BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 08:05 PM

The House of Randoms idea has always seemed a sensible way of doing it - like a jury, but with no compulsion, so if your name came up and you didn't want to serve it'd go to someone else. And I'd maybe put the lower age limit at 40 or even higher, so it'd be a House of Elders as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: John J
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 07:27 PM

Elected on a PR basis may be good.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM

Richard-

We just vote according to who's leading in the poles!


Mr. Red-

"...political lobbying is bug business in the US..." LOL

I would respectfully disagree. There ain't no flies on our lobbyists.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 06:27 AM

this will be a curate's egg

as opposed to a bunch of good eggs?

cash for honours? You ain't seen nothing yet - political lobbying is bug business in the US and we see enough of it in the UK now. Watch this waste of space.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:35 AM

Hmm, Charley, which of those do you (or US voters) apply in relation to the Senate?

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:19 PM

"Some of the robes and stuff could disappear."

Good heavens, what are you suggesting? Are the citizens to be confronted with lords and ladies in their undergarments?

An alternative method of selecting lords and ladies to serve might be:

Armed combat

Intelligent tests

Artistic talent

How long they can hold their breath

How long they can restrain their bladder

How much they can drink of fermented fluids before they become comatose

Whether they can spell

Whether they can balance a checkbook

The worst criteria would be their ability to maximize votes.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble, from across the pond

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Scrump
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:48 AM

I don't agree with the "jury service" idea of compelling members of the public to become "Lords". That would be conuter-productive, because anyone forced into the job against their will would resent that, and be unlikely to do a good job, as their heart woul not be in it.

I realise the intention is to prevent power-crazed megalomaniacs from becoming "Lords" - I'm not sure how to get around this problem.

I agree with the poster who said the title "Lords" should be abolished, as it implies superiority of these people over the rest of us. In fact they are our servants and the HOL should be renamed "House of Servants".

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Dazbo
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:41 AM

For a fully appointed HOL to work I'd have a fixed number of lords (for the want of a better term), say 601, that can never be altered. Once appointed you can only be removed by death, reaching a suitable age (say 75), senility (attested by independent doctors) or convicted of a serious crime with a jail sentence. This way Blair, or any other pm can't flood the HOL to get his/her way. Each political party (with more than one seat in the commons) then takes it in turn to nominate a lord when a vacancy comes up.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Scrump
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:09 AM

"DMcG whilst I agree that in many respects knowing the way your MP voted is important my main reason for going for secret votes is so that the MP can vote the way his concious dictates and not because the party boss want him to vote thereby taking power away from the party and giving it to the MP. Personally I'd love to get rid of political parties and just have independents elected but I can't see anyway in which it would work as political groupings would naturally form."

Secret voting vs accountability: the voting system should be such that an MP's vote remains secret at the time of voting but will afterwards (once the result has been decided) be on record, so how each MP voted will be available for inspection by everyone.

There will then be no pressure on MPs at the time of the vote, to vote against their conscience or their constituents' wishes, just because the party leader (or whoever) votes the opposite way. But afterwards, everyone will be able to see which way they voted.

Use of electronic pads which MPs could vote on and keep their vote secret from their colleagues if they wish, should be possible. Of course they may not need to keep it secret every time, if they're happy for everyone to know. But they will have the option, which is the main thing.

Getting rid of political parties: as I said above, I'd like to see political parties abolished and made illegal, so that belonging to one would be punishable by expulsion and a jail sentence. Whips would therefore not exist. Parties would probably still exist but they would be driven underground. There would be no need for parties to indulge in dodgy fund raising practices such as flogging peerages, as there would be no party advertising needed. Each election would be between individuals with their own policies, not dictated by some twat in Whitehall.

Yes, there would be people who have the same views on each issue, who would group together, but only on that issue. They may differ about other issues and would group with different people for each one. The present system means a party member has to accept all the views of his leader (more or less). Without parties, each MP would be free to vote on each issue and you would get a more representative decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:26 AM

At present Lords are not paid although there is an attendance allowance. This militates against Joe Average sitting there.

We have seen the disaster that appointment can make of the US Supreme Court. Do you really trust TonyB Liar or that warmongering maniac Thatcher with the power to appoint the entire upper house with wheelhorses lke "smuggins" Lawson?

