The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Jon]

That's also the worry.

If we had genuine PR to elect the H of C, then I wouldn't be worried about simply getting rid of the H of L. The PR bit, in theory, should provide the 'balance'.

But with FPTP essential giving a 'minority' government carte blanche to do whatever the **** they want, whether they'd promised not to do it before the election or not, then some form of 2nd chamber may be advisable. 

[snowychap]

 

The House of Lords doesn't provide 'checks' really - in six or nine months, the changes to tax credits will have been forced through by the Parliament Act. It wastes a bit of government time, that's all. 

Does the Parliament Act apply to delegated legislation?* In order to force it through with the Parliament Act, wouldn't the government have to put all of these changes in to a bill (which would then give proper time for the changes to be debated and scrutinized rather than the expedited process that takes place with SIs)?

It may be forced through by other measures (Cameron flooding the Lords with Tories) but it is more likely that, after the Autumn statement, the measures will be passed with some (perhaps only slight) watering down.

*According to this Grauniad article it doesn't:

At the moment, the government can override primary legislation blocked by the Lords using the Parliament Act, but this does not apply to secondary legislation

Edited October 28, 2015 by snowychap

[bickster]

Remove the House of Lords altogether. A second chamber is not at all necessary, loads and loads and loads of countries do without one and we could too. 

Oh no, a second chamber is vital. My solution to this would be

Chamber 1 elected on PR basis on overall share of party votes

Chamber 2 elected on constituency basis with NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT, effectively this would be the House of Commons.

Each chamber has the ability to introduce policy and vote down those of the other chamber

[bickster]

Question of the day is whether it would be a good thing if the House of Lords blocked the cuts in tax-credit even if it was unconstitutional?

As others have said, I don't see how this is unconstitutional.

I don't agree with the (existence of) H of L anyway. An unelected and unnaccoutable 2nd chamber filled with cronies and political sympathisers and donators pocketing big sums to sleep through the day is not what a 2nd chamber should be about.  

It should be reformed as per the above, and should be vasty scaled down to maybe 50-100 'experts'

 

I agree with the bit in bold

the experts bit could be a sticking point .. Experts also have a tendency to be bought for money and I'm not sure you could maintain their impartiality

That be a meritocracy not a democracy

[blandy]

Remove the House of Lords altogether. A second chamber is not at all necessary, loads and loads and loads of countries do without one and we could too. 

Oh no, a second chamber is vital. My solution to this would be

Chamber 1 elected on PR basis on overall share of party votes

Chamber 2 elected on constituency basis with NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT, effectively this would be the House of Commons.

Each chamber has the ability to introduce policy and vote down those of the other chamber

Is there a typo in there, Bicks? do you mean Chamber 2 would be effectively a House of Lords (replacement). Otherwise it makes no sense at all to me.

[bickster]

No, not a typo, house of commons as in no party allegiance. But yes, it would replace the HoL

[tonyh29]

Remove the House of Lords altogether. A second chamber is not at all necessary, loads and loads and loads of countries do without one and we could too. 

Oh no, a second chamber is vital. My solution to this would be

Chamber 1 elected on PR basis on overall share of party votes

Chamber 2 elected on constituency basis with NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT, effectively this would be the House of Commons.

Each chamber has the ability to introduce policy and vote down those of the other chamber

Wouldn't PR give us loads of tree hugging men hating sandal wearing Greens in the Hof C

 

so for that reason ..I'm out

[MakemineVanilla]

There's decent rant about the H of L on Spiked.

The quote:

And who could forget Corbyn’s heartfelt conference attack on an unjust, undemocratic world where ‘some people have property and power, class and capital, status and even sanctity, which are denied to the multitude’. Could these few powerful, status-rich people be by any chance related to the ermine-robed barons and baronesses alongside bishops and the like whom Labour claims now represent the masses?

