[Politics] All future Labour peers must back abolition of Lords

[Norman Potting]

The good old DM would like that as well I suspect - they will be lobbying to dissolve the monarch soon.

 

[portslade seagull]

Most only go in for afternoon tea and a nap

 

[TomandJerry]

The good old DM would like that as well I suspect - they will be lobbying to dissolve the monarch soon.

Do you really think any king/queen would accept/allow a govemernt to form that wants to abolish them?

 

[clapham_gull]

Do you really think any king/queen would accept/allow a govemernt to form that wants to abolish them?

Yep.

But to get to such a point the people would have turned against the Monarchy and elected a government that promised to abolish them.

It wouldn't exactly come as a surprise.

Completely hypothetical, but I can't see a position where the Monarch would attempt to hold on under such circumstances.

On the main point, turning the Lords into an elected chamber isn't a simple Left v Right issue.

There are some "on the left" who think it's important the Lords is independent.

Personally I think it's time it was elected. It's ridiculous it isn't. It's a minor tweak in comparison to say leaving the EU.

 

[TomandJerry]

Yep.

But to get to such a point the people would have turned against the Monarchy and elected a government that promised to abolish them.

It wouldn't exactly come as a surprise.

Completely hypothetical, but I can't see a position where the Monarch would attempt to hold on under such circumstances.

Why not? The whole royal family would suddenly lose all their money and power

 

[Seasidesage]

seems you misunderstand the role of the Lords, then rile against it on the make up. the power lies with house of commons, HoL can only send back revision, which they dont have to accept.

reform of HoL would be a good idea, making it elected would only introduce more, new problems. which house has precedence, who resolves deadlocks, what if they are both aligned to government so anything can get waved through without proper scrutiny? reform should address the deficiencies while keeping the advantages of the current.

Whether I/we agree with a policy or not is irrelevant surely? If an elected Government can win a vote why shouldn't it become law? I can campaign against it. I can definitely vote against that government in the future, but why should an unelected Lord or some other such pillar of the establishment get to delay/amend the enactment of that law? I fail to see how that is in anyway democratic? I get that it potentially stops the worst excesses of a government but it also helps maintain the status quo which benefits who? The establishment surely?

 

[Seasidesage]

The various Parliament Acts have been used seven times in the last century. Typically, the process takes between six and 12 months. The longest it has ever taken is 17 months.

OK but its not the point really. A law passed by the elected representatives of the country has been delayed/altered by an unelected body. Parliament Acts have had to be used on those seven instances to force through the will of the elected government of the country, even if that election process is wrong too. (One for proportional representation here)

How can that be right?

 

[Stoo82]

Why not? The whole royal family would suddenly lose all their money and power

Which they know they hold in trust.

 

[Gwylan]

The good old DM would like that as well I suspect - they will be lobbying to dissolve the monarch soon.

I'm sure that will be part of the discussion. I don't see how an unelected second chamber is deemed unacceptable but an unelected head of state is fine. I could certainly see a case for both being abolished.

 

[Stoo82]

Whether I/we agree with a policy or not is irrelevant surely? If an elected Government can win a vote why shouldn't it become law? I can campaign against it. I can definitely vote against that government in the future, but why should an unelected Lord or some other such pillar of the establishment get to delay/amend the enactment of that law? I fail to see how that is in anyway democratic? I get that it potentially stops the worst excesses of a government but it also helps maintain the status quo which benefits who? The establishment surely?

Becuase the Lords is supposed to be full of wise and experience men and women. Old polititions and people who were 'taught/born' (very old fashioned way of looking at it) to rule. They are supposed to be the brain while the commons is the heart.

 

[Seasidesage]

Becuase the Lords is supposed to be full of wise and experience men and women. Old polititions and people who were 'taught/born' (very old fashioned way of looking at it) to rule. They are supposed to be the brain while the commons is the heart.

It could be full of hundreds of Einstein's clones, it wouldn't make it right

 

[Stoo82]

I'm sure that will be part of the discussion. I don't see how an unelected second chamber is deemed unacceptable but an unelected head of state is fine. I could certainly see a case for both being abolished.

