Forum menu
More representative sounds good and its pretty depressing seeing all those bought and paid for party donor peerages handed out and ex MPs shuffled in to have somewhere cozy for their after luncheon naps.
But will it just end up stuffed with failed MPs, and party stooges like police commissioners
And its unlikely that the professor Robert Winston's of the world are going to get a look on
Besides which, would the legislation get past the current HOL ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
Just scrap it.
I'm not necessarily in favour of elected Lords.. At least not unless it was vastly different to the commons.
The Lords does not represent the people no, but it's not meant to. The commons is, but not the Lords. Its job is to catch stuff that's badly thought out or clearly bobbins.
It's supposed to be opposite to the Commons not just more of the same.
The system down here in Oz gives them 6 year terms with half elected every 3 years. Sort of works but the preference voting system has ended up with a few quirky results and people elected with a minute proportion of votes.
As the voting is split and not all aligned with the lower house you can get both houses leaning different ways, forces a bit more compromise into the system and some more challenge to stupid ideas.
It's supposed to be opposite to the Commons not just more of the same.
This !
Really don't want an elected second chamber... Disaster 🙁
That's not to say the current method of filling the second chamber is currently right..
Just scrap it.
indeed
Just scrap it.
great idea, any majority government can push through whatever it likes with no scrutiny or challenge, a more grown up long sighted second chamber should be there to challenge, question and hold the rest to account.
Without too much thought of the practicalities - none actually 🙂
A second house elected via PR using the votes cast at the GE may be worth looking at.
The government keep their first past the post system but the second house is representative of the voting population to keep the law makers in check.
But will it just end up stuffed with failed MPs, and party stooges like police commissioners
And its unlikely that the professor Robert Winston's of the world are going to get a look on
My fear 100%
Who would have to approve the Bill to democratise the HOL and end their nice little gravy train?...
I like the principle, but I would like to see voter turnout significantly increased before that happened. Chicken and egg i know because the idea that 'whoever you vote for the establishment get in' would seem to put some people off voting, but if it happened tomorrow the lords would end up full of a second layer of the same sort of stuff that makes mp's ignore their own consciences and contituents and vote with their parties. Which does not feel like progress either.
And once the HOL is reformed why not have a democratically elected executive Head of State?
What would this Head of State do? Wave at people, launch some ships, host some dinners?
Why would they need electing?
Because they give the final approval to every law passed. I'd like to see an EEHoS with a power of veto or reference back to any laws which should never have reached this stage of nearly being passed but yet have.
And once the HOL is reformed why not have a democratically elected executive Head of State?
Replace the queen with Tony Blair?
Imagine an elected meritocracy, dividing it up by 'discipline' rather than political party grounds. You could have four votes and choose from a list of things into which candidates for the HOL were placed and then picked out at random depending on the share of the votes.
The choices to the forelock-tuggIng citizen could be things like like Establishment/nobility, armed forces (retired), churches/organised religion, medicine/health, social science, judiciary/police, civil service, education, voluntary sector, performing arts, errr, arty/painting arts, sport, economics and so on. That would be fun, until we ended up with a house of lords full of television has-beens. 😆
And once the HOL is reformed why not have a democratically elected executive Head of State?
[img] 
[/img]
Though, knowing the British public, it could equally be
[img] 
[/img]
So you want to give the power to over rule everything to a single person? After 2 elected chambers have voted. The HOS is a ceremonial position in reality so long as that HOS is not getting involved in politics then there is no issue. I'd rather remove the rubber stamp from the Queen than give it to the winner of a moronic popularity contest.
Other nations manage perfectly well with an elected executive president in addition to a two chamber system, so why not the UK? And I see the Goodwin's Law of a President Blair has popped up. Seeing as he's about as popular as something you step in on the pavement I don't think you need worry.
Other nations manage perfectly well
Like America? No thanks.
Yes they do but what is the point? Why do you need another person in charge?
As a protection against a runaway government.
Which a properly elected second chamber gives you, especially if they are elected on a different term and time as the first chamber - see the Australian example.
We don't want an elected House of Lords, we want a representative one.
MY proposal is that every Saturday in the National Lottery, one winner is given the option of a seat in the new HoL for 5 years. They will be well paid, and if living outside a commutable zone, will have a flat provided in London.
There'll be training in civic affairs, and a new set of 12-13 starting every 3 months.
Please give reasons for disagreeing!