We have seen the total breakdown of civilised and rational debate in the Commons. We have seen the effect of the "dictatorship of the majority" - the government like Thatcher or Blair that has no effective opposition doing steadily and unstoppably more and more harm. An elected upper house would play straight into these faults and remove pretty well the only effective moderation of commons idiocy (for example the Lords was the only place that got any sensible changes, and even then not many, into the Licensing Act).

A "Jury service" chamber would be at the mercy of the civil service - the "Yes Minister" effect.




I tend to think the present upper house works surprisingly well, although there are some four star sycophants like Brenda Dean and Baroness Amos. However Waheed Alli sometimes makes sense. The obvious changes are likely to be worse than the cure. I think I'd go for:

Disqualification on conviction of serious offences.
Remove the God-botherers.
20 paid seats (to replace the bishops) elected by PR UK wide - elections to be at mid-term of commons.
Seats to be physically allocated in alphabetical order or drawn from a hat to stop party blocks.
A new criminal offence of attempting, directly or indirectly on behalf of a political party, to influence the vote of a member of the House of Lords (to stop party whipping).

Otherwise fairly steady as she goes.... No change to the Parliament Acts, maybe remove or water down the Salisbury convention (Lords not to oppose a direct manifesto commitment of the government).

Some of the robes and stuff could disappear.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Dazbo
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:05 AM

DMcG whilst I agree that in many respects knowing the way your MP voted is important my main reason for going for secret votes is so that the MP can vote the way his concious dictates and not because the party boss want him to vote thereby taking power away from the party and giving it to the MP. Personally I'd love to get rid of political parties and just have independents elected but I can't see anyway in which it would work as political groupings would naturally form.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:29 PM

"because the current Labour government have over turned a number of Lords decisions on the basis that they didn't have a mandate as they weren't elected "

As I said, "Blair and his Mad Mates really won't enjoy an elected 'Upper House'"

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: folk1e
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM

The ancient Greeks had a good tradition in that they had a designated spot where ANYBODY could talk about their ideas on how to "run the country". The only proviso was that if the audience thaught they were talking tosh they could fine them! Result, only the Sensible and Wealthy would speak!
Back to good old blighty ..... I want to know just how MY M.P. votes. Also if they have any interests not declared! We do need open ballots and a free (ROTFL) press.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Lox
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

Some interesting points here.

While the house of lords has it's obvious drawbacks, which have been repeated ad nauseam by me, let alone anyone else, it does possess a certain maturity and wisdom, ansd sometimes even demonstrates this, where the commons is a bit more - well - common!

You know?

The yin yang of parliament permits raucous debate in the commons as it is offset by dry rustly debate in the lords. The two political cultures are different.

How can the lords be reformed so that tradition isn't lost?

Perhaps if the lords was elected by PR, then it would be less adversarial by nature, being more likely to seek consensus (the mature approach).

Thus the balance between the sensible lords and the dramatic commons could be continued but in a more representative way.

The fear of the polarised party political atmosphere of the commons trespassing into the lords would no longer be such an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:37 PM

The problem with secret votes is that I can't see how you can then make the MP accountable to the constituency in any way (and the accountability is pretty weak now!)

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Tootler
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:29 PM

I think there should be an elected upper chamber - whatever it is called. Whether or not there actually has been any wrongdoing, recent events have shown that the current system is open to abuse. Of course an elected upper house will bring its own problems.

An elected upper chamber will bring a need to rethink its role as it will have more authority, whether the House of Commons like it or not. I think that a bill should have to pass through both houses before it can become law.

I would like to see an elected upper house be based on something like regions so that thinly populated parts of the UK are better represented than they are at present. It might provide a useful counterbalance to the London-centric mentality we see too much of.

However the upper house is elected, please no party lists. That is a back door form of appointment, though I do think that some form of Proportional representation is needed.

I agree with the proposal for secret ballots in parliamentary votes. That change alone would make several of Dazbo's other suggested changes unnecessary.

The old saying that "all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is all too true and we have seen the effect of too much power in too few hands on both our main political parties in recent years. Apart from the latent corruption (I'm not saying there has been actual corruption, but there has been behaviour that looks too close to the line for comfort) there is the effect of a whole generation feeling disenfranchised and losing interest in the political process. I have seen that effect on my daughter where my wife has almost had to drag her to vote on one occasion - on the very valid grounds that too many people fought for her right to vote for her to just give it away.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:13 PM

All votes in parliament are secret ...
<>Scrump, yes I'd like to get rid of political parties but I think this is impossible unless you have a one-party state hence the idea of getting rid of the whips and secret voting.

