House Of Lords

[ComradeDavo]

The latest wrangling over the terrow laws here in the UK got me thinking, is it time we re-evaluated the House Of Lords?

Here is how the Lords work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/h-l/82337.stm

The House of Lords is known as the upper house of Parliament but this does not refer to its importance compared to the Commons.
It is easily identifiable by its red leather seats, as opposed to the green leather of the Commons.

It is where the monarch outlines the government's proposed measures in the Queen's (or King's) Speech.

It had 1,144 members until 1999, when 666 hereditaries lost their sitting and voting rights under Stage One of the Lords reform process.

At present, 92 hereditary peers remain in the upper chamber temporarily under a deal worked out while the government proceeds with the second stage of its reform plans.

The majority of those left in place are also not elected, known as life peers, they are appointed by the prime minister, in the name of the Queen.

There are also 26 Lords Spiritual - the archbishops and bishops.

The Lords began to sit as a separate House in the 14th century with members drawn from the Church and others chosen by the monarch from the ranks of the aristocracy.

In the Middle Ages, the Church accounted for about half the membership.

Powers of the Lords

The first change this century to the power of the Lords came in the 1911 Parliament Act. This came about after the Conservative majority in the Lords repeatedly rejected the Liberal government's budget of 1909.

The 1911 Act stopped the Lords amending finance bills and reduced its ability to delay other bills. These restrictions were tightened further in 1949.

Following these changes, members of the House of Lords now deliberate on and suggest amendments to non-finance Bills, but cannot ultimately veto them.

Under the Salisbury Convention which followed World War II, the House of Lords is expected not to reject manifesto commitments on the grounds that such pledges have been approved by the people.

There is broad acceptance in the upper house that, as MPs are elected and Lords are not, debates on the principles of legislation should be resolved in the House of Commons and that the House of Lords should be merely a revising Chamber, altering some aspects of bills.

Regular question time sessions also take place at which government ministers appear and general debates on a wide range of subjects are held each week

So, what should we do?

Personally, I think we should just abolish them and have more MP's via proportional representation*, but I doubt that will happen, in which case I think we should elect all of the House Of Lords.

Why? Because despite the fact that the government can force legislation through, I still don't like the idea that the unelected Lords will more often than not be able to get some conscessions and alter bills.

Even though I was opposed to the government on the teroor bill this week, I'd rather have elected MP's deciding than unelected peers.

*realistically I think electing more MP's via proportional representation would be far more democratic.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Just to add -

If voting abolish - how would you replace them?

If voting other, what do you think we should do?

Also for non-UK posters, what do you think of our political system?

 

[nonconformist]

Replace the Lords with non-politically aligned guys like scientists. We need checks and balances.

 

[Suppersalmon]

Well all though the idea of the lords seems daft they did the job dureing the issue about the anti-terrorism things by insisitng the sun-set clause which was good IMO. if they had be eleceted it would be full of a dominant parties way and ideology and would really do a smilar thing as the back benches through rebelions while the lordsat the moment should be linked more with constiuanceies such as you should be contact your local lord like your MP to argue your point of view and maybe reduce the numebers the same number as MP's but at the moment i still like the current situation

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Also for non-UK posters, what do you think of our political system?

I think youve done a great job adjusting ancient traditions to the modern world, but you arent done yet. Right now the Lords seem to be functioning as a brake on radical change and that might not be such a bad thing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well all though the idea of the lords seems daft they did the job dureing the issue about the anti-terrorism things by insisitng the sun-set clause which was good IMO. if they had be eleceted it would be full of a dominant parties way and ideology and would really do a smilar thing as the back benches through rebelions while the lordsat the moment should be linked more with constiuanceies such as you should be contact your local lord like your MP to argue your point of view and maybe reduce the numebers the same number as MP's but at the moment i still like the current situation

You have a good point about the fact that if they were elected it would be dominated by party politics, which is why I think they should be abolished and that we should increase the number of MP's by using proportional representation.

I would like to see the number of MP's actually doubled, half being elected as it is today, the other half being elected by nationwide vote count.

Replace the Lords with non-politically aligned guys like scientists. We need checks and balances.

How would they be selected though?

 

[nonconformist]

How would they be selected though?

Natural selection of the fittest.

 

[Suppersalmon]

Replace the Lords with non-politically aligned guys like scientists. We need checks and balances.