You don't appear to have explored the worst case scenario there, ninfan
[img] 
[/img]
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/palmer-united-party-senator-jacqui-lambie-asks-a-22yearold-male-are-you-wellhung-on-heart-1073/story-fnndfy6b-1226997163380
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/sep/09/ricky-muir-alleged-kangaroo-poo-fight-video
2 of the new upper house members in Australia, one who wants to fight china, is a racist idiot with nothing sensible going on between her ears and the other like to chuck shit as his mates.
I'd like people who can read, write, spell and make informed decisions.
I'm surprised Dave & pals haven't put him into the lords already, be a good way of getting him out of their hair.
Moses: as Mike points out above, what happens when Nick griffins name gets pulled out of the hat? Or old hook hands?
Maybe a common sense test needs to be passed? Like how much money do you put in a Romanian beggars cup when cameras are there?
Other nations manage perfectly well with an elected executive president in addition to a two chamber system,
If you are thinking of the US then they don't manage fine at all. Their system is utterly borked, far worse than ours.
Why fix what isn't broken. The HoL works fine as an overview and scrutiny chamber, which is its function. An elected HoL will add extra cost to replicate the party political nonsense in the Commons.
Will/would have unintended and adverse consequences.....
You wouldn't design a second chamber to replicate the HoL and yet it functions as well, if not better, than any other version in the world.
Doesn't need more tinkering, it works very well despite.....
Who would elect the second chamber? The public? I doubt there would be sufficient interest.
The current system actually works very well the great and the good get to guide steer and advise the populist and corrupt . They alone can make a stand on principal against the party whipped robots in the lower house. Our current elected house secedes all it's power to the handful sat around the cabinet table they in turn are prey to their spin doctors and donors.
I cannot make a principaled argument for the House of Lords but it serves us well and works better than any suggested alternative.
What is the role of those poor lads?
[img] 
?size=640x420[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Don't tell me it's got something to do with your massive grand conspiracy and the lizard people, keep it in at least one thread please.
Don't be ridiculous!!
Just curious is all.
Nice thrones don't you think?
I'm not sure about elected, but it's hard to argue against reform. The Lords Spiritual have to go- or at the very least, be made representative of faiths in the UK. Astonishing that it's made it this far tbh. And the election process for hereditary peerages is bizarre too. The gender imbalance is troublesome, as is the way governments can pile new peers in- not much protection from a "runaway government" when you look at how David Cameron worked at filling the Lords with supporters.
"What is the role of those poor lads?"
Well given the UK's "establishment" and the look on their faces I would hazard a guess that their role may involve buggery.
Maybe they just do this:
[img] 
[/img]
It's Guy Fawkes day in 3 days.
The best solution to the HoL.
What, (attempted) murder?
Insurrectional violence in pursuit of the overthrow of a repressive existing order is not murder it is a legitimate right.
"Insurrectional violence in pursuit of the overthrow of a repressive existing order is not murder it is a legitimate right."
Only if you succeed and even then behind your victory lies the shadow of your own executioner.
Gus Fawkes night?
Insurrectional violence in pursuit of the overthrow of a repressive existing order is not murder it is a legitimate right.
That's the spirit.
Only if you succeed and even then behind your victory lies the shadow of your own executioner.
Some self-sacrifice is required if it changes the status quo.
ernie_lynch - Member
Insurrectional violence in pursuit of the overthrow of a repressive existing order is not murder it is a legitimate right.
Good luck with that line of defence.
It really is terrible the extent of repression that we are all subjected to. What a terrible place to live....
aracer - MemberGus Fawkes night?
Nicely done
ernie_lynch - Member
Insurrectional violence in pursuit of the overthrow of a repressive existing order is not murder it is a legitimate right.
Cool. Does that apply if things kick off in Scotland... 🙂
It really is terrible the extent of repression that we are all subjected to. What a terrible place to live....
If its something that stops us people from developing and growing, then it is repression. Not the type of repression that you have narrow definition of.
stops us people from developing and growing
Any chance of some examples of how you are not able to develop & grow?
I, and you , have zero chance of being the head of state. Tenuous and said a little tongue in cheek but it is true. We are limited.
terrible the extent of repression that we are all subjected to
Nice use of the term subject which I am sure you know comes from the Latin: subiectus "lying beneath". Its hard to argue that an unelected chamber is democratic which is why you probably tried to get us to argue about repression than argues it was fair.
. What a terrible place to live
Not really but its not hard to see how we could improve the democratic accountability of this sceptred isle
NW nails it really and there is nothing about this worth defending or praising unless you like deference or tradition.
This made me chuckle though
yet it functions as well, if not better, than any other version in the world.
My country right or wrong ?
What exactly is your evidence for this claim ?Could you explain why so few other countries go for an unelected chamber in your explanation?