Idiotic proposals for House of Lords reform (rant)

[ChickenGuy]

As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The upper chamber was AND IS doing a perfectly good job with its current composition. They provide an effective counterbalance at scrutinising the bills that pass through the Commons and as far as I'm aware most of the Lords amendments are sensible and reasonable. I've never had any cause to complain.

But now they want to politicise the chamber and remove ANY consensual debate by forcing them to stand for election. The U.K. isn't a third-world dictatorship with a despotic government. There is no need for us to waste time and money in this ridiculous exercise. I DON'T CARE if they're appointed, and I DON'T WANT to vote for them. Really wish we could get away from this stupid idea that electing people automatically makes things somehow better. IT DOESN'T.

These proposals are nothing but a confused muddle of half-baked ideas and it all just looks like a complete dog's breakfast:

- Cutting the number of members from 826 to 450
- Peers serving non-renewable 15-year terms
- Elections to take place every five years, with one third of seats up for re-election
- Members to represent different regions
- First elections to take place in 2015, then 2020 and 2025, with existing members being "phased out"
- The remaining 90 members (20%) would be chosen by an Appointments Commission, on a non-party basis
- The number of Church of England bishops in the Lords to be cut from 26 to 12
- It would still be called the House of Lords, but members would not have the title "Lord", with parliament to decide on a new name for them

But what about the Crossbenchers? There's about 200 of them, nearly a third of the House. No-one is going to vote for non-affiliated independents in a ballot. Are they going to be erased from existence? If so, that's disgraceful. This is what I mean by the unneccesary politicisation of the whole system.

Upper house elected to fixed terms with one-third rotation. Hmmm. Sound familiar? Reminds me of how they've replaced the Law Lords with the new 'Supreme Court' *makes sick noises* and how we're now going to have General Elections of fixed four-year terms *makes more sick noises*

That's right, let's all just run after the United States system. Never mind centuries of history and tradition that served us all perfectly well. Now we must all copy the United States, as if that damn country is the ONLY model of government in the entire bloody world. The E.U. is doing the same.

I'm sick to death of this awful federalism that is slowly creeping and pervading every single aspect of this country, as decreed either by Liberal Democrats or their masters in the E.U. country-making project, where all remaining power is given over to yet another EVEN MORE federal system.

And yes I DID once vote Lib Dem but whilst I agreed with their social and economic policies and even agreed with proportional representation for the Commons, I never agreed with their views on anything to do with nationality that they clearly want to force upon us.

I already decided a while back I'll be voting UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) from now on, I already voted for them last E.U. elections.

You may be surprised but I'd rather keep my foreign policy, economic policy, immigration policy, elections, representation AND system and composition of government all BRITISH.

 

[palbert]

As a former colonial, I quite agree. God Save The Queen. Would our Senate so attendant the country's affairs.

 

[rareboy]

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

The age of the Lords is over.

After they kill the HOL, hopefully the Canadian 'Senate' will be the next to be abolished. And then after that, the US senate could do with a housecleaning.

 

[Benvolio]

The British political system is the most sucessful in the history of the world. It allowed them to become the government of a quarter of the world, to be the most powerful country inthe world for a centuty or better, to develop the industrial revolution, to lead the world into representative democracy. Most of the countries of the world have copied the British system in one degree or another. It is a mistake to tinker with its political system without a compelling reason.

 

[Benvolio]

"Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

 

[Kulindahr]

I think this would cover all the concerns while keeping the tradition:

1. Impose two-year 'terms'. Each lord would sit for two terms then have a term off.

2. Forbid new bishops sitting in the house; as the bishops die off, their replacements are church officials only.


The total number is effectively reduced. The church involvement gets cut by attrition. Lords get time off, but not so much they lose touch.

Lords has provided an anchor of stability through the centuries -- something all countries would do well to model, rather than trying to try to look like something else.


So, who's proposing this crap? and why?

