House of Lords Reform

[andrewb]

A sad day I do believe. The lords are to be 100% elected.

The Lords are now going to be subject to much more party politics. Currently they can vote without worrying about being deselected, so they can make unpopular decisions if they think they're right. They don't have to follow the party line in the slightest, and no one party has an overall majority so they can't win votes just by having a big number in the house, hence bills are reformed, for the better usually, as the Lords usually spot something the Commons has missed and make amendments using their wise collective minds.

Currently Lords are selected by the Prime Minister but are appointed through an independent body, which helps prevent cash for peerages and such. It helps ensure the people that become Lords deserve to become lords.

In an elected house it has been suggested that they use a closed list system, which means the public vote for a party, and the party has a list, then depending on how many votes they get, results in the number of people from the list become MP's. This will guarantee people at the top of the list a place in the Lords, so the party could put anybody they like, including people they want to make a Lord as a favor at the top of the list. At least this is how I understand it.

The 100% elected second house but with less powers raises questions of the commons supremacy. Not to mention the enormous cost to the tax payer as currently only a small selection of Lords are paid (ones who have specialist duties in the house), where as under an elected system I imagine they will get paid similar to MP's which is 60thousand. That times 500/600/700 peers is a lot of money, especially when you start to throw in expenses.

A lot of money, for a completely unnecessary purpose, I would argue.

[cashman]

A lot of money, for a completely unnecessary purpose, I would argue------------------you hit the nail on the head cyfr, they should be done away with completely.

[garinda]

A happy day, and another reason to thank Blair.

Tony Benn put it very well on the radio today.

You're in the dentist's chair, and just before he approaches you with the drill, you ask him where he trained to be a dentist. To which he replies he didn't, but his father, and grandfather before him had been dentists, so he must be able to do it to.

[steeljack]

if they are changing the entry requirements , seems a good time to try out proportional representation

[garinda]

Originally Posted by steeljack

if they are changing the entry requirements , seems a good time to try out proportional representation

Steady on with your modern and radical ideas, this is only the nineteenth century don't you know?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

A happy day, and another reason to thank Blair.

Tony Benn put it very well on the radio today.

You're in the dentist's chair, and just before he approaches you with the drill, you ask him where he trained to be a dentist. To which he replies he didn't, but his father, and grandfather before him had been dentists, so he must be able to do it to.

I'd have been fine getting rid of hereditary peers, but still have everyone appointed.

[jambutty]

A second chamber without teeth as it is now is worse than useless. Although they can and do make the government in office think again, the government can force through an issue if the government wants to. So what is the point of a second chamber?

Appointed by whom Cyfr? Appointments can only lead to loading the second house with sycophants of the government. Cash for appointments springs to mind.

If there is to be a second chamber then the only fair way is for the members to be voted in by the general public. But then what is the point if the government can override any decisions.

I feel that it would be better if the House of Commons became a true democracy and not as it is today an oligarchy. How that would be achieved is a different discussion.