Lord Reforms

[dune]

Fingers crossed enough Tories vote down the fast tracking bill, if for no other reason than SaintAndy666 will cry.

[badgerx16]

Fingers crossed enough Tories vote down the fast tracking bill, if for no other reason than SaintAndy666 will cry.

 

It might even bring down this bl00dy coalition farce.

[dronskisaint]

Not a huge confidence booster if the Tories don't even know what they want in their (coalition) bill?

[dune]

It might even bring down this bl00dy coalition farce.

 

Well the wishy washy Liberals wanted AV and Lords Reform. It looks like they will get neither. Nor should they. The public are simply not interested in either.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

They've been trying to do this since 1911 and until the people 'get over' their love affair with the 'blue bloods', Lords reform will never happen.

[Wade Garrett]

The Lords needs reforming, hard to find fault with the proposals to be honest.

[badgerx16]

The Lords needs reforming, hard to find fault with the proposals to be honest.

 

Agreed, but it's fun to watch the Tory front bench squirming around trying to appease the LDs against the will of their junior MPs - and an innovative solution, if you think you are going to lose a vote, just withdraw it.

[View From The Top]

The Lords needs reforming, hard to find fault with the proposals to be honest.

 

I would suggest that the vast majority want reform but the proposals put forward seem flawed to me.

 

Plus it really fu.cks Clegg off.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm all for Lord's reform but this was a dog's breakfast of a bill.

 

15 year terms, AV and party list system is hardly democratic and will do nothing to change the Lords.

 

I heard that boring bufoon Paddy Pantsdown on the BBC waffling on (using 5 words when 1 would do) on how it was a point of principle that in a modern democracy nobody should have a role on the basis of family history or who they know . Perhaps he thinks Queenie was elected. He went on to make the claim that the poll tax and the Iraq war would have been stopped if there was an elected Lords. This dispite claiming that an elected Lords would not be a threat to the Commons and that the will of the commons would always prevail.

 

He geniunely seemed to think he could, in the same arguement, claim that the Iraq war would have not happened, but that the Commons would be able to force laws through as they do at present.With chumps like Pantsdown in the Lords there is a real need for reform, but this bill would give us even more Pantsdown's than we have now.So it's a no from me.

[pap]

The party list system is actually extremely democratic when it comes to apportioning votes. The only problems with it are the loss of constituency link and the way political parties use it, basically putting all their preferred candidates at the top of the list.

[alpine_saint]

Why does the Lords need reforming ?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

We should be cutting back on politicians.

[solentstars]

They've been trying to do this since 1911 and until the people 'get over' their love affair with the 'blue bloods', Lords reform will never happen.

i agree unfortunately the peasents still love the lords ,its about time we stopped being scared of more democracy and had a fully elected second chamber to keep a eye on the winner takes all first chamber.

the trouble is most of the right wing of the tory party have used lords reform to trying to unseat cameron has leader to impose their ideological purity and want to force him to follow their agenda and take them back to the nasty party of the 80s..

[pedg]

The party list system is actually extremely democratic when it comes to apportioning votes. The only problems with it are the loss of constituency link and the way political parties use it, basically putting all their preferred candidates at the top of the list.

 

Not really a problem with the lords/second house though as there is not such link at the moment to be lost. As to the second point how else should they order their candidates?

[solentstars]

We should be cutting back on politicians.

the reforms would reduce the lords to 450 mps which is still to high but agree their are to many mps which could be reduced by 50 %

[CB Saint]

If we are going to reform the Lords can we set some selection criteria.

 

1 No career politicians. Anyone who has been a commons member is excluded.

2 A minimum level of experience from the real world (15 to 20 years) this can be from business, education, health,

3 No party affliations, whips etc.

4 The ability for the commons to overule the lords wishes removed.

[pap]

Not really a problem with the lords/second house though as there is not such link at the moment to be lost. As to the second point how else should they order their candidates?

 

I like the party list system, but those are the common criticisms of the system. On paper, it's extremely representative, but if the Party selects a load of yes men, then it could really damage the function of the Lords.

