[Politics] Goodbye House of Lords!

[Hugo Rune]

This is a brilliant Labour policy.

Labour would abolish the House of Lords

The House would be replaced with a "new, reformed upper chamber", the BBC is told.

www.bbc.co.uk

This sort of disgusting cronyism will be a thing if the past:

“Concerns have also been raised about some of the peerages issued by former prime ministers including Boris Johnson, notably the peerage of Lord Lebedev. Boris Johnson was criticised for some of his appointments to the House of Lords, such as Lord Lebedev.
The media mogul and son of an ex-KGB agent was given a life peerage in 2020 but has spoken just once on the floor of the House.” BBC

 

[Norman Potting]

Good idea but I cannot ever see it happening.

 

[KZNSeagull]

If they are going to go for controversial policies, why will they not advocate re-joining the single market? That will have a far more tangible effect on Joe Public than this.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

If they are going to go for controversial policies, why will they not advocate re-joining the single market? That will have a far more tangible effect on Joe Public than this.

Because that's a potential bigger vote-loser for him/Labour?

 

[fly high]

This is a brilliant Labour policy.

Labour would abolish the House of Lords

The House would be replaced with a "new, reformed upper chamber", the BBC is told.

www.bbc.co.uk

This sort of disgusting cronyism will be a thing if the past:

“Concerns have also been raised about some of the peerages issued by former prime ministers including Boris Johnson, notably the peerage of Lord Lebedev. Boris Johnson was criticised for some of his appointments to the House of Lords, such as Lord Lebedev.
The media mogul and son of an ex-KGB agent was given a life peerage in 2020 but has spoken just once on the floor of the House.” BBC

Think every PM & party leader has given dubious people peerages. Recent one is the odious Tom Watson. About time it was abolished. Limit number to a couple of hundred.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Melvyn Bragg will need his gig at the South Bank Show back.

Labour Peers

 

[KZNSeagull]

Because that's a potential bigger vote-loser for him/Labour?

Any controversial policy is a potential vote loser and this one has no effect on the average person's life. Do they want to just win the election or change the country for the better? If the former they need to put this policy on the back burner, if the latter they need to stick their neck out and do something that is gaining traction in the country and has a real benefit for most.

 

[BadFish]

Good policy, The house of Lords is totally outdated.

 

[Swansman]

Obviously that would be the only sensible thing to do, pretty medieval stuff. Probably this change is easier said than done though.

 

[Weststander]

It’s full of Tory AND Labour cronies. The Great & The Good …. subjective. Mates of Tony, Gordon, Dave.

How about all parliamentarians are purely elected by the public, whether it be one or two houses. All requiring re-election every 5 years.

 

[beorhthelm]

If they are going to go for controversial policies, why will they not advocate re-joining the single market? That will have a far more tangible effect on Joe Public than this.

not sure it'll be that controversial outside the political elite. not a vote loser, no one is going to vote conservative just to keep the house of lords, so its probably a net winner.

my concern would be what they replace it with, i expect a half hearted bodge. they'll have to address primacy of commons in more formal law and how members are elected, probably some PR variant that will ensure power to party alligence. we'll lose the independence of lords to properly oversee and block dodgy legislation.

 

[Frankie]

But what exactly do they do ?

 

[GOM]

..and end up like the USA. One voted for house stops all legislation by the other voted for house, because midterm the party in power is unpopular.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If they are going to go for controversial policies, why will they not advocate re-joining the single market? That will have a far more tangible effect on Joe Public than this.

Best not trigger the gammons till after Labour have won the election.

 

[pocketseagull]

A plan to create 39 new Tory-supporting lords as a matter of urgency, to push through contentious legislation, has been proposed by the most influential political lobby group that advises the prime minister, Boris Johnson.

"Project Homer", a confidential document drafted by Sir Lynton Crosby's C|T Group and seen by ITV News, says that if there had been around 40 additional committed Tory supporters in the Lords, Boris Johnson would have avoided more than half of the defeats he suffered in the second chamber since becoming prime minister.

C|T also proposes what it calls professionalisation of the Tories' operation in the Lords.

It says the loyalty of individual peers could be rewarded by giving them CBEs for political service, making them special envoys or advisors to the prime minister, and giving them lunches and dinners at Chequers, the PM's country residence.

