Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LC0112G]

About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. 

Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Huh? The Lords don't get paid unless they turn up. And your solution is to elect a Senate, so presumably these will be full time politicians who get a full time salary like MP's - regardless if they turn up or not?

There are things wrong with the house of lords, but electing a Senate will make things much, much worse. John Major had it right - "If the answer is more politicians, then you're asking the wrong question."

[Sir Tigger KC]

About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. 

Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

Huh? The Lords don't get paid unless they turn up. And your solution is to elect a Senate, so presumably these will be full time politicians who get a full time salary like MP's - regardless if they turn up or not?

There are things wrong with the house of lords, but electing a Senate will make things much, much worse. John Major had it right - "If the answer is more politicians, then you're asking the wrong question."

So new lieboor got rid of the hereditory peers and now we have an Upper House stuffed full of political appointees.    I agree with your point though about Members not turning up as the green benchs are often empty. 

[LC0112G]

So new lieboor got rid of the hereditory peers

Good. One of the few things they did that I can support.

and now we have an Upper House stuffed full of political appointees. 

Politically appointed (mostly) yes, but less than 30% of them are (ex-)career politicians. You have members that have a wide rage of experiences of life from various religions, charities, arts, sciences, medecine,  law, industry etc. These are the sorts of people that we need to cast an experienced eye over the laws that the wet behind the ears university undergraduates who think they know it all in the house of commons.

http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/media/17348/ucl_report.pdf

What we don't need is another fully elected house full of senators that were too thick to become MP's and fancy their chances in the upper house, being paid a salary and pension regardless of whether they turn up or not.

The current setup is the least worst option IMHO.

[The Sheriff]

The house of commons now has the power to force through legislation without the consent of the lords anyway. So what's the point of having them at all?

[LC0112G]

The house of commons now has the power to force through legislation without the consent of the lords anyway. So what's the point of having them at all?

The power to force through legislation was first introduced in the Parliament Act 1911, so hardly new and preceeds women being given the vote! The act has been used only 7 times in 103 years. The Lords is much less party political than the Commons, and if the Govt can't get the agreement of the Lords for a controversial policy, then in all likelihood it's a carp policy. However if the Govt is convinced it is right, it can force through "the will of the people".  IMV the Lords perform a useful function in moderating the worst stupidity in the commons, and allows a wide variety of different groups of people to express their views. If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.

[The Sheriff]

The house of commons now has the power to force through legislation without the consent of the lords anyway. So what's the point of having them at all?

The power to force through legislation was first introduced in the Parliament Act 1911, so hardly new and preceeds women being given the vote! The act has been used only 7 times in 103 years. The Lords is much less party political than the Commons, and if the Govt can't get the agreement of the Lords for a controversial policy, then in all likelihood it's a carp policy. However if the Govt is convinced it is right, it can force through "the will of the people".  IMV the Lords perform a useful function in moderating the worst stupidity in the commons, and allows a wide variety of different groups of people to express their views. If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.

I wasn't talking about electing a senate, I was talking about abolishing the upper house all together.

[Sir Tigger KC]

If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.

It's a good point actually but I need a new career, so spending my afternoons dozing on a nice red chesterfield is quite attractive! 

[LC0112G]

I wasn't talking about electing a senate, I was talking about abolishing the upper house all together.

Why not go the whole hog and scrap the house of commons too, and just have one elected dictator? Think of the cost savings. Trouble is, Hitler was elected.

The Lords acts as a checks and balances system, representing the status quo. A determined government can force through changes if it really want's to, but it's quicker and easier if the Lords can be persuaded the changes are in the public interest.

In our current system, the governing party rarely gets much more that 40% of the popular vote, and no party has got 50% since the war. So it's difficult to argue that the Government represents the majority view. There needs to be some expert input to and oversight of the laws that the government is proposing, and that's the role of the Lords.

[LC0112G]

If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.

It's a good point actually but I need a new career, so spending my afternoons dozing on a nice red chesterfield is quite attractive! 

You're only Sir Tigger, not Lord Tigger. Pleb

[The Sheriff]

I wasn't talking about electing a senate, I was talking about abolishing the upper house all together.

Why not go the whole hog and scrap the house of commons too, and just have one elected dictator? Think of the cost savings. Trouble is, Hitler was elected.

The Lords acts as a checks and balances system, representing the status quo. A determined government can force through changes if it really want's to, but it's quicker and easier if the Lords can be persuaded the changes are in the public interest.

In our current system, the governing party rarely gets much more that 40% of the popular vote, and no party has got 50% since the war. So it's difficult to argue that the Government represents the majority view. There needs to be some expert input to and oversight of the laws that the government is proposing, and that's the role of the Lords.

Hitler wasn't all bad you know. He was misunderstood, that's all.

[Sir Tigger KC]

If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.

It's a good point actually but I need a new career, so spending my afternoons dozing on a nice red chesterfield is quite attractive! 

You're only Sir Tigger, not Lord Tigger. Pleb

I'm always up for a spot of self advancement! 

I take your point about the Lords being full of expertise and experience, but I'm still not keen on the lack of democracy.   

Perhaps if we go to a fully elected Lords then prospective Lords should be over 40 and have certain experience and qualifications in their field to put themselves forward for election.    It might make it easier for 'ordinary' folk to become Lords or Senators, which wouldn't be a bad thing. 

That would make sure that the career politicians would be ineligible and would ensure better regional representation. It would also make sure that politicians who lose their seat in the Commons, can't be shunted into the Lords to keep them in government. 

[Marks DTM Calib]

About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. 

Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

And what about poor Lord Opti?

[Sir Tigger KC]

About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. 

Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

And what about poor Lord Opti?

He's not poor and a he's too busy rebuilding his orangery and grounds!