nonconformist
Miserable
As I said-aolishing, or otherwise changing the Lords is currently unconstitutional, and out political system prohibits it.
House Of Lords
- Thread starter ComradeDavo
- Start date
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
It could be changed. Labour could change it if it really wanted to, every single Labour MP would get behind it and it's majority would be huge because every single Lib Dem MP would also back it. The current House of Lords is conservative biased, and you can be damn sure that every Labour and Lib Dem MP would support moves to change the system.nonconformist said:
Plus, it would probably be a vote winner for Labour, i'm sure many people who left them over Iraq would come back if Labour said they would change the House Of Lords.
Mise, that kind of happens already.
Also, that would curerently see the House stuffed full of Tony's cronie's, leadership does not mean party when it comes to Labour these days.
nonconformist
Miserable
ComradeDavo said:
Nope. Remember, Davo, that the UK is in fact, technically, not a democracy at all!
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Of course it can be changed by Parliment, we might not be technically a democracy, but if Parliment wanted to it could get rid of the Monarchy.nonconformist said:
Laws can be changed!
Does anyone know the legal technicallities on issues such as altering the House Of Lords and abolishing the Monarchy? I'm sure it could be done in practise, but the current system would need altering.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
To partially answer my own question.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/r-s/82104.stm
The last stage of a bill is royal assent.
As this page says -
So if parliment were to pass a bill dissolving the monarchy and/or altering the UK political system, in reality the Monarch would consent to it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/r-s/82104.stm
The last stage of a bill is royal assent.
As this page says -
So if parliment were to pass a bill dissolving the monarchy and/or altering the UK political system, in reality the Monarch would consent to it.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
Didn't your glorious revolution already set the precedent that Parliament is more powerful than the Monarch? I mean, Parliament basically declared that a King had abdicated and then gave another king the right to rule. Not only does that establish that the power to rule may come from Parliament, but it, along with numerous other acts, such as those dealing with succession, also show that your Parliament has a lot of power to effect the structure of the entire governent, monarch included.
nonconformist
Miserable
They are the Queen's Laws, and therefore, she can veto them.
]Jsut like the General Election is a mere tken election (albeit a functioning one).
]Jsut like the General Election is a mere tken election (albeit a functioning one).
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
I adressed this issue in my last post....nonconformist said:
nonconformist
Miserable
I'm nt sure this s quite accurtate in practice.ComradeDavo said:
Mise
isle of lucy
No I mean that the number of labour party supporters would be proportional to the number of votes labour get. In other words, PR for the House of Lords, but we don't directly elect them as politicians.ComradeDavo said:
RealGoober said:
I voted indifferent mainly because it's not my business how other democratic nations run their government, but I will say that my opinion on the Canadian House of Lords (we're only kidding ourselves calling it a Senate) is get rid of it.
New Zealand seems to be the only one with the common sense to not bother with an Upper House. A complete and utter waste of time and money, elected or otherwise.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
I understand what you mean, my problem with it is that you say the leadership of the parties would get to choose, rather than the parties get to choose. When it comes to Labour, there is a differenceMise said:
Not a bad idea in general though, would be better than the system we have. Still, i'd rather abolish the House of Lords and have more MP's via proportional representation.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
I hope the English people do whatever they want with the House of Lords, but hopefully, that'll be wishing to democratize/disband it.
sysyphus said:
Canada's Senate should be reformed or abolished, but it wont, since it mean opening up the constitution, which almost nobody wants.
I don't see the complete uselessness of an upper house. The Aussies seem to have a working Senate.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
You could use an upper house to be based on regional voting district, like both houses are in the US, where you vote by candidate, not by party*. Especially if they serve longer terms than the lower house, making them less susceptible to the current political reaction, this will create a better system of checks and balences. Even if they don't serve loinger terms, it still won't be utterly dominated by one party or coalition.
* In terms of what it says on the ballot, not necessarily in terms of mindset.
* In terms of what it says on the ballot, not necessarily in terms of mindset.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
I think we should leave it as it is. The fact that they are unelected is exactly what makes them work in our democracy.
Just imagine if they were elected we would have the same bunch of mindless MPs voting in the 2nd chamber as their leader in the HofC tells them to. MPs all too often vote as they are told in the hope of getting a cabinet post or indeed becoming a Lord one day. Once they are in the Lords however, they can no longer be bought so easily. Hence their relative independence.
Just think of the laws that virtual-dictators Thatcher and Blair would have passed if they didnt have an independent sop to their extremes? The recent terror bill would have sailed through with hardly a murmur for example. Indeed it could easily have been much harsher if Blair knew there was no independent HofL to question it.
As it is the opposition is drowned out in the HofC, and people apparently want the same to happen in the 2nd chamber???
And yes proportional representation would reduce the chances of this happening but it has been quite possible that both Thatcher and Blair could have had 51% of the vote. What a nightmare!
Ultimately the HofL does not have any real power. They can just be an independent thorn in the side of the government and make them think a bit more about what laws they want to pass.
I think some people want change for changes sake. An institution that has made our democracy work for hundreds of years must have something right about it.
Just imagine if they were elected we would have the same bunch of mindless MPs voting in the 2nd chamber as their leader in the HofC tells them to. MPs all too often vote as they are told in the hope of getting a cabinet post or indeed becoming a Lord one day. Once they are in the Lords however, they can no longer be bought so easily. Hence their relative independence.
Just think of the laws that virtual-dictators Thatcher and Blair would have passed if they didnt have an independent sop to their extremes? The recent terror bill would have sailed through with hardly a murmur for example. Indeed it could easily have been much harsher if Blair knew there was no independent HofL to question it.
As it is the opposition is drowned out in the HofC, and people apparently want the same to happen in the 2nd chamber???
And yes proportional representation would reduce the chances of this happening but it has been quite possible that both Thatcher and Blair could have had 51% of the vote. What a nightmare!
Ultimately the HofL does not have any real power. They can just be an independent thorn in the side of the government and make them think a bit more about what laws they want to pass.
I think some people want change for changes sake. An institution that has made our democracy work for hundreds of years must have something right about it.
Scuffer
Scuffer says...
People who are elected can be bought in return for campaign funds, be bullied by big interests, and act narrowly in the interests of their constituants. Unelected people can stick two fingers up at all this and can concentrate on doing what they think is right.
I would be happy to change who gets to sit in the House of Lords, but I would not want to see them elected.
I would be happy to change who gets to sit in the House of Lords, but I would not want to see them elected.
bobgote
Trousers
it has been working for a long time, but not much longer. the liberals now have control of both upper and lower house and they're about to kill student unions and i've heard stuff about industrial relations changes as well.Babbler said:
realistically though, an upper house should be what prevents a democratic nation turning into the mob-rule as comes naturally to democracy. it maintains some sort of rationality and stability to it. It's only when the government has control of both (like now) that the system fails.
on the topic of the queen and her powers, i woulda thought it's much the same as her powers in australia (that is, through the office of the governer-general) in that she can kick out the government if it fails at something. I'm sure that she could choose to do so if they tried to remove the monarchy.
Similar threads
- Locked