 

[hotatlboi]

From what I know about the House of Lords, these sound like sensible reforms to me. It's basically a transition of this house from a system where power is inherited by being from an elite aristocratic class to one where power is given through the people's consent.

 

[Stardreamer]

Good Lord! electing the Peers? What's next outsourcing the throne to a private contractor?

 

[Kulindahr]

From what I know about the House of Lords, these sound like sensible reforms to me. It's basically a transition of this house from a system where power is inherited by being from an elite aristocratic class to one where power is given through the people's consent.

How has the Lords in its current condition been harmful to liberty?

 

[broadshoulder]

How has the Lords in its current condition been harmful to liberty?

Sometimes, yes. I will never forget when the very unpopular poll tax laws were going through in 1989 the Thatcher government shipped in every doddery "backwoodsmen" avaiable to make up the numbers. People were rolled in to make up the numbers in passing a very destructive divisive law. So yes, they did interfere.

At heart it is undemocratic. Givng a say in laws because one of your ancesters slept with Charles II hundreds of years ago is not a qualification for power. They are doing the right thing making it democratic. The stunning thing is that a Tory government is doing it.

I cant wait for "The End of the Peer" show.

 

[Benvolio]

Fundamental changes to the power of the HOL were made by the Blair Administration, and it now has virtually no power. The real power has been with the House of Commons for many decades. The HOL is now primarily a part of the British heritage. But, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

 

[rareboy]

At one time, the House of Lords probably had a more educated and more complete perspective on the workings of government. In fact, without the great progressives in the Commons and the Lords, some of the great pieces of legislation promoting democracy and equality might never have been developed.

But the idea that the inbred sprog of a stagnant 'nobility' should be entrusted with steering the ship of state is nonsense. There are many more equally and better qualified representatives available to provide sober second thought on any piece of legislation. Unfortunately, patronage lifetime appointments tend to stack the chamber with the inept and the inattentive and electing them just creates the same stupid mess as one finds in the US.

If it were up to me, any legislator from the Commons/Congress who had served more than 10 consecutive years as a lower house representative would then be elevated to the Senate, to serve at the pleasure of the Commons/Congress.

Try that for awhile.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sometimes, yes. I will never forget when the very unpopular poll tax laws were going through in 1989 the Thatcher government shipped in every doddery "backwoodsmen" avaiable to make up the numbers. People were rolled in to make up the numbers in passing a very destructive divisive law. So yes, they did interfere.

At heart it is undemocratic. Givng a say in laws because one of your ancesters slept with Charles II hundreds of years ago is not a qualification for power. They are doing the right thing making it democratic. The stunning thing is that a Tory government is doing it.

I cant wait for "The End of the Peer" show.

How does the Prime Minister shipping in yokels show the House of Lords acting against liberty???

As for democratic, I really don't care if it is, so long as it protects liberty. If a government with life seats in "The House of Founders" for those born on the founding day of the country worked to protect liberty better than an elected body, I'd be for it.

The only thing that sets democracy apart is that generally the people don't choose anyone worse than any other form has ever given us. But the great trouble with democracy is that everyone ends up getting what the majority of those who bother to vote deserve. Right now the US is getting what the idiots who elected Tea Party candidates deserve; a House of Lords would be better for liberty (and probably the economy) than that body right now, by far. Democracy is dangerous, as a number of U.S. Founders and Framers warned.

Come up with a way to weed out the bozos. Maybe let the Queen kick one out on her birthday. Let the Prime Minister boot one on New Year's.

Or go the other way: seat every last individual in the former British Empire who is allowed to tack a "Sir", "Lord", or Lady" on his or her name.

Or go with education: only those with a college degree can be seated. Want to be tough? only those with a master's in something, and honorary doesn't count.

Have some fun: run a chess tourney, and all those who lose their first two games are booted.

Be weird: seat all Olympic athletes, or let them challenge a lord they think incompetent to a game of croquet or lawn bowling.


The beauty of a move to reform something is the chance to try something new, while not destroying the old. Merely trying to make something look like something already in existence is sad.