 

You're completely correct about the constituency link in the Lords context, though.

[Thedelldays]

How would it make anything better?

[pap]

If we are going to reform the Lords can we set some selection criteria.

 

1 No career politicians. Anyone who has been a commons member is excluded.

2 A minimum level of experience from the real world (15 to 20 years) this can be from business, education, health,

3 No party affliations, whips etc.

4 The ability for the commons to overule the lords wishes removed.

 

I like this, and to be fair to the Lords, they have made attempts to get 'real' people in before.

 

How would you feel about allocating Lordships by lottery? Anyone who meets the criteria above is eligible.

[solentstars]

If we are going to reform the Lords can we set some selection criteria.

 

1 No career politicians. Anyone who has been a commons member is excluded.

2 A minimum level of experience from the real world (15 to 20 years) this can be from business, education, health,

3 No party affliations, whips etc.

4 The ability for the commons to overule the lords wishes removed.

sounds good to me but i cannot see the mps and die hard brain dead supporters of these partys spreading more democracy because of self interest and hopefully they get rid of the silly lords title .

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If we are going to reform the Lords can we set some selection criteria.

 

1 No career politicians. Anyone who has been a commons member is excluded.

2 A minimum level of experience from the real world (15 to 20 years) this can be from business, education, health,

3 No party affliations, whips etc.

4 The ability for the commons to overule the lords wishes removed.

 

My god you are right.

 

Can I add no celebrities.

[alpine_saint]

Why does the Lords need reforming ?

 

How would it make anything better?

 

Do any of you lot getting so het-up about this want to take a few moments to answer two perfectly reasonable ways to ask the same basic question, and therefore explain why the rest of us should be getting so worked up as Clegg, his goons, his sheep and his acolytes ???

[bridge too far]

My god you are right.

 

Can I add no celebrities.

 

That's a broad brush. For example, I think David Puttnam (sp?) is doing a good job.

[pap]

Do any of you lot getting so het-up about this want to take a few moments to answer two perfectly reasonable ways to ask the same basic question, and therefore explain why the rest of us should be getting so worked up as Clegg, his goons, his sheep and his acolytes ???

 

I'm not really getting het-up about it, but it does strike me as profligate that we have so many Lords who can't even be bothered to turn up. Hereditary lords are also something of questionable value. If an employer were looking to fill a position, they'd be looking for the best person for the job, not the eldest son of the bloke who did it last time around. However, that problem is hardly constrained to the Lords. We use that method to pick our heads of state

 

The Lords should matter. Our system of government is essentially an elected autocracy. Once elected, the government can do anything it wants with the knowledge that crap decisions will see them turfed out at the next poll. I see the Lords' function as curtailing the worst excesses of ideological vandalism. That's a fairly important job, so it'd be nice if the "hiring strategy" was reviewed every once in a while.

[dune]

Why does the Lords need reforming ?

 

Because under the current system the Lib Dems have fewer seats than under a revised system. That's why the tree huggers are so desperate for reform.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The party list system is actually extremely democratic when it comes to apportioning votes. The only problems with it are the loss of constituency link and the way political parties use it, basically putting all their preferred candidates at the top of the list.

 

This was my point.

 

Paddy Pantsdown was complaining that the make up of the Lords was based on who you know or who your father was. An elected Lords based on his chosen method would also be based on who you know. Instead of just appointing their "friends" they would just put them at the top of the party list. As for "who your father was", I think Queenie may have reached the Head of State that way.

 

The Lib/Dem position is this; an elected Lords, but from a party list system. Eventual removal of any herditary principle, apart from the head of state, no referendum on the changes, and The Commons only gets 2 weeks only to debate it.That's why it'll get chucked out, it's a shiete ill thought out bill, worked out on the back of a fag packet and used as part of a grubby little deal between coalition partners.It's no way to go about reform of our consituation.