I'm in favour of making all MPs stand as independents. They can be inclined towards a party if they like, but only in the same sense that they might be broadly in favour of a particular stance on green issues, or local income tax, or the Olympics or any other issue. Most particularly, the party should have NO authority in the HOC, such as whips, and no role in deciding who stands for election.

As for secret votes - quite the opposite. I'd like to see it made law that when a candidate who has previously been elected stands again, their complete voting record, including missed votes, should by law by printed on every piece of their campaign literature (with a minimum size of font defined!).

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

This is an interesting thread. Whilst I wouldn't mind being called for jury duty I definitely would not want to be called to the HOL so I'm not keen on that idea. I can't think of any other ideas at the moment that other people haven't already mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

Canada is facing a similar issue. We have an elected House of Commons but the Senate is appointed. For life. However, their function is important, and many people see it as a way to gain more regional representation--having that 'body' elected also.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: GUEST,Janine
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM

If it's 100% elected, won't it be just the same as the House of Commons and be quite pointless. At the moment at least there are 'cross benches' where the non political sit - some good people too such as Helena Kennedy and Susan Greenfield. Perhaps HK is a Labour Peer but she's no Blair poodle. We don't need those all male bishops either, telling me how to behave, thank you; OK female bias. Nor the hereditory peers, just because their great great etc grandfather was a Charles ll bastard. We all seem to think it needs reforming so why don't we look to other 'democracies' (whatever they are!!) and see how they function. Perhaps to eliminate the first point and curb the problems of democracy, certain groups could appoint 'electors' who would then vote for the members. Let's get rid of the title 'lord' too: sounds too subservient.Let's abolish the monarchy at the same time.
Jan

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Dazbo
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:28 AM

Scrump, yes I'd like to get rid of political parties but I think this is impossible unless you have a one-party state hence the idea of getting rid of the whips and secret voting.

The "jury service" Lords would cause similar problems to jury service and I'd not be happy that people could opt out without sufficient cause (like it's supposed to be for proper jury service).

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:58 AM

the current Labour government have over turned a number of Lords decisions on the basis that they didn't have a mandate as they weren't elected (or some similar argument). What is the point of an upper chamber that doesn't have sufficient clout?

I agree 100%. It's disgraceful that Labour have continually overturned the Lords' decisions, or if they don't get the right result, they just try again instead of accepting defeat. This all costs us a bloody fortune.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:52 AM

While we're at it let's update the commons too:

Abolish the whips' offices
All votes in parliament are secret
You can only vote if you attended the debate
Voting in elections would be compulsary but with the option "None of the Above".
No new laws or amendments can be made if the party (or parties in the case of a coalition) has less than 50% of the votes cast.
A petition of a suitable size (say 10% of the electorate) can force a general election
No minister can serve in the same position for more than 5 years.
No MP can serve more than 15 years consecutively without a break of at least 5 years.

Some good ideas there Dazbo. Political parties are the curse of our parliamentary system - I'd like to see political parties abolished and made illegal, so that belonging to one would be punishable by expulsion and a jail sentence. Whips would therefore not exist. Parties would probably still exist but they would be driven underground. There would be no need for parties to indulge in dodgy fund raising practices such as flogging peerages, as there would be no party advertising needed. Each election would be between individuals with their own policies, not dictated by some twat in Whitehall.

Then, with a secret ballot, people could vote by conscience or for their own constituents' interests, not just some dictator's party line.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:46 AM

Bunnahabhain: Anyone registered to vote, who is over 30, and has achieved a reasonable level of education , should be entered into a lottery. If your name comes up, you serve a term in the House of Lords. In a stoke, the house should be balanced geographically, racially, and by gender.
The only exclusions should be for criminal offenses, minor ones for a few years, serious ones for life.

Dazbo: I'm in favour of a system similar to jury service: one registered adult is chosen at random from each constituency (criminals and party members excepted) to serve a fixed term.

Interesting idea, making serving as a "Lord" like jury service. There are some obstacles to this: just as with jury service, not everybody would want to do it, and I assume we will be talking about a longer term than just a few weeks. This could have an adverse effect on an individual, depending on their circumstances, with regard to their career, etc., especially if the financial aspects are not taken care of properly. Having people chosen against their will is not a good idea. Maybe anyone who wants to opt out should be allowed to do so, unlike jury service - or do we think that would mean th wrong people would always get in?

