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

[beorhthelm]

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?

see debate and division over exiting EU. on the basis of the referendum and the vote in parliament, the government has won, so should now continue without further scrutiny by anyone, right? effectively you can end up with a quasi-dictatorship, if government controls all mechanisms for creating and passing legislation. having an unelected chamber gives a substantially different view, a longer term, more objective outlook than the next election or promises to the core base supporter. dont assume "the establishment" doesn't have similar interests to yours, dont be threatened by the status quo, sometimes less, well considered change, is better.

we should look to reform the make up of the HoL. keep some old ministers, they have oodles of knowledge and experience after all. keep appointed lords, from business, science, various groups, again they have experience and interests that are relevant to many pieces of legislation. make the rump of the house appointed through some transparent system, i'd favour appointment by district/county to give as broader a national view as possible. have no whip or a small nominal number (some will have natural allegiance so may as well note it). set a long office, 10 even 20 years and a minimum attendance or out. thats most objections with HoL sorted, keeping the advantages.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Yeah, but I was thinking more how it would be elected? A form of PR or FPTP (and, if so, how would it be defined?).

I'd think you'd run a senate on county lines. The size of a counties population reflecting how many senate seats are allotted to that county.

Each party and independent in each county can nominate their representative for the senate as opposed to the lower house.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Oh dear. Well, I blocked him some time ago so I am mercifully unmolsted by his old bollocks, but you could report him to a mod and see if he might be banned. Its probably time.

I find his name-calling and aggression tiresome but one of the reasons I decided on Remain - not the most important reason, probably about 15th, but certainly on the list - was the nature of many of those promoting Leave. You can judge an argument by the company it keeps. JC's online unpleasantness fortifies that view and so I am happy to accept his contempt as he calls me, and millions of others, undemocratic loons and all the rest.

 

[Gwylan]

I'd think you'd run a senate on county lines. The size of a counties population reflecting how many senate seats are allotted to that county.

Each party and independent in each county can nominate their representative for the senate as opposed to the lower house.

The problem with that system is that will very closely mirror the make-up of the HoC - how would minority parties be represented? The attraction of a second chamber, to me, is that will give a voice to smaller parties and genuine independents

 

[wellquickwoody]

Are you capable of posting an opinion without slagging off somebody?

Could you ask TLO the same question please?

 

[seagullsoverlincoln]

This. The HoL is an affront to democracy. We elect a parliament and then allow an unelected bunch of inbreds the power of veto over of the elected governments policies.

These

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The problem with that system is that will very closely mirror the make-up of the HoC - how would minority parties be represented? The attraction of a second chamber, to me, is that will give a voice to smaller parties and genuine independents

If a preference system is implemented then smaller parties can preference their votes to another party who shares similar values.

Which means people can preference their senate votes in order of who they wish them to go to.

For example, if Sussex were allotted 6 senate seats it would end up being a breakdown of potentially 3-4 parties gaining a senate seat.

So if in order to get a senate seat you need a hypothetical 10,000 votes out of say 70000 voters then it comes down to preferences.

The Torries get 20000 votes(2 seats), Labor gets 20000(2 seats), Lib Dems 10000(1 seat).

Now, in order for the last senate seat to be decided they will look at how many votes each party or person has after those votes are calculated.

So we have 20,000 votes left

Hypothetically each of the majors has 3,000 votes going into the preferences count. There is however an Independent who received 5000 votes.

There is also 6000 votes from other small parties or independents. If half of those votes second preference was the independent they now go to the independent who is now up to 8000 votes.

They then go through the preferences of the major party voters and as it turns out of the 9000 voters preferences there is enough for the independent to gain the 2000 votes required and they gain a senate seat via preferences.

At present under this system there are 11 senators not aligned to the 3 major parties in Australia which allows them more freedom to vote on singular issues and to vote on their voters views on issues to a greater degree. It can also be very beneficial for certain constituencies if their independent is holding balance of power in the senate as they can use the leverage to get better deals for their county.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

In principle I have no issue with abolishing the HoL - my problem is whatever replaces it has to be better. Straight elections I can only see ending up exactly like the HoP elections - a political bun fight. I quite like the [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] of a senate style 2nd chamber but then I think the randomness of it could result in the likes of Nibble serving.

As for abolishing the monarchy ? No way. The head of state should be removed from politics - exactly as the Queen is. The thought of us getting a Trumpesque HoS .... well .....