The link:  http://tinyurl.com/ovy9a6o

[tonyh29]

It's a good article  , I have just one real problem with it

 

In this instance the Lords have actually done something good in making the government go back to the drawing board on a flawed policy .... so much as I agree with a lot of what the author of that article is saying in this instance the argument has already been lost

[snowychap]

There's decent rant about the H of L on Spiked.

The quote:

...whom Labour claims now represent the masses?

The link:  http://tinyurl.com/ovy9a6o

Do Labour claim that the House of Lords represent the masses or that, on this particular issue, they are attempting to represent the opinion of the masses?

It would certainly be the claim that I would make (and would have made in other cases when the tables were turned and the Blair government had some things brought to a halt by amendments tabled by the House of Lords).

As for the spiked rant - it's not decent, it's typical. He nearly brings it back when he says:

The current showdown over tax credits looks like a pale shadow of that historic conflict...

but then ruins it by lazily returning to the previous theme in the rest of the para.:

But there is one clear constant thread joining the two periods of history. That is the arrogant assumption – held back then by the Tories, now by Labour and the Lib Dems – that it is the House of Lords that really speaks for the will of the people...

 

[blandy]

But there is one clear constant thread joining the two periods of history. That is the arrogant assumption – held back then by the Tories, now by Labour and the Lib Dems – that it is the House of Lords that really speaks for the will of the people...

Change the word "speaks" for "spoke in this instance" and it's closer to spot on.

The HoL and our whole system is very imperfect, but sometimes the right result still comes out of it, is kind of the way I see it.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

Remove the House of Lords altogether. A second chamber is not at all necessary, loads and loads and loads of countries do without one and we could too. 

Oh no, a second chamber is vital. My solution to this would be

Chamber 1 elected on PR basis on overall share of party votes

Chamber 2 elected on constituency basis with NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT, effectively this would be the House of Commons.

Each chamber has the ability to introduce policy and vote down those of the other chamber

NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT is absolutely unworkable. 

First of all, 90% of people have no interest in detailed reading of a dozen manifestos with no party symbols on them to find out which one is closest to their actual views. I'm sorry, but they just don't. 

Secondly, what counts as NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT? For instance, I've never been a member of the Labour party, and I've never actually voted for them in an election. I used to live with two members though, one of whom became a candidate, and before that time, about ten years ago, I once spent an afternoon knocking on doors with him. Do I have PARTY INVOLVEMENT? Who decides these things?

[bickster]

Remove the House of Lords altogether. A second chamber is not at all necessary, loads and loads and loads of countries do without one and we could too. 

Oh no, a second chamber is vital. My solution to this would be

Chamber 1 elected on PR basis on overall share of party votes

Chamber 2 elected on constituency basis with NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT, effectively this would be the House of Commons.

Each chamber has the ability to introduce policy and vote down those of the other chamber

NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT is absolutely unworkable. 

First of all, 90% of people have no interest in detailed reading of a dozen manifestos with no party symbols on them to find out which one is closest to their actual views. I'm sorry, but they just don't. 

Secondly, what counts as NO PARTY INVOLVEMENT? For instance, I've never been a member of the Labour party, and I've never actually voted for them in an election. I used to live with two members though, one of whom became a candidate, and before that time, about ten years ago, I once spent an afternoon knocking on doors with him. Do I have PARTY INVOLVEMENT? Who decides these things?

No one has to decide it. It doesn't really matter if you are a member of a party or not. Firstly, all election material would be paid for by the state, no mention of parties allowed, policies and principals and a biog only. NO WHIPS allowed in that chamber, you will get your government funding regardless of any party activity, you nullify the effects of a party. The whole chamber would vote in any positions requiring election. Oh and did I mention that you would only be allowed to stand for election every other parliament, you have to sit the next one out. Absolutely not unworkable

[HanoiVillan]

It definitely is. Nobody seriously interested in a political career would want to stand for it - because it obviously doesn't allow you to have a political career - and there seems to be absolutely no mechanism present to decide who decides what to pursue, what gets voted on, how time is allocated or anything else. Presumably after an election, all 650 of them would have to disappear into a smoky room for about two months trying to work out who agreed with whom about what, since any more efficient form of organisation is prohibited. 