Edited 11 July, 2012 by Lord Duckhunter

[pap]

The Commons only getting 2 weeks to debate it is surely by design, Lord D. I'm sure the Lib Dems would have preferred it to be debated at the beginning of Parliament, rather than at the end of it.

[alpine_saint]

I'm not really getting het-up about it, but it does strike me as profligate that we have so many Lords who can't even be bothered to turn up. Hereditary lords are also something of questionable value. If an employer were looking to fill a position, they'd be looking for the best person for the job, not the eldest son of the bloke who did it last time around. However, that problem is hardly constrained to the Lords. We use that method to pick our heads of state

 

The Lords should matter. Our system of government is essentially an elected autocracy. Once elected, the government can do anything it wants with the knowledge that crap decisions will see them turfed out at the next poll. I see the Lords' function as curtailing the worst excesses of ideological vandalism. That's a fairly important job, so it'd be nice if the "hiring strategy" was reviewed every once in a while.

 

Explain to me how the "upper house" fails to do that in its current form. Bills are being sent back to the Commons all the time.

 

Personally, I dont see the stupid petty ideologies pervading decision making in the Lords. What I do see is a small group of extremely intelligent and experienced men and women attempting to ensure that when law is passed, it is good law. And in that respect, the current system is already working.

 

Just because some of you class-warriors dont like the "hiring strategy"....

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Commons only getting 2 weeks to debate it is surely by design, Lord D. I'm sure the Lib Dems would have preferred it to be debated at the beginning of Parliament, rather than at the end of it.

 

The 2 week timetable was put in to stop opposition Filibustering and the Commons getting bogged down with endless amendments and votes.

[pap]

Explain to me how the "upper house" fails to do that in its current form. Bills are being sent back to the Commons all the time.

 

Personally, I dont see the stupid petty ideologies pervading decision making in the Lords. What I do see is a small group of extremely intelligent and experienced men and women attempting to ensure that when law is passed, it is good law. And in that respect, the current system is already working.

 

Just because some of you class-warriors dont like the "hiring strategy"....

 

If your contention is that we've had no bad laws make the statute books because the Lords has been doing a bang-up job, you may wish to review the past thirty or so years of history. Then get back to me.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If your contention is that we've had no bad laws make the statute books because the Lords has been doing a bang-up job, you may wish to review the past thirty or so years of history. Then get back to me.

 

The problem with bad laws getting through is too much whipping and too many members of the Government. Once you take into account all the pps' and other assorted Govt jobs, and also the strong arm tactics of the whips, there aren't enough independantly minded MP's to block bad legislation.

[pap]

The problem with bad laws getting through is too much whipping and too many members of the Government. Once you take into account all the pps' and other assorted Govt jobs, and also the strong arm tactics of the whips, there aren't enough independantly minded MP's to block bad legislation.

 

Which is precisely why I described our current political system as an elected autocracy. Practically, and for all the reasons you mention, that's what we have.

 

Alp's contention is that the Lords in existing form is working because it sends legislation back. I actually don't think it sends enough legislation back. Look at the massive erosion of civil liberties that happened after 9/11. The loss of habeas corpus, detention without trial or the extremely one-sided extradition treaty with the US.

 

The Lords are accountable to no-one save the justice system. They're under no pressure to deliver, or indeed, even turn up. They get to continue being Lords unless they do something ball-breakingly stupid, such as end up in chokey - and even then - some still remain Lords.

 

Under the current setup, the means of selection undermines the function of the house. A democratically elected second chamber is a lot harder for the whips in the Commons to ignore.

[alpine_saint]

If your contention is that we've had no bad laws make the statute books because the Lords has been doing a bang-up job, you may wish to review the past thirty or so years of history. Then get back to me.

 

I didnt say that.

 

And I find your implication that a fully-elected upper house would prevent bad law being made as one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on here.

 

After all, a fully-elected lower house thought those laws up and drafted them in the first place....

 

One question: Do you wish to discuss this sensibly, or will you maintain your left-wing superior patronising tone in your posts ? Let me know, it will save us both a lot of time.

[alpine_saint]

A democratically elected second chamber is a lot harder for the whips in the Commons to ignore.