How would they be selected though?

you could do this by selecting people who have exceled in their selected fields such as if they have won awards also it may not hurt if a random draw was made to put people in the lords maybe a draw via national insuance numbers with a maximum of a one term serving done 50/50 with the non political people

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Who would do the selecting, the Queen? You guys are recreating the current system

 

[kronic]

Since the UK isn't a federal state, it would be pointless to create a second chamber with elected members. Therefore get rid of the Lords.

Now, if you want to introduce federalism, ...

 

[nonconformist]

It would be "unconstitutional" to rid ourselves of the Lords.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

you could do this by selecting people who have exceled in their selected fields such as if they have won awards also it may not hurt if a random draw was made to put people in the lords maybe a draw via national insuance numbers with a maximum of a one term serving done 50/50 with the non political people

You and nonconformist seem to assume that scientists are non-political, and I think that is a false assumption.

Lots of scientists have been political or have held strong political views; Oppenheimer, Pauling, Sakharov, etc. If you look at them, you'll see that they tend to hold one particular set of political views almost exclusively; so not only are you electing people that have a political bias, but also people that have one particular political bias, giving that bias the edge.

 

[Dida]

I think the Monarchy should be abolished. Who needs Queens and Kings and Princes? Plus, it is not right that these people are born with a natural right to exploit others, to waste the money of the taxpayer.

 

[nonconformist]

You and nonconformist seem to assume that scientists are non-political, and I think that is a false assumption.

Lots of scientists have been political or have held strong political views; Oppenheimer, Pauling, Sakharov, etc. If you look at them, you'll see that they tend to hold one particular set of political views almost exclusively; so not only are you electing people that have a political bias, but also people that have one particular political bias, giving that bias the edge.

They are "unpolitical" in the sense of they are a lot more skeptical and realist than politicians, and are less likely to be affiliated to one party, and ergo, kiss ass.

 

[EdwardTking]

The way I see it, the best way forward depends upon the UK and the EU.

If the UK remains a member and the EU constitution is ratified, then there
would be very little point in having two parallel UK parliamentary bodies.

But if Britain was to declare independence from the EU or vice versa,
and Scotland was to declare independence from the England; two chambers
would be needed for each independent state.

Each should have its own role, and both could be elected, but there would
need to be a constitution prohibiting any party or individual from having
members in both chambers or exerting any power over both chambers.

 

[ComradeDavo]

But if Britain was to declare independence from the EU or vice versa,
and Scotland was to declare independence from the England; two chambers
would be needed for each independent state.

I don't think either of those will happen.

They are "unpolitical" in the sense of they are a lot more skeptical and realist than politicians, and are less likely to be affiliated to one party, and ergo, kiss ass.

Actually some of the most prominent oppenants in the lords against the terror Bill were Labour peers. Hardly kissing party ass.

I agree with SeleucusNicator that scientists do tend to be rather politically biased.

 

[EquinoxOmega]

I'm not from the UK!
I think a elected house of Lords is a good idea, because the systems of two chambers makes some sense and is a basic of democracy.
Note: I'm completely against Monarchies(also constitutonal) and Aristocracy

 

[Goober]

Elected. The Senate/House of Lords should be elected, but in a proportional manner as to represent all provinces/states/counties/whatever y'all have over there in the UK.

For Canada, we have needed an elected Senate for a long time, 2 from each province, 1 from each territory. The Conservatives have whined for ages about it, but its just not a big deal for the time being.

Elected Senates/House of Lords are the only way to go.

 

[Mise]

I think the second house should have its peers not elected, but selected, by the leadership of the parties in the commons. The Lords should ultimately consist of a number of retired members of political parties proportional to the number of votes their parties got. In other words, if party A, B and C get 20%, 30% and 40% respectively, 20%, 30% and 40% of the Lords should belong to party A, B and C respectively, with the Lords being retired, and selected by the respective parties. EDIT: the max % a party can get in the Lords should 49%.

I voted "partially elected", because we don't directly elect them as people, but we do have a say in the political alignment of the House.

 

[bobgote]

I think you've got a good system there. much better than elected lords/senators, because they are less likely to be swayed by party influence. if there was any change, i'd say make the lords directly selected by the queen, rather than through the prime minister who has party influence. of course that may be no good for republicans, but it is the best way of doing it with the monarchy in place.

I'd also say remove the church's right to positions there (if in fact the lords spiritual thing is current), but restore the right for the house of lords to veto any propositions coming through. If something like the budget is continually rejected, the King/Queen steps in and kicks out the government.

That way it is pretty much the same as our system, except you'd have lords hand picked by the queen, rather than our method of proportional election of senators (which works fine for us, but no reason to completely alter your system IMO).