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Mr Fox
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:06 AM

When Britain really ruled the waves--
(In good Queen Bess's time)
The House of Peers made no pretence
To intellectual eminence,
Or scholarship sublime;
Yet Britain won her proudest bays
In good Queen Bess's glorious days!

When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
As every child can tell,
The House of Peers throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well:
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George's glorious days!

And while the House of Peers withholds
Its legislative hand,
And noble statesmen do not itch
To interfere with matters which
They do not understand,
As bright will shine Great Britain's rays
As in King George's glorious days!

W S Gilbert

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Dazbo
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM

While we're at it let's update the commons too:

Abolish the whips' offices
All votes in parliament are secret
You can only vote if you attended the debate
Voting in elections would be compulsary but with the option "None of the Above".
No new laws or amendments can be made if the party (or parties in the case of a coalition) has less than 50% of the votes cast.
A petition of a suitable size (say 10% of the electorate) can force a general election
No minister can serve in the same position for more than 5 years.
No MP can serve more than 15 years consecutively without a break of at least 5 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: guitar
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:43 AM

Good Thing

the we can get kick the unelected gentry out, after all Britian is supposed to a demorcacry.(pardon the spelling).

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Dazbo
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:37 AM

I was listening to a couple of Lords (one was a Lady actually) on the radio last week and they were both in favour of a fully appointed chamber. Although there are some advantages in an appointment system one comment that really annoyed me were their comments that they were in effect independent of the party system and could go their own way. This annoyed me because the current Labour government have over turned a number of Lords decisions on the basis that they didn't have a mandate as they weren't elected (or some similar argument). What is the point of an upper chamber that doesn't have sufficient clout?

I'm in favour of a system similar to jury service: one registered adult is chosen at random from each constituency (criminals and party members excepted) to serve a fixed term.

Although why, where soon everyone will be on line the public can't make their own decision on each vote proposed by parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:27 AM

PR and a list system like they have in the Scottish Parliament might be a step in the right direction.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:23 AM

Blair and his Mad Mates really won't enjoy an elected 'Upper House' - just ask Aussie Politicians...

"Well may we say God Save the Queen, but nothing will save the Governor General"

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:21 AM

Public Nominations, of the kind Scrump talks about above would end up as.

1. A political party packs the meeting with it's own members, and gets it own candidate.


2. Respected professionals in an field stand on an issue, eg Doctors standing to fix the NHS.

3. Pop-stars etc, standing for no good reason.....

Plus, they all have the problem of they want to be in power. Never a good start.

My Suggestion.

Anyone registered to vote, who is over 30, and has achieved a reasonable level of education , should be entered into a lottery. If your name comes up, you serve a term in the House of Lords. In a stoke, the house should be balanced geographically, racially, and by gender.
The only exclusions should be for criminal offenses, minor ones for a few years, serious ones for life.

Subject: BS: Elected UK House of Lords - good or bad?
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 06:23 AM

The UK House of Commons (HOC) voted yesterday for a 100% elected House of Lords (HOL). Of course the HOL themselves have to agree before it becomes law, but do we think a fully elected HOL is good or bad? Or do we care at all?

The advantages: we end the system whereby a congenital idiot can have a say in the running of the country simply by an accident of birth; or where a convicted criminal can continue to dictate what the rest of us do, simply because he is still a "Lord".

The disadvantages: the HOL would be as consumed by party politics as the HOC is, to the considerable detriment of the country, IMO. And of course the disadvantage for the government would be how they would be able to raise party funds if they can't sell peerages any more :-)

My idea was that instead of just treating the HOL as a second HOC, which the proposed law would do, why not have the HOL populated by people proposed and seconded by members of the public (like us), rather than decided by the political parties?

I would prefer to see party politics absent from the HOL as much as possible. So instead of just having Lab, Con, LibDem, (etc.) candidates for each seat, nominations could be received from the public and then voted on. The people I would expect to be nominated would be public figures held in high regard for their intelligent and objective views - not necessarily politicians (preferably not!), but maybe broadcasters, writers or academics, or folk musicians of course, or ?? (you decide). Of course I would expect there would be a lot of nominations for pop stars, 'celebrities' or Page 3 girls, but that might not be such a bad thing - anybody would IMO be better than another bunch of feckin' professional politicians. The nominations could then be seconded and voted for online.

This is just an idea I throw into the "maelstrom of speculation". Any comments folks?