 

Why ?

 

If we have an elected Upper house, it will become politically polarised, and we will have the US situation where either the lower house tries to make law and the upper house blocks it all, meaning nothing gets done, or everthing the lower house proposes gets passed, including crap law, which is essentially the autocracy you claim to fear.

 

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Edited 11 July, 2012 by alpine_saint

[solentstars]

Maclean, the former Tory MP for Penrith, (whose true constituency was the Fortune 500 company index) and the type of person that gives yobs and muggers a bad name, apparently pleads ‘not guilty’ and sees no wrong nor conflict of interests using his House of Lords seat to forward agendas of bribery and corruption by lobbying for foreign governments and money-grasping commercial interests, while claiming the maximum expenses possible (£5,500 quid per month) from the British taxpayer’s purse.

 

Inquiries by the Daily ****raker have established that Blencathra, in his unqualified arrogance, has lobbied on behalf of the Caymans while claiming thousands of pounds in taxpayer-funded House of Lords attendance allowances.

 

Since being elevated to the Upper House, Blencathra has abused his position to personally lobby Chancellor George Osborne to reduce the burden of air passenger transport taxes on the Caymans – then facilitated an all-expenses-paid trip to the Caymans for three senior MPs with an interest in the islands over the Easter recess, including the chairman of the influential Conservative backbench 1922 Committee – all of whom are followers of the Church of Mammon - the Cayman Islands official religion. yes we have some great crooks who can still get paid to line their own pockets and interests..

[pap]

I didnt say that.

 

And I find your implication that a fully-elected upper house would prevent bad law being made as one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on here.

 

After all, a fully-elected lower house thought those laws up and drafted them in the first place....

 

One question: Do you wish to discuss this sensibly, or will you maintain your left-wing superior patronising tone in your posts ? Let me know, it will save us both a lot of time.

 

See post #32. An elected House of Lords will be harder to ignore when it rejects bad law.

 

I completely take your point that the Lords will only be as good as the people it elects. If it becomes a clearing house full of yes men, may as well not have it. However, the current system is equally, wilfully abused. Just look at Baroness Warsi as an example; never elected to any office - but put in the Lords so the Conservatives could have her in Government.

 

I'm always willing to discuss matters sensibly, Alps - but the level of respect I'm willing to dish out tends to reflect what I'm responding to.

[dune]

I agree with Labours John Reid.

 

"These proposals will completely undermine the authority of the Commons and sweep away the grounds on which that authority is based," said John Reid, a Labour peer who held ministerial posts as an elected member of parliament in Tony Blair's government.

 

"Anyone who believes they can introduce a new chamber of elected senators with a term three times as long as MPs', and constituencies much larger than MPs', without that becoming the superior house is deluding themselves."

[Verbal]

Which lord has reformed? Or is it just another of Dune's illiterate musings?

[dune]

Which lord has reformed? Or is it just another of Dune's illiterate musings?

 

I'd rather be illiterate than a mental case.

[CB Saint]

See post #32. An elected House of Lords will be harder to ignore when it rejects bad law.

 

I completely take your point that the Lords will only be as good as the people it elects. If it becomes a clearing house full of yes men, may as well not have it. However, the current system is equally, wilfully abused. Just look at Baroness Warsi as an example; never elected to any office - but put in the Lords so the Conservatives could have her in Government.

 

I'm always willing to discuss matters sensibly, Alps - but the level of respect I'm willing to dish out tends to reflect what I'm responding to.

 

I'll take your Warsi and raise you a Sugar and a Mandleson

[pap]

I'll take your Warsi and raise you a Sugar and a Mandleson

 

Not sure they are even remotely comparable. Alan Sugar could probably win an election on the basis of name recognition alone. The monkey-hangers returned Mandelson as their MP three times in a row.

 

Warsi has never been elected for any office. The one and only time she tried, she got a lower share of the vote than the previous Conservative who tried. All this in the midst of a national swing towards the Conservatives. She seemingly has no career to speak of before politics (ok, she started a law firm, but then I technically run an international consultancy firm ).

