House of Lords Reform

[Gmart]

I am not misrepresenting your position, just taking a look at it. You suggest that only those who want to be elected should be used, however i am suggesting that actually we could not limit ourselves to such a small number of people, whose agendas might be suspect.

Thus i think that a certain number (a hundred?) of the general population chosen by lot would add a necessary everyman element. Why not? We do this with Jury Service!! To be honest I am surprised at your opposition...

 

[zion]

I have two questions.

If the main merit of your proposal is that it would draw on the population of people who don't want to run for public office, then how would you motivate the people chosen by lot to accept service? Would you force them to serve? Or would you use the same process as the current jury system - which skews juries toward elderly white people?

 

[Gmart]

A lot of the current House of Lords don't bother to turn up, or worse turn up and just collect the cheque for that, without bothering to do anything. Inevitably there would be some who didn't pull their weight in the same way as there would have been some in greece who didn't really believe in their duty to God etc, (it would be so easy to assume that it was all wonderful etc.)

Still the fact remains that if you do a good job as one of these fictitional 100 odd members of the House of Lords (reformed), then you could be re-elected in the elected part of the chamber. If not then you got a free ride for a bit and the media reported you lack of citizenship, highlighted it and encouraged people not to be so.

I hope you're not upset at what I am suggesting, it just strikes me as a good idea. Also the obvious ideas such as another elected chamber call into question whether it is more representative than the Commons. We have an opportunity to use a bit of vision so why not?

Naturally my idea is a simple lottery, NOT the current jury service system. This was just an example of another 'Everyman' system.

I would also suggest having a certain (small) number of the most popular religions by the most recent census. What joy it would be to see the Jedi faith being represented there!!

 

[zion]

I believe in the separation of church and state. I see no reason why you should have special representation for people who happen to have a particular belief about the supernatural world. If you want a Jedi representative, get a candidate elected who happens to believe in the Jedi religion.

The argument that a fully elected Lords would be "more representative than the Commons" misses the point. First, if your argument about people selected by lot is true, then your Lords would be more representative anyway. Second, the point of a well-constructed representative democracy is not to have as much power as possible concentrate in the Commons but to have as much power as possible concentrate in the hands of people who are elected by the people. The Commons is primary because it is more democratic than the Lords - democracy, not the Commons, comes first. Making the Lords fully elected would therefore simply increase democracy, not threaten it.

 

[Gmart]

I of course agree with the separation too. Though it seems impossible to do in practice. Should Blair and Bush have been denied their position because of their faith?

I certain number of representatives exist in the HoL already, I would certainly like to see their numbers at a low level.

I'm glad you agree that my idea is such a good one. I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't be tried and I would like to see what would happen!!

I would like to see the Commons as the main chamber with its direct link to constituency, the HoL could be made up in different ways, let's have a go!!!! We can always go back to the boring way later if it doesn't work

 

[zion]

Well, how it's done in the US is that no-one can hold elected office as the representative of a religion, but that no-one can be denied an office on the strength of their religious faith. They seem to have worked it out well in terms of their institutions (the candidates are another story)

 

[Gmart]

Oh yeah sure it's great Bush has started a new Crusade to become the Christian Policeman of the World.

The Institutions are better though the monetarist controls which the IMF impose quite often prevent countries from expanding themselves out of poverty. Nice!

Anyway that's for another thread, I am sure that we will not have anything so exciting as my idea. More likely we will get a simple PR cop-out.

Oh well!

 

[gosub]

As the Law Lords are the Highest court in the Commonwealth, a portion of the chamber should be reserved for Commonwealth delegates, to ensure Rumpole's golden thread lives on

 

[zion]

Oh yeah sure it's great Bush has started a new Crusade to become the Christian Policeman of the World.

I'm talking about institutions here. Bush is not High Priest or the priest of any religion. Neither is there a bar that requires any holder of public office to hold to any particular religious faith (unlike in, say, Britain, which still forbids a Catholic to be its head of state).

