House Of Lords Reform Vote Dropped

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by mosaix

Subjective again, Thadd. Hardly democratic. Why should your opinion be more important than mine or UMs?

Someone simply expressing an opinion, as everyone else is. Let's discuss the topic, not posters, please.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Someone simply expressing an opinion, as everyone else is. Let's discuss the topic, not posters, please.

I was talking about democracy, Brian. I was drawing attention to the fact that some people don't think there's a need to put a political process to the vote because they're happy with it, regardless of the fact that other people aren't - and that's not democratic. We're not discussing policy here, were talking about the fact that some people's opinions are enforced on me and others - because we have no choice in the matter - and to me that seems to be that their opinion is considered more important than mine.

Thadd, on this occasion, and in this thread, was arguing that I should have no choice in the matter and I was discussing that opinion - not him.

[paranoid marvin]

Personally I see no point in th HOL. We appoint MPs, they make the laws; simple. If we don't like the laws they make, then we just vote for someone else.

I think that all votes in the Commons should be open, and that we should be told - or at least have access to - a list of all the debates they have voted for/against or abstained from. Only that way can we ever truly know who we are choosing to represent us.

Unfortunately most of the time people vote for the colour of the tie than the MP, and the MP votes with their party rather than for what they believe in. Is that cynical? Yes, but it's what I believe.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by mosaix

Thadd, on this occasion, and in this thread, was arguing that I should have no choice in the matter and I was discussing that opinion - not him.

I'm simply asking you to be clear on keeping to the topic, so that you cannot be misread as belittling a different opinion.

[Foxbat]

My opinion (unqualified) is quite simple. I do believe we need a second house as a buffer against the more extreme policies that appear now and again. I do believe there is an argument for this house to be in a position that it can act outside of any voter pressure (and therefore able to argue a case without worrying about voter ire).

I am completely and utterly opposed to any person being allowed to have a say in running this country just because they were born into a specific family. I am also totally against any form of religious representation in any form within this house (it's the only way to be fair to all religions).

How we would choose these people is another matter and, perhaps after all I've just posted, democratic elections are the only way to go. Perhaps candidates nominated on the strength of good they have done for the country (nominated by the people and not any political party).

It is a dream I have

[thaddeus6th]

No harm done. I appreciate that lots of people want a fully or partly elected Lords, but I'm not one of them.

Mr. Foxbat, surely you're not a republican?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Perhaps candidates nominated on the strength of good they have done for the country (nominated by the people and not any political party).

Isn't the danger here that one would end up with the same sort of result as one sees with the honours system, that those who get the big prizes are selected behind closed doors by who-knows-who, they're the well-connected, they may be the same as those who provide donations (which is how they get in the current House of Lords), and there'll be one or two ordinary folk - the equivalent of the lolly-pop lady with the MBE - to pretend that the usual folk aren't getting their usual rewards (for actions done behind other closed doors, actions that many, if not most, of us wouldn't like if we were to hear about them).

Just as well as I'm not cynical about this....

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

I do believe there is an argument for this house to be in a position that it can act outside of any voter pressure (and therefore able to argue a case without worrying about voter ire).

I think that was the idea behind members only being allowed to sit for a single term, Foxbat.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm simply asking you to be clear on keeping to the topic, so that you cannot be misread as belittling a different opinion.

Apologies to Thadd and Brian. I don't think I made myself entirely clear in my original post.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Isn't the danger here that one would end up with the same sort of result as one sees with the honours system, that those who get the big prizes are selected behind closed doors by who-knows-who, they're the well-connected, they may be the same as those who provide donations (which is how they get in the current House of Lords), and there'll be one or two ordinary folk - the equivalent of the lolly-pop lady with the MBE - to pretend that the usual folk aren't getting their usual rewards (for actions done behind other closed doors, actions that many, if not most, of us wouldn't like if we were to hear about them).

Just as well as I'm not cynical about this....

#

Yes, I think there is a danger of what you say. However, I still believe in principle.
And, for the record - yes- I am a republican.

[Moonbat]

I think most of us are for reform, but we can't agree on the exact details, and neither can the MPs.

A second chamber is a good idea, but it should be seperate from Party politics, if that is even possible (I expect it is, the philosophy behind the parties being closer than it used to be should mean that the Lords can vote with their beliefs not their party)

But I was all for voting reform when it came round for MPs and Parliament, I think more people were up for reform than voted for it, because they didn't like the specific type of reform (a cynic might say the Tories gave us the worst possible reofrm to placate the Lib dems yet ensure it wasn't passed) will we get the same thing hear. A vote for reform but for such a poor example of reform that it is voted against and nothing changes?

If we went for a fully voted house of lords, would the Lords end up as corrupt (or at least poercieved to be) as the MPs are now?

[paranoid marvin]

If we can't trust those we are electing, then why vote for them in the first place?

As for rewarding those who do the most good, who would decide? What is the difference between someone who raises money for charity and a lollipop lady who's been doing her job for 40 years? And would either be suitable (or even want) to have the final word on matters of state? I'm sure that either would be more suitable than some who now take their places in the chamber, but is that really what we want?

As I've said , we already have an elected body of men and women to givern the country - what reason would we want another for?

[Moonbat]

we already have an elected body of men and women to givern the country - what reason would we want another for?

In case we can't trust the first lot

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

As I've said , we already have an elected body of men and women to givern the country - what reason would we want another for?

Checks and balances.

There is perhaps another option to a second house - move further down the devolution line and give the devolved assemblies powers as a counterbalance to the Commons.

Edit- Scratch that last comment of mine. I've just thought about it a bit more and doing such a thing would probably cause chaos, be ripe for political point scoring and bring the country to a grinding halt. We don't need all that, we've already got the Coalition to do it for us.

[James Coote]

It would be pointless having an elected Lords, as that just makes it a watered down commons.

Instead, we should make it more a hodgepodge mix of people. Something like this:

25% appointed by the MP
25% randomly picked from a list of people who put their names forward
25% nominated by trade and industry bodies or similar
25% willed: when one of these peers dies or retires, they have to nominate someone to take their place

The idea being that they all want to be there, yet it will be difficult for any one group to ever form a dominant faction.

In fact, the more (sensible) ways to become a Lord, then in theory, the better the mix of people who become Lords

[Ursa major]

It doesn't have to be like a second House of Commons. Other countries manage to have second houses** without all this fuss. (Others don't have a second chamber at all.)




** - Not all, I'll admit, have directly elected members; Germany's, for instance, where the seats in the Bundesrat are appointed by the state governments of the Länder, the number of seats depending on the population of each Land.