Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • House of Lords reform – who want's more politicians?
  • buzz-lightyear
    Free Member

    I am not comfy with the idea of a second house made up of politicians.

    Whilst I’d dead against hereditary, and even life appointment, I somehow think that regular re-appointment by other more independent establishment bodies (Guilds, Business and Trade groups, Universities, Judges, Faiths blah blah), based on merit, is needed.

    * I think a house made up more vote-seeking politicians will be less knowledgeable/sensible than the one we have now.

    * It will be split by party lines and Lords will effectively get “whipped” by the Commons.

    * It will possibly run against the tide of the commons or completely with it. I think a second house is better if it cuts across party political boundaries.

    * As an elected house, it could seek to dispute the Parliament Act which ensures the primacy of the Commons.

    * I find it hard enough to pick an MP, let alone a “Lord”.

    * And it will be election by a PR system? I want that in bloomin’ Commons!

    I dunno. Tell me what to think?

    rogerthecat
    Free Member

    Should be like Jury service – c800 randomly chosen people selected for a 2 year term. Build some halls of residence to house them and pay for temp staff at their place of employment. Whitehall’s finest can advise on the finer points of what can and cannot be done. Got to be better than half the senile old fossils and palm greasers in there now.

    mrmo
    Free Member

    i just want to live in a democracy, which to be brutal is not what we have.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    cynic-al
    Free Member

    mrmo – Member
    i just want to live in a democracy, which to be brutal is not what we have.

    Give us an example of one then?

    br
    Free Member

    Build some halls of residence to house them

    Ok, you volunteeing? Cos I don’t want to have to live in a dorm in London (on a pittance).

    Happy that anyone can stand, with no costs (all state controlled), but once you’ve sat for a period (say 4 years) you are not allowed to try to get elected for government again (except maybe as a Councillor). Same pay/pension/expenses as MP’s – so not as to descriminate against the poor and/or distant.

    buzz-lightyear
    Free Member

    i just want to live in a democracy,

    Even if you hate the effect of a harf-rsed voting system (like I do), doesn’t the General Election to the House of Commons provide national democracy?

    Politicans: they are necessary to represent us and make policy but they know little else but politics. They would dismiss a policy idea that benefits the country if it lost their party votes. The best thing about politicians is that you can vote them out.

    I think the second house should be called The House of Experts, with appointed professionals in something useful such as: law, trade, medical, engineering/industrial, taxation, science, arts, teaching etc.

    They can sensibly amend and delay stupidly/hastily constructed bills from the more reactionary lot in the Commons. Is what I’m talking about.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    i just want to live in a democracy, which to be brutal is not what we have.
    Give us an example of one then?

    plenty get closer than having a chamber made up like our House of Lords.
    I am sure if you think really hard you can come up with something more democratic than an arm of the legislative chamber we dont vote for.

    Their is some independence in the lords that is a good thing as it does weaken [ only slightly] the main parties ability to railroad stuff.
    I am not sure that a chamber voted on party lines will improve this tbh but nothing which involves us voting will be less fair than what we currently have. how we vote and dont get politicians is the great conundrum IMHO

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    You appear to be under the mistaken belief that representative democracy, in which we abdicate power to elected officials, in return for few vague generalities of policy, is designed to enact the will of the people!

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    If this coalition government proves ones thing it proves the clear will of the majority of people have been enacted. We are all happier and better off under the current government than the last one.
    Whats not to like?

    Yes ok fair point.

    mrmo
    Free Member

    Z11, exactly my point, every 5 years we are asked to vote for a bunch of politicians who will then act in whatever manner they choose. Preferably in a manner that gets them elected again.

    Problems begin with if a party chooses to act in a manner not covered by their mandate there is no way of seeking damages/reparations/recall/etc. At least in the Athenian system politicians were held to account through the courts after there term of service. Then we have the big and to be fair it is a huge problem. What is of interest to the people is often not in the best interests of the people.

    I believe that California allows voters the right to block tax rises, so the people want more spent but don’t want to pay for it. In the UK we need to sort out our infrastructure, power stations, roads, houses, etc. But no one wants them anywhere near them so the planning system is a farce.

    How you come up with a system that takes into account the wants of a population and is in their best interest (whatever that is!!!!) i haven’t a clue.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Junky/Mrmo The biggest problem with the ‘clear will of the people’ argument, is that the people often actually don’t know what they want, they’ll vote for two contradictory policies or will vote for things that really are quite illiberal, based upon pure emotion.