Frak, make it a reality show: put them on TV and let viewers vote the doofs off!

 

[ChickenGuy]

UPDATE

BBC News - Lords reform: Government abandons crucial vote amid likely defeat

The coalition has dropped plans for a crucial vote on its plans to reform the House of Lords after it faced likely defeat over the issue.

Up to 100 Conservatives were expected to defy the government and oppose the plan to limit the time available for debating plans for a mainly elected second chamber of Parliament.

Ministers said they were still "committed" to the plans.

But one senior Conservative MP said the plans had "lost moral authority".

And this line from the BBC Political Correspondent:

"Nick Clegg's dream of reform of the House of Lords has slipped away."



I hope this is the end for these ill-thought out proposals.

I think that the coalition government should instead beef up the Lords Appointments Commission, whose job it is to suggest appropriate people for being granted a life peerage (non-hereditary) who now make up the vast majority of the Lords.

So why not continue to bring into Lords a variety of people; leaders of industry, teachers, nurses, military officers, scientists, philanthropists, the arts, etc. Independent free-thinkers, and LESS politicians. There's far too many former MP's automatically ushered into the Lords as soon as they retire from the Commons.

So long as those appointing are independent and neutral and come up with a broad base of talent from a variety of sectors, then I have no problem leaving things as they are.

 

[Kulindahr]

I wouldn't mind seeing some reform, but reform is supposed to imply improvement -- and what they had wasn't.

 

[broadshoulder]

How does the Prime Minister shipping in yokels show the House of Lords acting against liberty???

Because they are unelected. That's undemocratic. Because one of the ancestors got his/her legover with Edward III they inherit a title whicc allows them say in a modern democracy. It allows them say in genuinely harmful laws which affects the common man.

How can someone with a sillver spoon in his mouth know anything about the ordinary man?

Or go the other way: seat every last individual in the former British Empire who is allowed to tack a "Sir", "Lord", or Lady" on his or her name.

Yeuch [shudders]

 

[star-warrior]

The problem with hereditary peers is that they're unaccountable to anyone but themselves. They're not elected, but there because one of their ancestors happened to fall into favour with the monarchy or were landed gentry that may have been royal bastards. I think despite their historical roles, some of the hereditary peers actually do a good job in considering legislation that the elected house sends them.

I do not relish seeing the House of Lords being replaced with an elected alternative, mainly because when you bring in new people who don't know what the fuck they're doing, they tend to be lead like sheep by those who would seek to persuade them into the party line, rather thinking independently for themselves. The Queen has seen off a slew of prime-ministers, governments and political debacles in her continuous reign for the last 60 years which added stability to our way of governance, there are some in the Lords who have had long years of experience and their expertise perhaps gives the house the stability and respect it ought to deserve.

 

[Benvolio]

Does the House of Lords have any power?

 

[Kulindahr]

Because they are unelected. That's undemocratic.

So it's undemocratic. How is it harmful to liberty?

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem with hereditary peers is that they're unaccountable to anyone but themselves. They're not elected, but there because one of their ancestors happened to fall into favour with the monarchy or were landed gentry that may have been royal bastards. I think despite their historical roles, some of the hereditary peers actually do a good job in considering legislation that the elected house sends them.

I do not relish seeing the House of Lords being replaced with an elected alternative, mainly because when you bring in new people who don't know what the fuck they're doing, they tend to be lead like sheep by those who would seek to persuade them into the party line, rather thinking independently for themselves. The Queen has seen off a slew of prime-ministers, governments and political debacles in her continuous reign for the last 60 years which added stability to our way of governance, there are some in the Lords who have had long years of experience and their expertise perhaps gives the house the stability and respect it ought to deserve.

That's why I suggested there should be a mechanism for getting rid of the dregs.

Constant elections aren't conducive to liberty in a body meant to hold to stability and a long view on things. The trick is to come up with a way to clean out the trash.