It devises a strategy to prevent too much criticism of what many would see as an anti-democratic ploy by proposing that many of the new peers come from under-represented parts of the country, such as the north and midlands.

It also says that if the list were to contain controversial candidates such as Paul Dacre, editor in chief of the business that owns the Daily Mail, the media and critics would concentrate their outrage on him, rather than looking too hard at the bigger picture.

Some additional context, although Boris is no longer in charge it may've concentrated the minds of Labour.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

not sure it'll be that controversial outside the political elite. not a vote loser, no one is going to vote conservative just to keep the house of lords, so its probably a net winner.

my concern would be what they replace it with, i expect a half hearted bodge. they'll have to address primacy of commons in more formal law and how members are elected, probably some PR variant that will ensure power to party alligence. we'll lose the independence of lords to properly oversee and block dodgy legislation.

Indeed. And as others have said the last thing we want to do is recapitulate the US system where one party (let's face it, its the republicans/alt.right) simply block all legislation from the other chamber if it is not held by their party.

Personally, despite being a labour member, I can't get too exercised over the house of lords in a constitutional context. However, I don't consider that they do much. They have delayed some legislation of a few occasions, but that's all. In return there is a f*** of a lot of them and it must cost a bloody fortune to maintain.

I used to train it up to town with a member of the Lords (not seen him in a while). Patrician old buffer. Sensible. Would I like to see ten of him replaced by something else? Don't know, to be honest.

 

[pocketseagull]

..and end up like the USA. One voted for house stops all legislation by the other voted for house, because midterm the party in power is unpopular.

we don't have midterm parliamentary elections so don't see why we'd copy what the USA does?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Some additional context, although Boris is no longer in charge it may've concentrated the minds of Labour.

Yes, now that there has been a resurgence of egregious abuse, the wind of change may be inevitable, whether there is a workable alternative available to take off the shelf, or not.

One may ask - what is the point of a second chamber? Er, to block laws created by the first chamber? What gives the second chamber that right? At present, nothing. They are all either placemen parachuted in to do political bidding by the government of the recent time, or people who are happy to be called 'lord', 'dame', 'bishop', 'earl', 'baron' etc. and turn up as and when they feel like it, ponce about in their ermine, and leverage a bit of graft for themselves in the real word by wafting their lordly cachet.

Just as I wasn't keen to leave the EU without there being a clear picture of how it would work out, however, I am not super keen to see the lords swept away without a proper succession plan, but I must say I am much more in favour of replacing the lords with something better, than I was in favour of 'just' leaving the EU.

So....first question. Should the new body be elected or appointed? Here is my back of the envelope suggestion:

1. The role of the new body should be to ensure that parliament does not pass illegal laws or violate the constitution (see below).
2. It should have a CEO, a set of senior executives with expertise and responsibility for different aspects of society ('departments').
3. It should have a small number of staff in each department. Simple workstream - the workload should be straightforward.
4. The CEO appointment should be made how? Tricky. If there is a board of trustees, they can manage this. Usual business model.
5. The CEO can manage the recruitment of senior executives - usual employment laws apply.
6. We need a written constitution that encapsulates all the principles governing the relationship between parliament and the new body.

And what about the current earls, barons and lords? Well, hereditary ones can keep their titles, why not. Bit of fun, innit? Of course, they lose any privileges, and the House of Lords can become a tourist attraction.

The new body could, and perhaps should operate in the virtual world. Teams meetings. Perhaps the executives could be co-located with their staff in small easily protected premises dotted around the country. I mean, how much stuff do they need in this day and age? Access to critical information is electronic - they don't all need to ponce around the corridors of the house of lords with trollies laden with old books. FFS.

This delocalization would also bring an end to off-the-record deals done in smoke-filled rooms.

In any case, I'm not sure that apart from a hand full of working lords they actually have much to do, and a lot of what they do do they probably shouldn't be doing. It's like the support staff where I work. They end up inventing things to do - such as reformatting forms that staff are asked to fill every year.

There has been no charge for this world changing plan, and I have recycled the envelope on the back of which I wrote it.

 

[KZNSeagull]

But what exactly do they do ?

They try to turn the crap laws that come out of the Commons into something legally workable, essentially.

 

[macbeth]

if they're up for abolishing medieval, elitist institutions then there's something else I can think of...