Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Reforming House of Lords

My gut feeling is it does need reforming, and 80% elected will certainly be an improvement of sorts, not sure if there's a perfect solution for everyone TBH.

I also feel a referendum will be a waste of time and money, as most people don't seem that interested and/or don't even understand the current system and are unlikely to be bothered in trying to understand whatever the final proposals are or even vote on them.
 
What do you think?
does seem unfair to me how people in such nationally prominent positions are chosen at free will by others high up, or by inheritance.

I also feel a referendum will be a waste of time and money, as most people don't seem that interested and/or don't even understand the current system and are unlikely to be bothered in trying to understand whatever the final proposals are or even vote on them.
then also true people wouldn't turn out to say whether they want reforms enthusiastically. Better parliament just push through reforms and let voters put people in the Lords whenever they elect MPs
 
People need to get more interested in this. I will not rest until our current system of parliamentary democracy has been tinkered with! Tinkered, I say!
 
My gut feeling is it does need reforming, and 80% elected will certainly be an improvement of sorts, not sure if there's a perfect solution for everyone TBH.

See, I can't agree with you, because the Lords as currently constituted contains some non-partisan (or so-called "crossbench) peers, whereas an (80%) elected upper house will mean a far greater likelihood of senators merely being partisans of each major party, i.e. same shit as the lower house, just different arseholes.

Personally, I'd rather not have either House, but if we do have to live in the real world, I'd at least prefer an upper house with some independence from party politics, and an elected house won't give us that - it'll minimise what independence there already is.
 
We're setting ourselves up for trouble if we have an elected second chamber. How can the Commons deny the will of the people as represented by the vote of the elected second chamber? Making the second chamber elected also removes a tool for the PM to get upwardsly promote rivals and worthies.
 
The upper house only has power to modify or reject (up to certain easily passable limits). The lower house is the primary legislative body - having people elected/appointed/drawn by lot/zoomed in from mars doesn't change that one bit.

Have a think about your second objection. And the use of 'we' in the first.
 
The upper house only has power to modify or reject (up to certain easily passable limits). The lower house is the primary legislative body - having people elected/appointed/drawn by lot/zoomed in from mars doesn't change that one bit.

I think you're wrong here. If the Commons represent the will of the people by virtue of their being elected, how can an elected second chamber not also represent the will of the people? As VP says, I'd rather an upper house with some independence from party politics.
 
I think you're wrong here. If the Commons represent the will of the people by virtue of their being elected, how can an elected second chamber not also represent the will of the people? As VP says, I'd rather an upper house with some independence from party politics.
No, i'm not wrong. They can both represent the will of the people but have different functions. There is no problem here at all. Nor in any of the other dual chamber systems that recognise the primacy of the lower house.
 
I'm not at all keen on an elected second chamber and I think the idea of having a mostly elected chamber with 20% of the membership appointed is just odd.

Let's have one democratic chamber - the HofC elected by a proper system of PR. If we have to have a second (revising) chamber, let's make it relatively weak (as the HofL is) and fill it with people whose expertise and involvements make them useful.
 
For me it all depends how they plan on letting us elect peers. I would prefer to be able to vote for an individual than to vote for a party.
 
For me it all depends how they plan on letting us elect peers. I would prefer to be able to vote for an individual than to vote for a party.

You mean, like you're supposed to do in current Parliamentary constituencies?
 
You mean, like you're supposed to do in current Parliamentary constituencies?
Well, not really because in constituencies you get individuals chosen by the main parties none of whom you may like. I don't know what system would be best but I would like to be able to vote for an individual who I thought would help if they were elected to the lords.
 
If it aint broke don't fix it.

Seriously this is deckchairs stuff, why rearrange them when we should be storming the bridge and steering us away from the iceberg?
 
If in our future there will now be two regular elections, parliament and the lords I wonder what turnout is likely to be.
 
Well, not really because in constituencies you get individuals chosen by the main parties none of whom you may like. I don't know what system would be best but I would like to be able to vote for an individual who I thought would help if they were elected to the lords.

You're talking rubbish anyone can put themselves forward to be a candidate right now, as long they can find £500.

How would your proposals lead to anything different?
 
get them all in there, bar the doors then put the place to the torch- station trigger men outside should any manage to flee via some unbarred door. Job done.
 
get them all in there, bar the doors then put the place to the torch- station trigger men outside should any manage to flee via some unbarred door. Job done.

Funnily enough I was having similar thoughts right before I looked at the thread
 
Back
Top Bottom