• This topic has 24 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by IHN.
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • House of Lords reform – does any non-politico actually GAF?
  • IHN
    Full Member

    So, the Westminster Village is up in arms about the plans for Lords reform, should there be an elected second chamber etc etc blah blah blah.

    Now, I’m pretty interested in current affairs, and I struggle to care. I think it’s one of those subjects where the political classes get all agitated but the man on the street really couldn’t give a toss.

    Am I wrong?

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    If you beleive in democracy, where your representatives are elected and accountable by you, rather than being appointed by someone else, yes you should be bothered.

    loum
    Free Member

    Don’t think you’re entirely wrong, although some folk may say they care a little more than you.
    I guess from outside of Westminster, people see a bigger picture here and don’t really distinguish as much between the two houses with regard to the need for reforms.
    Their petty bickering only reinforces that perception.

    I think those outside of Westminster that are concerned with the political structures and constitution would rather the commons was sorted, and see Lords reform talk as a deflection tactic.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    IHN
    Full Member

    If you beleive in democracy, where your representatives are elected and accountable by you, rather than being appointed by someone else, yes you should be bothered.

    I do, and my representative (my MP) was elected by me (well, I voted for someone else, but you get the picture). And it’s MPs who make laws; the HoL is basically a scrutinising/quality control mechanism.

    So, I’d rather it was populated by people with extensive experience and expertise in law, politics, government, business, charity, religion, sport, culture etc etc who are able to give an experienced opinion on how well/badly the proposed laws would work in practice (so basically the people who are there at the moment). I don’t need to vote for them, indeed I reckon the turnout for any Lords election would be tiny, as, like I said, the man in the street doesn’t GAF either.

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    Although most democracies tend to do well with a fully-elected second chamber. There really is no argument for someone having a veto or delaying effect on legislation just because their grandfather was a crony of a former PM.

    binners
    Full Member

    Its just a retirement home for ex-MP’s. If you had somewhere to look forward too in your dotage, where you got paid a lot of money to have long lunches in a subsidised bar, fall asleep on the plush benches, and occasionally stand up to pontificate and harumph at the great unwashed, then you’re various unaccountable musings were enshrined in law…. be honest…. would you want it changed? Whichever party you used to represent?

    uwe-r
    Free Member

    I do. If ever there was a old boys network type gravy train it is the Lords.

    I would sack them all and allow only long serving civil servants, teachers, nurses etc to stand for election. That would shake it up a bit.

    Aristotle
    Free Member

    It is difficult to know how the Lords should best be populated, but in a democracy of equal opportunities:

    Hereditary peers should have no place in the Lords.
    CofE Bishops should have no automatically given place in the Lords.

    The reality is the Lords has a hereditary head-of-state, the aristocratic remains of a feudal system, representatives of a minority ‘established church’ and hereditary peerages given away/sold in the past and life peerages of varying merit.

    pleaderwilliams
    Free Member

    I think there are a lot of far more important things to worry about at the moment. The problem with an elected HoL, is that, unless we sort out all the other problems with the system we have, it’ll just become another HofC. At least at the moment some of it is slightly removed from all the political party bickering and point scoring.

    I do quite like this idea though:

    I would sack them all and allow only long serving civil servants, teachers, nurses etc to stand for election.

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Hereditary peers should have no place in the Lords.

    Anyone who says this should have no right to comment on Lords reform as there haven’t been any hereditary peers in the Lords since 1999! I take that back apparently there are still 92 Hereditary peers in the Lords. I do agree with your second point though.

    I’m not opposed to an appointed second chamber. It ensures that primacy is kept with the commons and the composition of the second chamber doesn’t become a popularity contest. Given the apparent paralysis that seems to arrise on occasion in the USA then I don’t think an elected second chamber is an improvement.

    binners
    Full Member

    Its worth noting that Call me Dave created 117 new peerages in his first 12 months in office. An enormous amount, with no previous precedent.

    So we’ve never had a government so keen to maintain the status quo? Or return us to the 17th century, depending on your viewpoint

    IHN
    Full Member

    Its just a retirement home for ex-MP’s.

    Except it’s not. Yes, there are ex-MPs and PM, but that’s a good thing – they have relevant experience.

    Who would you rather scrutinise proposed laws on, say, IVF or genetic studies on embryos? Some power-grabbing politico, or Lord Robert Winston who has spent a career’s worth of expertise in the area? And why would/should he stand for election?

    IHN
    Full Member

    CofE Bishops should have no automatically given place in the Lords.

    But there should be some there, as there should be senior RC bishops, Rabbis and Hindu/Sikh/Islamic clerics.

    It ensures that primacy is kept with the commons and the composition of the second chamber doesn’t become a popularity contest.

    Exactly

    Aristotle
    Free Member

    Being a bishop should not exclude somebody from the Lords, but it should not result in automatic inclusion.

    IHN
    Full Member

    No, agreed.

    Although, in answer to my original question, I guess I do GAF 🙂

    loum
    Free Member

    Aristotle (great name btw 😉 ),
    There’s no evidence that we have a “democracy of equal oppurtunities”, so whilst you suggestions are true, they don’t really apply here.