 

Both Sugar and Mandelson distinguished themselves before becoming Lords. What did Warsi ever do but fail, and why is she a peer?

[dune]

Not sure they are even remotely comparable. Alan Sugar could probably win an election on the basis of name recognition alone. The monkey-hangers returned Mandelson as their MP three times in a row.

 

Warsi has never been elected for any office. The one and only time she tried, she got a lower share of the vote than the previous Conservative who tried. All this in the midst of a national swing towards the Conservatives. She seemingly has no career to speak of before politics (ok, she started a law firm, but then I technically run an international consultancy firm ).

 

Both Sugar and Mandelson distinguished themselves before becoming Lords. What did Warsi ever do but fail, and why is she a peer?

 

I think we all know why she's been trotted out.

[pap]

I think we all know why she's been trotted out.

 

Yes, because the Conservatives want to be seen as an inclusive party. They clearly think that Warsi ticks a number of boxes for them.

 

That's a reasonable position, but why they didn't just select her for a safe seat, I don't know.

[buctootim]

Yes, because the Conservatives want to be seen as an inclusive party. They clearly think that Warsi ticks a number of boxes for them.

 

That's a reasonable position, but why they didn't just select her for a safe seat, I don't know.

 

But its indicative of a weakness in the Tories. Labour have a number of able Asian women with real careers who are there on merit, whatever you think of their political views. The Tories are scrabbling around to find one, anyone, to tick the box.

[solentstars]

Yes, because the Conservatives want to be seen as an inclusive party. They clearly think that Warsi ticks a number of boxes for them.

 

That's a reasonable position, but why they didn't just select her for a safe seat, I don't know.

i agree i expect cameron wants to be a moderniser of his party and inclusive one nation tory rather than a old pensioners party stuck in the last century.

[pap]

But its indicative of a weakness in the Tories. Labour have a number of able Asian women with real careers who are there on merit, whatever you think of their political views. The Tories are scrabbling around to find one, anyone, to tick the box.

 

Ultimately shows how out-of-touch they are. As an exercise in attracting votes, Warsi is a disaster. She will cost the Tories far more votes than she ever earns them.

[dune]

Yes, because the Conservatives want to be seen as an inclusive party. They clearly think that Warsi ticks a number of boxes for them.

 

That's a reasonable position, but why they didn't just select her for a safe seat, I don't know.

 

Safe Tory seats are usually rural and I know we are all instructed to think we live in a harmonious cosmopolitan utopia, but in reality in rural areas (such as where I live) it wouldn't go down well with a good many people. Much in the same way someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg wouldn't connect with constituents in Barnsley.

[pap]

Safe Tory seats are usually rural and I know we are all instructed to think we live in a harmonious cosmopolitan utopia, but in reality in rural areas (such as where I live) it wouldn't go down well with a good many people. Much in the same way someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg wouldn't connect with constituents in Barnsley.

 

Why wouldn't it go down well, dune?

 

I can buy the idea of a swing away from the Tories in such a constituency, but a complete collapse of support? Do you think this is because safe-seat Conservatives might be a bit racist, or is it simply the potential mismatch of an urban Asian woman representing the interests of presumably rural support?

 

If it's the latter, that could have been easily solved. They could have moved Rifkind out to a rural constituency and given Warsi Kensington.

 

What do you reckon?

[dune]

Why wouldn't it go down well, dune?

 

I can buy the idea of a swing away from the Tories in such a constituency, but a complete collapse of support? Do you think this is because safe-seat Conservatives might be a bit racist, or is it simply the potential mismatch of an urban Asian woman representing the interests of presumably rural support?

 

If it's the latter, that could have been easily solved. They could have moved Rifkind out to a rural constituency and given Warsi Kensington.

 

What do you reckon?

 

I reckon she's a horrible woman that no-one would want to be honest.

[pap]

I reckon she's a horrible woman that no-one would want to be honest.

 

Apart from the Conservative Party.