    The example above of the coalition is a good one – the ‘will of the people’ wishes to tackle the deficit, but also doesn’t want cuts, they want the police to do more to make the roads safer, but don’t want to be pulled over for speeding, they want to tackle homelessness, but don’t want to see their house prices drop, and they want to reduce alcoholism, but don’t want to see minimum prices. The ‘will of the people’ is often intelligent enough to see what is best for it in the long term, but in the short term, like turkeys, they are unwilling to vote for christmas.

    The furore over a European referendum proves that the political class will never allow the will of the people to reign supreme.

    This works both ways though, otherwise we’d probably have the death sentence again! – Do you think that the seatbelt laws were popular at the time? drink driving laws?

    If you want to weaken the power of politicians, you need one of two things – the right to recall them (which they’ll never give you, as they make the laws) or an armed population who are willing to rebel against the political class when they act against the popular will of the people… unfortunately, we’ve seen all too many times the result of what happens then!

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Guilds, Business and Trade groups, Universities, Judges, Faiths blah blah

    You don’t trust the public to choose the correct people for the Upper House but you trust those in your example – why ?

    buzz-lightyear
    Free Member

    You don’t trust the public to choose the correct people for the Upper House but you trust those in your example – why ?

    I think I do “trust” the public to throw out crappy politicians but that’s about it. I don’t trust politicians to remain independent of more party politics or to have much worthwhile real-life experience; I think. I’m just thinking that people who are charged with amending policy from the Commons so that they make sense should:

    * Have some proper expertise in real stuff other than politics
    * Not be inclined or coerced into putting party politics ahead of a good amendment
    * Be cycled by a process independent of party politics
    * Be selected on merit

    I think people see the 2nd house as a “brake” on the politics of the elected house, and maybe it isn’t that simplistic. That it should provide sensible, broad, wordly and more impartial moderation of policy.

    Public election of such people might lead to a 2nd house full of footballers and pop singers! Actually, that would be quite funny.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Despite the bu$$ers muddle that is the current HoL, I always surprised that despite all the odds, it actually works well as a second chamber.

    Having said that, no-one would ever have designed the current mess deliberately. I wonder if there is a lesson there?

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    I don’t trust politicians to remain independent of more party politics or to have much worthwhile real-life experience

    Surely if everyone agrees with you only independents would get elected ?

    No one is forced to vote for the candidate of a political party.

    Guilds, Business and Trade groups, Universities, Judges, Faiths, blah blah, could all put candidates forward and people could vote for them. Or not.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    I think that you’re very right on the importance of that “constitutional brake” on the inherent political short termism and opportunism of the House of Commons.

    You could argue when this started falling apart, whether it was the introduction the Parliament act in 1911 or later, I think that the wheels coming off only really became evident with the dangerous dogs act in the nineties.

    On the whole though, its been very successful a a revising chamber – I think its suffered hugely as a result of being stacked with appointees from the political sphere. There’ a fairly strong argument that the hereditary lords were actually a good influence, as in some ways (they already had money and status) they were above corruption or opportunism. Barristers and judges clearly are a good influence in drafting of laws, as would be men of faith.

    the importance is that no individual “group” of HOL appointees has a majority.

    I’d be fore 20% hereditary, 20% political appointees, 20% elected, and 10% each from industry/church/law/education

    druidh
    Free Member

    Let’s just go unicameral. It works for plenty of other countries.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    You’re not going to go anywhere on a camel with one leg mate.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Which of these countries would you really like to live in?

    China?
    New Zealand (have you met many kiwi’s? 😉 )

    druidh
    Free Member

    Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

    I refer you to my previous point regards or an armed population who are willing to rebel against the political class…

    buzz-lightyear
    Free Member

    dangerous dogs act in the nineties.

    D’yknow that was the one it brought to my mind as well.

    On the whole though, its been very successful a a revising chamber – I think its suffered hugely as a result of being stacked with appointees from the political sphere.

    Yes, yes. I think this is my point exactly. What we have is a prototype of how it will be when it becomes all politicians.

    kaesae
    Free Member

    We judge people based on thier possition in society and not thier ability, we need to start judging everyone on thier ability to get the job done, the political sector and the judicial sector must stop being a tool for the rich and powerful.

    However real change would require that we all work together and most people would rather moan and then let the politicians get on with it, rather than do what is required to make real change!

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)

The topic ‘House of Lords reform – who want's more politicians?’ is closed to new replies.