    A remarkable 34% of MPs went to fee paying private schools (compared with a national average of around 7%). Around 54% of Conservative MPs; 41% Lib Dems; and 12% Labour MPs went to fee paying schools.
    • 20 MPs (19 Conservative and 1 Lib Dem) went to Eton, compared with 14 in 2001.

    http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/file/Who-Governs-Britain.pdf

    Although feudal and aristocratic, I’d be interested to know which actual problems are caused by the Lord’s in this country, and how reform would improve them.
    I’m not opposing Lord’s reform, but I think it deflects from other priorities.

    Aristotle
    Free Member

    Children of people who have been determined/ambitious, hard-working, lucky, “clever”(?) and “successful” are presumably more likely to continue that way than the children of people who were not of this type and not exposed to that kind of life whilst growing up.

    In recent decades, a lot of people from formerly poor families have been able to achieve much more than than their predecessors.

    Improving opportunities for all should be the aim. Of course not everybody will take them.

    Maintaining some sort of feudal system because there are other kinds of inequality in our society isn’t a strong argument in my view.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    I’d be interested to know which actual problems are caused by the Lord’s in this country, and how reform would improve them.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-lords-will-provide-bishops-paid-up-to-27000-for-attending-parliament-7870135.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8564649/New-House-of-Lords-expenses-system-costing-taxpayers-millions.html

    http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/20/ermine-and-expenses-an-insight-into-the-house-of-lords/

    And if being a Peer of the Realm makes you think you’d want to live in the UK, think again. On the last allowances register four Lords listed their primary addresses as overseas, with three of those having settled down in La France.

    IHN
    Full Member

    and how reform would improve them.

    You didn’t answer that bit

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    The idea that the second chamber is not chasing re-election is appealing.

    What exactly have the lords done wrong recently (apart from some of the having inherited money or coming from a class that STW doesn’t much like?)

    kimbers
    Full Member

    so really you cant see any problem with being nominated to the upper house of our government based on the amount of money youve previously donated to the party of your choice?
    not only that but its a life appointment and in this case life really does mean life!
    a 3rd of the lords are over 75, its a retirement home ffs!

    what ive just described sounds like something out of a banana republic not a modern democracy

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Does the ‘feudal’ system actually prevent people from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds from achieving their potential though?

    IHN
    Full Member

    so really you cant see any problem with being nominated to the upper house of our government based on the amount of money youve previously donated to the party of your choice?

    I’d imagine that this happens a lot less than people like to think. Indeed, whenever there’s been the slightest whiff of it, all hell has let loose.

    not only that but its a life appointment and in this case life really does mean life!

    And?

    a 3rd of the lords are over 75, its a retirement home ffs!

    Or populated by people with a huge amount of experience.

    The idea that the second chamber is not chasing re-election is appealing.

    Exactly

    What exactly have the lords done wrong recently

    Is what I’d like to know. What they did do was but a mighty kybosh on the lunatic NHS bill. An elected chamber would not have, as it would have been much more tied to party lines/whips

    What I’ve not heard, here or elsewhere is what it is about the current functioning and role of the HoL that means it needs to change.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    I’d imagine that this happens a lot less than people like to think. Indeed, whenever there’s been the slightest whiff of it, all hell has let loose.

    for about 5 minutes….

    eg Robert_Edmiston

    He has also been a backer of the Conservative Party, which he supported with a £2million loan, later converted into a donation.
    He was one of the businessmen behind Midlands Industrial Council, a Conservative Party political campaigning organization.[
    In 2005 The Times reported that he was on a list of proposed new working peers;[9] however, his nomination was overtaken by the “Cash for Peerages” scandal and was blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
    On 19th November 2010 it was announced that Edmiston is to be created a Life Peer. He sits as a Conservative in the House of Lords, with the title Baron Edmiston of Lapworth in the County of Warwickshire.

    Curry tycoon Sir Gulam Noon was also interviewed during the police inquiry into whether peerages were offered in return for donations and loans. No charges were brought as a result of the lengthy investigation, leading to criticism of the police inquiry and its cost.

    He gave £737,826 to the Labour Party between May 2001 and April 2010, as well as donating £17,000 to David Miliband’s unsuccessful leadership campaign.

    Other Tory supporters in line for peerages include Sir Michael Bishop, former boss of the airline BMI, City financier Stanley Fink, who has given £2,064,066 to the party since 2003, and Andrew Feldman, a close associate of Mr Cameron’s and a former chief fund-raiser and chief executive of the party who has donated £55,270.

    According to BBC research, donors being given Conservative peerages have given a total of £4,678,636 to the party between them

    IHN
    Full Member

    Okay, didn’t read it all, but fair enough.

    But who’s to say that a donation to a party won’t get you their nomination/backing/marketing clout as a candidate in the newly elected chamber?

    I still go back to my point about not understanding how the functioning of the HoL will be improved by any reform.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

The topic ‘House of Lords reform – does any non-politico actually GAF?’ is closed to new replies.