I'll believe it's possible if you can point to any legislative chamber in the entire world run along similar lines. 

[bickster]

It definitely is. Nobody seriously interested in a political career would want to stand for it

You're starting to see the point… keep going, you might get there in the end

[bickster]

I'll believe it's possible if you can point to any legislative chamber in the entire world run along similar lines. 

Why would that be relevant? Show me a government around the world that isn't corrupt in some shape or form. You can't do that its never been done before is really a totally inept argument for not doing something. We'd never progress if that argument was used

[HanoiVillan]

It definitely is. Nobody seriously interested in a political career would want to stand for it

You're starting to see the point… keep going, you might get there in the end

 

Get where in the end? You want people to run the country who have no interest in doing so, or who self-select for being the sort of cranks who lose their deposit every time an election comes round. 

That's fine, whatever floats your boat. 

It doesn't stop it being a stupid system that nobody would ever implement, because it's actually important for the people running the country to have some basic level of interest and competence in what they're doing.  

[bickster]

It definitely is. Nobody seriously interested in a political career would want to stand for it

You're starting to see the point… keep going, you might get there in the end

 

Get where in the end? You want people to run the country who have no interest in doing so, or who self-select for being the sort of cranks who lose their deposit every time an election comes round. 

That's fine, whatever floats your boat. 

It doesn't stop it being a stupid system that nobody would ever implement, because it's actually important for the people running the country to have some basic level of interest and competence in what they're doing.  

George Osbourne

[HanoiVillan]

. . . is not an argument. 

[blandy]

 

 

No one has to decide it. It doesn't really matter if you are a member of a party or not. Firstly, all election material would be paid for by the state, no mention of parties allowed, policies and principals and a biog only. NO WHIPS allowed in that chamber, you will get your government funding regardless of any party activity, you nullify the effects of a party. The whole chamber would vote in any positions requiring election. Oh and did I mention that you would only be allowed to stand for election every other parliament, you have to sit the next one out. Absolutely not unworkable

I like the no whips bit the best. The rest I mostly don't like, though kind of understand the thinking behind it.

I don't like the idea of paying for election material through the state. I don't want my taxes paying for BNP posters or whatever.

Second I don't like the idea of only being allowed to be MP for one go at a time. here's why, for example. Say a person gets elected in wales on the basis of protecting jobs in a mine or steel works that's under threat. They might be doing a great job over the 5 years, establish contacts in the EU, get grants lined up, gain loads of knowledge and experience as to how to effectively help their area, and then after 5 years, despite all the voters wanting them to stay "sorry mate, you've got to go and a new bod has to take over and start learning from scratch" - to me that's undemocratic and wasteful. or to put it in two words "Caroline Lucas"

I think as well that it's not parties as a thing that I dislike, more the way the main ones behave in the UK. The idea of "labels" that can be used to group people of a broadly similar outlook and viewpoint is very useful for voters and for those people as well. The idea that people of the same "label" might loosely co-operate and co-ordinate to make sure that the things they represent and want to happen are followed up on is also an overall good and necessary thing. So if you have a group of pro nationalisation of the railways type people who also want to label themselves as the "public ownership movement" or whatever, voters can see straight away what they're voting for, those people can work together to try and get publicly owned rail, and I reckon are more likely to succeed in their stated aim. Just change "label" for "party" and it's still fine. it's the coercion, the whipping, the threats and promises of promotions or demotions, deselection and all that which is the problem, not the idea of people working together formally (or informally) to represent the interests of a groups or groups of society.

Getting to that sort of arrangement from where we are now seems more than a little unlikely, sadly.