The problem is that paliament (the commons) is in danger of becoming too powerful. The monarch has none, and the lords has in the past 6 months or so, made it'self obsoleet. A powerful commons is a threat to democracy. We need all three. And in my view, while you are right to say there is a case for an elected head of state and 2nd chamber, at the very least i would keep a constatutional monarch as the only way to to truley protect democracy. All 3 departments watch each other. The one with the final say (and at the same time, no say at all) has no political leanings and can therefore is the best way to stop a dictatership.

Please excuse my spelling as the spell check is gone and I'm a bit shit a spelling.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Why not? The whole royal family would suddenly lose all their money and power

Would they? What power do they have? The monarch simply gives assent to any parliamentary bills, without getting involved.

They have money and possessions, of which some could be seized but then do we have a complete French revolution where all aristocracy is stripped away? There are lots of landowners who aren't royals or aristocrats. Do they get all their land and money seized too?

This is the make up of the House of Lords. There aren't as many hereditary peers as you think, but quite a few life peers appointed by their parties. I like the idea of cross bench peers who are neutrals and not bound by party politics. They can weigh up the pros and cons of bills without a three line whip. Bishops too.
As pointed out, the HoL cannot chuck out any bill, nor veto it, but send it back to the Commons for amendments, many of which are helpful, and stop excess.

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

 

[Stoo82]

It could be full of hundreds of Einstein's clones, it wouldn't make it right

But they dont have power.

They are not there to stop laws being enacted by the commons. They are there the fine tune them. They have changed that in the last 6 months and that is why they are finnished.

Is law making going to be easier or harder if we elect a 2nd chamber? Just look at the US? How often do they elect contraditery houses? Nothing ever gets through.

 

[TomandJerry]

Would they? What power do they have? The monarch simply gives assent to any parliamentary bills, without getting involved.

They have money and possessions, of which some could be seized but then do we have a complete French revolution where all aristocracy is stripped away? There are lots of landowners who aren't royals or aristocrats. Do they get all their land and money seized too?

This is the make up of the House of Lords. There aren't as many hereditary peers as you think, but quite a few life peers appointed by their parties. I like the idea of cross bench peers who are neutrals and not bound by party politics. They can weigh up the pros and cons of bills without a three line whip. Bishops too.
As pointed out, the HoL cannot chuck out any bill, nor veto it, but send it back to the Commons for amendments, many of which are helpful, and stop excess.

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

The powers of the monarch:


POLITICAL POWERS

The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.

Summoning/Proroguing Parliament –The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.Royal Assent –*It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.Secondary Legislation –*The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.Appoint/Remove Ministers –*Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.Appointing the Prime Minister –*The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.Declaration of War –*The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.Freedom From Prosecution –*Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.JUDICIAL POWERS

The Queen’s judicial powers are now very minimal, and there is only really one which is used on a regular basis, with others having been delegated to judges and parliament through time.

Royal Pardon –*The Royal Pardon was originally used to retract death sentences against those wrongly convicted. It is now used to correct errors in sentencing and was recently used to give a posthumous pardon to WW2 codebreaker, Alan Turing.ARMED FORCES

The Queen’s powers in the Armed Forces are usually used on the advice of Generals and Parliament though some functions are retained by The Queen herself nowadays.

Commander-in-Chief –*The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.Commissioning of Officers –*The Queen’s powers include the commissioning of officers into the Armed Forces and also removing commissions (when members of the Armed Forces salute and officers, they are saluting The Queen’s commission).Disposition of the Forces –*The organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces are part of the Royal Prerogative; the crown technically controls how the Armed Forces are used.HONOURS

One of the main prerogative powers that are still used personally by The Queen these days is the power to grant honours. As all honours derive from the Crown, The Queen has the final say on knighthoods, peerages and the like.

Creation of Peerages –*The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family.Font of Honour –*It is The Queen’s prerogative power to create orders of knighthood and to grant any citizen honours. From the Royal Victorian Order to the Order of the Garter.MISCELLANEOUS POWERS

Other powers Her Majesty holds include:

Control of Passports –*The issuing and withdrawal of passports are within the Royal Prerogative – this is often used by ministers on behalf of The Queen. All British passports are issued in The Queen’s name.Requisitioning of Ships –*This power allows a ship to be commandeered in Her Majesty’s name for service to the realm. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982."

