Lordy Lordy

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Besides the United States it apparently works very well in Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia and Switzerland.

Except it's massively different. If you are suggesting a bi-cameral parliament, in the way it works in the US, then I'd be tempted to agree with you, it does work, but has some flaws. If the second house were to be elected we cannot keep its position how it is now, as Gayle says and as I tried to say earlier, it would be utterly pointless to have an elected upper house to scrutinise the lower house when it is composed of party majorities like the commons.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'd totally dispute that claim.

Even before New Labour half-heartedly reformed the Lords, most of the noble Lords were very much aligned to the various political parties.

And I think that's probably the very crux of the problem. The House of Lords needs to be independent (and in theory it was with hereditary lords - whether it was in practice or not is irrelevant and that's why I said 'on the surface').

Only an independent members of House of Lords, i.e. not affiliated to any party, can be above the petty politics of the day, and scrutinise any of the laws.

The only problem is that the current system with Labour toadies (and let's be honest if the Tories get in they'll do exactly the same) doesn't stand up against the House of Commons.

I think a publically elected House of Lords would be even worse because they would be more aligned to party politics and less able to be independent but I don't know what the solution is that would remove party politics from the equation.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'd totally dispute that claim.

Even before New Labour half-heartedly reformed the Lords, most of the noble Lords were very much aligned to the various political parties.

Except the Liberals they were sat on the fence as usual

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by Gayle

And I think that's probably the very crux of the problem. The House of Lords needs to be independent (and in theory it was with hereditary lords - whether it was in practice or not is irrelevant and that's why I said 'on the surface').

Only an independent members of House of Lords, i.e. not affiliated to any party, can be above the petty politics of the day, and scrutinise any of the laws.

The only problem is that the current system with Labour toadies (and let's be honest if the Tories get in they'll do exactly the same) doesn't stand up against the House of Commons.

I think a publically elected House of Lords would be even worse because they would be more aligned to party politics and less able to be independent but I don't know what the solution is that would remove party politics from the equation.

What is wrong Gayle with an elected House of Lords.We are supposed to live in democratic country.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

What is wrong Gayle with an elected House of Lords.We are supposed to live in democratic country.

Having an elected house with no power shift ensures that whatever the government of the day is, cannot be scrutinised, as they would both have the same composition. Where as currently wise people can comment on legislation, but have no powers to halt it, the elected house, democracy, can overrule. Normally however it takes the Lords decisions into account, as the lords often think of useful things that MP's do not.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Having an elected house with no power shift ensures that whatever the government of the day is, cannot be scrutinised, as they would both have the same composition. Where as currently wise people can comment on legislation, but have no powers to halt it, the elected house, democracy, can overrule. Normally however it takes the Lords decisions into account, as the lords often think of useful things that MP's do not.

Andrew The House Of Lords not only comments but can also change legislation. The problem I have with this is that the Lords have no mandate from the electorate to change anything. Also Andrew believe you me, age and wisdom are necessarily the same thing

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

Andrew The House Of Lords not only comments but can also change legislation. The problem I have with this is that the Lords have no mandate from the electorate to change anything. Also Andrew believe you me, age and wisdom are necessarily the same thing

as 4 of em can testify too last week.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

Andrew The House Of Lords not only comments but can also change legislation. The problem I have with this is that the Lords have no mandate from the electorate to change anything. Also Andrew believe you me, age and wisdom are necessarily the same thing

The Lords can change or make legislation, but the democratic house (commons) has the final say. It can simply refuse to take the Lords opinion into account. Therefore the democratic process is ensured.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The Lords can change or make legislation, but the democratic house (commons) has the final say. It can simply refuse to take the Lords opinion into account. Therefore the democratic process is ensured.

please explain how then Lords can change or make legislation?

[SPUGGIE J]

Lets just elect the upper house and then we dont have this crud.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The Lords can change or make legislation, but the democratic house (commons) has the final say. It can simply refuse to take the Lords opinion into account. Therefore the democratic process is ensured.

Whilst in theory what you say Andrew is correct. There has however been many occasions where the Government of the day have had to drop legislation because they have been unable to get the Lords approval, or the Lords have simply talked the legislation out.

I still maintain that any second legislative chamber should not only be elected, but also accountable

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by cashman

please explain how then Lords can change or make legislation?

Well, you can use can and can't. They can amend and introduce legislation, but the commons has to okay it. If the commons does okay it, then the Lords amendments go through. The commons can always push through legislation and completely ignore the Lords, and rightly so, as they're the elected body.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

Whilst in theory what you say Andrew is correct. There has however been many occasions where the Government of the day have had to drop legislation because they have been unable to get the Lords approval, or the Lords have simply talked the legislation out.

I still maintain that any second legislative chamber should not only be elected, but also accountable

Well the government have chosen to do that. Under the 1911 Parliament Act, the Commons can push through any legislation, the Lords cannot talk it out, and the Commons do not need the Lords approval. There is no reason to elect the house when it is only there to suggest things, and gets no actual decision making power.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

What is wrong Gayle with an elected House of Lords.We are supposed to live in democratic country.

In theory yes. The only problem is that I can see it being abused.

Lords would be affiliated to political parties (the political parties have the money so would be able to finance their election campaigns). The Lords would end up have the same political persuasion as the Commons and would therefore, end up being little more than a talking shop.

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The Lords can change or make legislation, but the democratic house (commons) has the final say. It can simply refuse to take the Lords opinion into account. Therefore the democratic process is ensured.

Andrew I admire you for choosing politics in your reading and study, your generation are the ones who will have to pick up the pieces that the current government are making a town halls of.
Frankly I dont give a monkey's for the house of lords nor do I give a toss for what goes on in the house of commons.
Public opinion means nothing and even though you defend democratic process, as I have done in the past, the sight and sounds of PM questions gives me the impression that the country is lead by morons.
The pound has been devalued by 30%. Savings, pensions and business has taken an unpresidented dive.
If the current problems are blamed on America, why has the Dollar got stronger and the rest of the world optimum currencies gone tit's up?
I am always in the frame to be educated.
I am sorry but I see the image of our current PM as a bumbling idiot who would rather give state help to lost causes instead of looking after his own.