What you're objecting to is that Bush holds strong religious opinions that you don't like, but in a society with freedom of religion, he can hold whatever religious opinions he likes. And if people don't like that, then they don't have to elect him. He hasn't set up a theocracy, and he has generally respected the separation of church and state in a way that would be thought very secularist in Britain (which provides public funding for religious schools, among many many other examples).

What you seem to be advocating is some system whereby political leaders can have a religious faith so long as they don't try to express or implement it in what they do.

 

[zion]

Gosub,

I see no reason why the Law Lords should sit in the upper chamber at all. And I do think that the upper chamber should provide representation (indeed, in my scheme, overrepresentation) for overseas territories still under British rule. For those that are not, they have their own representatives and their own affairs to manage.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> What you seem to be advocating is some system whereby political leaders can have a religious faith so long as they don't try to express or implement it in what they do.

I think to a certain extent that's what we already have. A political leader expressing strong religous convictions in the UK would pretty quickly have a large number of people deciding that he was nuts. I'm fairly sure Blair has such convictions, but he's extremely careful most of the time not to make a fuss about them or give the impression that they've influenced him in any way.

 

[gosub]

Zion, I can see someone who has spent decades dealing with the application of the law being of far more use in a revising and checking chamber than someone there just for putting up the money for a city academy or some such.

Those territories too small to practically have their own administrative systems are one thing, but those countries which to continue under the umbrella of common law are quite another. It is their prerogative and a flattering one.

Reform of the House of Lords has been muted for twice as long as the Commonwealth existence, is your intention to snub these friends and point them towards the USA as the global champions of "innocent until proven guilty"

 

[zion]

Bernie,

A political leader expressing strong religous convictions in the UK would pretty quickly have a large number of people deciding that he was nuts.

So, if he wanted to be elected, then he wouldn't. Fair enough: that's how people feel in Britain, and they can feel whichever way they want. That's democracy. Here, they're more likely to consider religious convictions a plus, and candidates that do express such convictions are often (in many parts of the country, though not this part) more likely to be elected. That's how people feel in the US, and we can feel about it whichever way we want. There's nothing institutionally wrong about electing someone with strong or weak convictions in this area, provided that a) there's no ban on people of a particular belief, and b) that election expresses the genuine will of the electorate.

Gosub,

The only relevant criterion in a democracy for whether someone should be a political representative is whether people have voted for him or her. If the electorate is impressed with their qualifications, they'll vote for that person. If not, then not. Anything else might be good in its own way, but won't be democracy.

is your intention to snub these [Commonwealth] friends and point them towards the USA as the global champions of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Er, what?

No, my proposal is to treat them as the independent and sovereign states that they are.

I support a republic in the United Kingdom, and if one were put in place, then the other Commonwealth members would of course be free to continue with the Queen as their head of state or not. They would not be eligible to vote in British elections, unless they wished to abandon their independence, just as British voters would not be eligible to vote in theirs.

I think the Commonwealth is a great alliance of nations. I just don't see that it's relevant to British elections, any more than NATO is.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Bernie,



So, if he wanted to be elected, then he wouldn't. Fair enough: that's how people feel in Britain, and they can feel whichever way they want. That's democracy. Here, they're more likely to consider religious convictions a plus, and candidates that do express such convictions are often (in many parts of the country, though not this part) more likely to be elected. That's how people feel in the US, and we can feel about it whichever way we want. .<snip>

Sure you can feel however you want.

The relevance arises when British policy is subordinated to that of the US, whose leader we had no part in electing and whose evident religious convictions disturb most of us about as much as those of Ahmadinejad would, were UK policy subordinated to that of Iran.

 

[zion]

It's very fair for British people to be concerned about this. As a British-American, I feel that Britain got absolutely zip out of backing Bush, and that acting somewhat independently of the United States would benefit both parties in the alliance. But it's highly unlikely, at least under the present administration, that any impulse toward doing that will come from this side of the Atlantic.