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs but if you try read it they have alot of power

 

[Stoo82]

The powers of the monarch:


POLITICAL POWERS

The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.

Summoning/Proroguing Parliament –The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.Royal Assent –*It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.Secondary Legislation –*The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.Appoint/Remove Ministers –*Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.Appointing the Prime Minister –*The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.Declaration of War –*The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.Freedom From Prosecution –*Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.JUDICIAL POWERS

The Queen’s judicial powers are now very minimal, and there is only really one which is used on a regular basis, with others having been delegated to judges and parliament through time.

Royal Pardon –*The Royal Pardon was originally used to retract death sentences against those wrongly convicted. It is now used to correct errors in sentencing and was recently used to give a posthumous pardon to WW2 codebreaker, Alan Turing.ARMED FORCES

The Queen’s powers in the Armed Forces are usually used on the advice of Generals and Parliament though some functions are retained by The Queen herself nowadays.

Commander-in-Chief –*The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.Commissioning of Officers –*The Queen’s powers include the commissioning of officers into the Armed Forces and also removing commissions (when members of the Armed Forces salute and officers, they are saluting The Queen’s commission).Disposition of the Forces –*The organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces are part of the Royal Prerogative; the crown technically controls how the Armed Forces are used.HONOURS

One of the main prerogative powers that are still used personally by The Queen these days is the power to grant honours. As all honours derive from the Crown, The Queen has the final say on knighthoods, peerages and the like.

Creation of Peerages –*The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family.Font of Honour –*It is The Queen’s prerogative power to create orders of knighthood and to grant any citizen honours. From the Royal Victorian Order to the Order of the Garter.MISCELLANEOUS POWERS

Other powers Her Majesty holds include:

Control of Passports –*The issuing and withdrawal of passports are within the Royal Prerogative – this is often used by ministers on behalf of The Queen. All British passports are issued in The Queen’s name.Requisitioning of Ships –*This power allows a ship to be commandeered in Her Majesty’s name for service to the realm. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982."

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs but if you try read it they have alot of power

So none.

 

[Seasidesage]

But they dont have power.

They are not there to stop laws being enacted by the commons. They are there the fine tune them. They have changed that in the lat 6 months and that is why they are finnished.

Is law making going to be easier or harder if we elect a 2nd chamber? Just look at the US? How often of the elect contraditery houses? Nothing ever gets through.

Of course they have power. They amend and delay laws, they 'fine tune' them as you say, but to whose benefit and with what authority from the people of the country to do so? It may well be that they often have a positive effect but they also may have a less positive one based on patronage and self interest. While its undoubtedly true that Parliament is exactly the same, that has been populated by elected MP's who can be removed...

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A thought for the brain dead apologists/far left loons that slavishly follow Corbyn .. if a majority of the HoL supported a Marxist/Socialist revolution he wouldn't have said anything ..

 

[Lincoln Imp]

A thought for the brain dead apologists/far left loons that slavishly follow Corbyn .. if a majority of the HoL supported a Marxist/Socialist revolution he wouldn't have said anything ..

With most of the country's voters now at risk of being outed by JC's patented Loonometer I don't suppose adding half a mil Labour Party members will make much difference. Unless they fall into his brain dead category of course. Whatever. They have views that don't accord with old JC's, that's the point. Collaborators and dissidents, the lot of 'em.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

With most of the country's voters now at risk of being outed by JC's patented Loonometer I don't suppose adding half a mil Labour Party members will make much difference. Unless they fall into his brain dead category of course. Whatever. They have views that don't accord with old JC's, that's the point. Collaborators and dissidents, the lot of 'em.

Self-categorised Undemocratic loon tries to hide in the far left Marxist supporting apologist crowd shock. My definition of undemocratic is exactly the same criteria as the Uk has used in all previous GE/referendum results. You are the Remain mirror image of N Farage ..