Lords Reform?

[observer]

Anyone interested in a referendum - given they're only suggesting 80% these geriatrics will be elected?

[asperity]

Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic <_<

[Peter T]

Will change make things better or just play into the hands of the ruling government?

At least the present system seems to put a brake on the rash ideas from parliament, rather than rubber stamping.

[observer]

Not quite Pierre; the present second chamber only has powers of delay, not veto; which is why most Commons MPs won't like an elected Lords, as election would give it more legitimacy, and consequent calls for more powers. However, Westminister was happy to impose Executive Committees on Local Councils, but appear not to want a seperate Executive Chamber themselves. If power is to be redistributed, it has to come from somewhere, and those that currently have it, arn't likely to give it up easily.

[Lt Kije]

It would be good if the Lords could have some independents in it, And getting rid of the last hereditary peers still in their also be good, given that all political parties want reform I don't think their is need for a referendum, and any questions in a referendum would be limited.

[observer]

Don't think the present political class want real reform, 80% elected is frankly nonesense in this day and age. Simples - 100 seats (not the 450 being recomended), decided on the basis of the direct proportion of votes for each party at a General Election; the majority (which would probably be a coalition) form the Executive (the Government). This of course would reverse the current relationship between Commons and Lords (Senate), which is why the Commons wouldn't wear it.

[harry hayes]

Agree with Peter. We want at least some independent/ wise thinking, instead of following party lines.

 

Happy days

[Lt Kije]

Their are more Tory Peers at the moment, It does not seem to be doing the Commons any good.

 

I think at the moment their are over 700 people who are entitled to sit in the house, obviously they all do not turn up

[inky pete]

Personally, I'm not a fan of hereditary peerages, but then neither am I a fan of the idea of Lords campaigning for re-election, or to retain a seat after an election - with all the back room deals and secret agreements that naturally brings with it.

 

I do, however, like the concept of life peers drawn from the all walks of life. A group of individuals with no particular party affiliation, no need to suck up to the government to ensure they keep their jobs, and the ability to take a longer view of what is in the best interests of the country than just the 5 years max until the next general election.

 

I also quite like the fact that their powers are broadly limited to powers of delay rather than veto. A popular government - one which the electorate have given a large majority in the Commons - should be able to carry out its programme of legislation without being overly inconvenienced by a second chamber, the ability of the Commons to over-rule the Lords provides for this. A marginal, or even minority, government would be much more reluctant to force a show-down with the Lords over issues which are not well supported.

[Bazj]

A popular government - one which the electorate have given a large majority in the Commons - should be able to carry out its programme of legislation without being overly inconvenienced by a second chamber,

 

oohhh remember what happened when Bliar had that power????

[Lt Kije]

Yes Baz it was alot better than when Maggie wielded it

[inky pete]

The electorate deserve exactly the governments they get.

 

WE gave him and his cronies the power - on more than one occasion. WE are responsible for the results.

 

A second chamber based on the results of the most recent General Election would have been nothing more than a rubber stamp to give him legitimacy.

[observer]

.. or we could just skip the "election" bit and allow Queenie to to appoint the great and the good to the ermine?!

[Lt Kije]

But she doesnt do it Obs the political leaders do. Give a big cheque to a political party and your in.

[Bazj]

Yes Baz it was alot better than when Maggie wielded it

 

In your opinion Kije.....

[observer]

In this Country there is no clear division between the Executive and the Legislature - if we're serious about constitutional change, we really need to be bolder if we want something more modern.

[inky pete]

From what I've seen most governments in "modern" democracies have more than their fair share of problems with corruption, nepotism, patronage, and the marginalisation of the very people who elect them.

[observer]

That applies across the full range of options. But by a clear seperation of the Executive - the Legislature and Judicery; each one serves to counter-balance the others, thus making corruption more difficult. EG. Why do we have a Minister of Government (a politician) making a quasi-judicial decision on B-Sky Bs bid for a monopoly - wouldn't an independent judge be more reliable?

[Lt Kije]

And why is he still in a job Obs?

[observer]

Ask Dave!

[inky pete]

Where are you going to find an "independent" judge?

 

Everyone has pre-existing opinions and biases. We don't get any say in who becomes a judge and we don't get the option of sacking judges every 5 years if they've made poor decisions, they don't even have a mandatory retirement age, we're stuck with the bumbling old fools until THEY decide to step off the gravy train.

[observer]

Well the clear evidence to date, is that Judges don't bow to populism, so don't need to court the press or the public, so perhaps it's better they arn't "elected".

[Lt Kije]

Should they bow to populism Obs?

[observer]

Nope - they supposed to be concerned with the interpretation of policy and law - not the public gallery. :wink:

[Lt Kije]

Is that the same for the Europeen Court?