 

[gosub]

If it goes down the wholly elected chamber route, then you have a point. I don't think it will.

Personally I find a constitutional monarchy is closer to Plato's idea of a republic than anything called a republic.

The referential precedence of common law mean that decisions do reverbarate around the globe. I only recalled this from Jamaica and its desire to reintroduce the death penalty in the last few years.

 

[Fullyplumped]

If it goes down the wholly elected chamber route, then you have a point. I don't think it will.

Well it did.

MPs have tonight voted for a completely elected House of Lords, in a surprise move that breaks the deadlock over the Government's reform of the Upper Chamber.

Following a two-day debate, the House of Commons voted for a completely elected chamber by 337 to 224, a majority of 113.

Although tonight’s vote is merely indicative and does not automatically become law, it is expected to heavily frame the Government's thinking when it draws up its policies on the second chamber. Jack Straw, the Leader of the House, had earlier given its members a free vote on the issue.

The vote for a 100 per cent elected chamber was considered a surprise, with an amendment favouring an 80 per cent elected/20 per cent appointed chamber having previously been considered the favourite. That had also passed, by 305 votes to 267, a majority of 38.

MPs earlier rejected a number of other amendments, including the 50/50 split favoured by both Mr Straw and Tony Blair.​

 

[zion]

Awesome vote, parliamentary dudes.

 

[gosub]

In the sense that if that goes through, the commons have no come back whenever the Lords kick there ideas into touch

More a case of postioning me thinks

 

[Gmart]

Britain (which provides public funding for religious schools, among many many other examples).

If there were a emoticon for shame I would use it. It is to our great shame that we do this.

So we have a decision, fully elected through a system as yet undecided. I would be surprised if it goes through the House of Lords of course, but it's a positive step. I would have liked to have seen the 'Chosen by Lot' option but maybe that's a bit modern for our system.

Of course the dominance of the Commons will now come into question, as the second chamber might have a more representative cross-section of society!!

This is a good day for democracy though.

 

[gosub]

No we don't have a decision, if the Lords reject it they can try again citing the "democratic will of the people" and the Lords can reject it again, and thhe commons can apply again only for the Lords to reject it, before the Commons cites the Parliament act and rams it through.

Upon which the Parliament act would need to be abolished as the Lords would be the democratic will of the people. (we seem to agree the underpinnings)

On the first attempt,it would be daft for "democratically" elected house to argue for anything other than democracy.



In the mean time the whips in the Lords have an impossible job trying to control appointee Lords (some of whom paid good money to be there allegedly) to stick to the party line while being shafted.

 

[Gmart]

Fun isn't it!!!

I still reck that having a certain number of people by random would have been good, and with this decision a whole can of worms about which chamber will be opened up as to which chamber is the most powerful.

Without the P act, bills could be sent back and forth until the cows come home

 

[gosub]

May I take this opportunity to call you a trolling wanker and ask how the weather is in Italy

 

[Gmart]

Beautiful weather, but I never troll, though I enjoy exploring all areas of any subject and don't let any existing politically correct/unpopular answers get in the way of this.

 

[stupid kid]

A lot of the current House of Lords don't bother to turn up, or worse turn up and just collect the cheque for that, without bothering to do anything.

The last reform, IIRC, got rid of members who voted the least. Getting rid of the dead wood, as they said at the time, surely this leaves the members who vote the most?

Anywho, the current lot have been standing up to the government every now and then. A fully elected second chamber will need to be able to do this. What I hope is a chamber made up of at least 50% indepedents and for is the STV system, which for those that don't know, is like a cross between proportional representation and the additional member system. And anyone who thinks it's too complex can fuck right off. My dog could understand it if I taught him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote

 

[likesfish]

a few people in the mix by lot would'nt hurt though politicos would hate that

 

[Gmart]

Thanx for the vote likesfish

No one else seems particularly interested tho!

I think this has got to be one of the most important issues this government faces domestically.