope. You are assuming that because the HOL did not stop the poll tax it was out of self interest. I am saying they didn't attempt to overrule the elected house. But your argument keeps switching between they are unelected so shouldn't have a say to they should overturn the decisions of the elected chamber. No. I am saying that the justification for the Lords to exist in its current form is that it is supposedly best constituted to exercise its powers to scrutinise and amend legislation and possibly make the Commons think again. That it failed to do so and chose instead to vote for self-interest on a piece of legislation crying out for scrutiny, amendment, or a rethink actually undermines the credibility of your notion that it works as intended. And highlights the danger of unaccountable appointees who cannot be voted out of office putting personal interest first. And that self-interest was the motive for many was widely reported at the time, with senior government figures approaching wealthy members who rarely ever showed up and pointing out to them how much they'd save in local taxation if the poll tax went through. Many of these usual no shows turned up to provide the numbers needed to nod it through, preventing any possibility of improving amendments or asking the Commons to think again. And thereby underscoring the flaw in a second chamber of appointees with no democratic accountability. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2022 7:51:18 GMT
The introduction of the Poll Tax was a manifesto commitment. The Lords are very wary of blocking policies that Governments are elected by the people to enact - that would be undemocratic. The introduction of a fair system of local taxation to replace the rates was the manifesto commitment, not specifically the poll tax. And since the poll tax was in the eyes of the vast majority of fair-minded people anything but fair, it did not really conform to the manifesto pledge. It was very poor legislation for which the Commons could have been asked to think again and come up with a fairer alternative, or the legislation itself could have been improved by constructive amendments. Instead, on a piece of legislation crying out for the Lords to do its job, they instead nodded it through motivated by self-interest. It was exactly what the manifesto pledged. It was a policy that gave the Tories a landslide victory and it would have been totally undemocratic for the Lords to have blocked the will of the electorate. "We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community Charge.
This will be a fixed rate charge for local services paid by those over the age of 18, except the mentally ill and elderly people living in homes and hospitals." |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2022 8:13:31 GMT
The introduction of the Poll Tax was a manifesto commitment. The Lords are very wary of blocking policies that Governments are elected by the people to enact - that would be undemocratic. The introduction of a fair system of local taxation to replace the rates was the manifesto commitment, not specifically the poll tax. And since the poll tax was in the eyes of the vast majority of fair-minded people anything but fair, it did not really conform to the manifesto pledge. It was very poor legislation for which the Commons could have been asked to think again and come up with a fairer alternative, or the legislation itself could have been improved by constructive amendments. Instead, on a piece of legislation crying out for the Lords to do its job, they instead nodded it through motivated by self-interest. BTW. The Tories did not have a majority in the lords at the time of the poll tax. And in 2015 the HOL refused to pass the cut in tax credits. I remain unconvinced that swapping the expertise the lords carries for a similar bunch WE voted into the HOC. I still believe membership to the lords should not be handed out as favours. But favour a majority vote 60-70% from the HOC. Indeed, you cause me to wonder if we ought to have a meritocracy rather than a democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 26, 2022 10:04:43 GMT
Indeed, you cause me to wonder if we ought to have a meritocracy rather than a democracy. There is no agreed definition of merit. Most people feel others have merit if they agree with them. In fact, this way of thinking is so the norm, you might as well call it 'human nature' There is little difference between deciding who has merit (so they can have power) and just deciding who can have power. People vote for candidates because they feel they have merit. A genuine meritocracy is usually short lived and emerges out of a situation that is (yet) uncorralled and filled with entrepreneurs. I'd say it was practically impossible to consciously create (maintain) a functional meritocracy beyond keeping the very basic systems in place that weed out corruption and allow those who provide what is needed to get a reward for doing so One thing i will say is that our current ruling class, nearly without exception, come from the total opposite of the kind of situation that selects for merit. |
|