 

[Gwylan]

In principle I have no issue with abolishing the HoL - my problem is whatever replaces it has to be better. Straight elections I can only see ending up exactly like the HoP elections - a political bun fight. I quite like the [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] of a senate style 2nd chamber but then I think the randomness of it could result in the likes of Nibble serving.

I can see that the idea of Nibble or Das being anywhere near the reins of power would be a concern but the chances that the majority of people would be like that would be remote.

I see it like a jury: yes, you're going to get looneys/thickos/racists etc - I served on one jury where the one juror dismissed prosecution evidence from a black doctor as "all blacks are liars" and another where a juror voted for acquittal because she fancied the defence barrister, but 11 sensible voices nullified this effect. Yes, if we had 100 senate members there would be perhaps 20 or so who are detached from reality but the rest wouldn't be (and we'd have my appointed permanent members too).

 

[KZNSeagull]

I believe that the Lords should only be partially elected. You want the brightest and best scrutinising law-making. The brightest and best do not generally go into politics. Being appointed a "Lord" is an honour that should be and can currently be bestowed upon those that are the best in their field regardless of their politics That would end if it was entirely elected imo. People should be appointed based on their ability to do a good job rather than their ability to do what they are told.

 

[rippleman]

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...

Agreed. And the House of Lords can't work when the Prime Minister of the day just appoints more Peers of their particular colour in order to force through legislation that might otherwise be defeated / delayed. Just like ol' mother May did last week (on a good day to bury bad news)

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Agreed. And the House of Lords can't work when the Prime Minister of the day just appoints more Peers of their particular colour in order to force through legislation that might otherwise be defeated / delayed. Just like ol' mother May did last week (on a good day to bury bad news)

Just a point of order - May did indeed appoint extra Lords but only 9 Tories and only one of those was a true Brexiteer. So they aren't going to help her given each Lords vote she's lost she's lost by between 30 to 100 votes.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't think people fully appreciate on what basis some of these people are selected and made Lords.

I had professional dealings with a guy who was a former UK diplomat and UN Ambassador to a Middle Eastern country, BBC trustee and advisor to Chatham House. He was made a Lord by an outgoing Prime Minister and then sat in the House of Lords for five years or so. A man with vast experience,very humble with it. I don't think he would have been keen to get involved with an electoral race but was very happy to bring his experience to Parliament when asked.

And I think the HoL do a pretty good job of scrutinising legislation and actually poring over the nitty gritty.

This quality is not lost on me in the week that I watched Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes admit to the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committe that she hadn't read the Good Friday Agreement - a document of a mere 35 pages. This as I wade through considerably more text than that to ensure my business doesn't fall foul of the new GDPR rules coming into effect tomorrow.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I don't think people fully appreciate on what basis some of these people are selected and made Lords.

I had professional dealings with a guy who was a former UK diplomat and UN Ambassador to a Middle Eastern country, BBC trustee and advisor to Chatham House. He was made a Lord by an outgoing Prime Minister and then sat in the House of Lords for five years or so. A man with vast experience,very humble with it. I don't think he would have been keen to get involved with an electoral race but was very happy to bring his experience to Parliament when asked.

And I think the HoL do a pretty good job of scrutinising legislation and actually poring over the nitty gritty.

This quality is not lost on me in the week that I watched Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes admit to the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committe that she hadn't read the Good Friday Agreement - a document of a mere 35 pages. This as I wade through considerably more text than that to ensure my business doesn't fall foul of the new GDPR rules coming into effect tomorrow.

I agree with this. It is the general view that the upper house should be elected but if we want to avoid a carbon copy of the Commons I'm not so sure. The power and patronage of the two main parties often reduces MPs to lobby fodder: faced with the power of the party whips too many MPs put the interests of the nation to one side. I've always had a soft spot for rebels, whether or not I agree with them.

I am sure that there is a case for a large number (at least) of Lords being the result of ex-officio appointments - main board directors of FTSE companies, senior trade unionists, leaders of religious and other belief groups, public servants, entrepreneurs, charity and community workers... people who have actually achieved something in their lives and won't trade their expertise for personal advantage. And the ability of party politicians to influence appointments should be strictly controlled.

 

[Billy the Fish]

The good news is that William and Harry are both seemingly good eggs and will continue their grandmother's popularity. Hopefully this means the monarchy will be around for a least a generation and we won't have to suffer a power hungry politician being or head of state

 

[Billy the Fish]

On the HOL, agree largely with what @Pavillionaire and [MENTION=12947]Lincoln Imp[/MENTION] have written above.

You only have to look at the house of commons to see that elections don't guarantee quality candidates or a functioning government. It just needs a few tweaks, to abolish it would risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.