MakemineVanilla Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 1 hour ago, blandy said: Most definitely this. The current HoL has 800+ members, around half of which never do anything, but are just people who got titles for donating to whoever, or serving under whoever as an advisor or whatever. Of the other 400 or so, a number work pretty hard and in much more detail than MPs in scrutinising and such like, the various legislative bills that come their way, and it's that expertise and diligence and detachment which adds real value. You could probably knock down the numbers of the HoL to just the "active" ones and then perhaps have a system to gradually replace those active members (as they leave) with similar expertise holding people, whether by appointment by a commission, or by election, or by direct appointment by a committee of MPs. Ideally the HoL or 2nd chamber shouldn't really be party political as such, though I guess that's impossible to implement in reality. Wasn't that the whole purpose of Lloyd George's 1911 Parliament Act, when the Lords threatened to block the "People's Budget"? Anyone who has been to a meeting at the House, will have seen Roweley Birkin types, staggering from room to room, on the scrounge for booze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_ian_taylor Posted November 23, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted November 23, 2022 On 20/11/2022 at 21:29, LondonLax said: Well a bicameral system works best when the two chambers are different from each other. That is true of the House of Lords but hereditary titles are an abomination (imo) and the current arrangement of granting peerages for favours is also awful. Taking Australia as my main knowledge base, the upper house is voted on differently to the lower house. It’s a proportional representation system and each state gets a certain number of representatives so there is a different set of constituents rash minister is representing. Compared with the AV system used for the lower house and local electorates. In addition the senators get a six year term where as the lower house is voted every three years. This means the Senate is very often a significantly different make up to the lower house with different objectives and a different electoral cycle. It is very rare that a government in the lower house also happens to have a majority in the upper house to pass legislation and typically compromise is required. Agree that they need to be very different. And you can't really have HoL reform without HoC reform and possibly local government reform too My slightly random mixed bag of thoughts would be: - One house elected on PR and leading on legislation/government agenda - One house with a mix of elected regional/local representatives and suitably qualified nominees who are vetted. All on 20 year terms (or until the next election Representatives would be discouraged/disqualified from party membership (inevitably people will form groups). Role of the house to be scrutiny of legislation and government and the ability to take a longer term view). - reform and more devolution to local/regional government, making it more powerful in relation to central gov than currently (e.g. in terms of taxation etc). UK is far too centralised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 23, 2022 Moderator Share Posted November 23, 2022 2 hours ago, Demitri_C said: Starmer can just fart during PMQs every week and he will still win the next election. There ia no chance Conservatives are winning Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 23, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted November 23, 2022 I don't really understand all the second house stuff but I strongly feel that the elected Government should be able to get on with passing the laws they were elected to deliver. Now OK I agree headcases like Truss could do with having a check on their power but it's really the first time in my lifetime that a PM / Party has gone completely Tonto. The strong emphasis should letting The Government govern. I'd hate a system like US where a Prime Minister became essentially impotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 23, 2022 Moderator Share Posted November 23, 2022 Just now, sidcow said: I don't really understand all the second house stuff but I strongly feel that the elected Government should be able to get on with passing the laws they were elected to deliver. Its the ones they weren't elected to deliver that are usually the issue. The Salisbury Convention means they don't block manifesto commitments 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted December 2, 2022 Share Posted December 2, 2022 Labour with a 13% swing from tories win a by-election. Looking like they'll get in at next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 2, 2022 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2022 6 minutes ago, Jareth said: Labour with a 13% swing from tories win a by-election. Looking like they'll get in at next election. Whilst I agree about the next election, the Chester result isn't an indication of much at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted December 2, 2022 Share Posted December 2, 2022 26 minutes ago, bickster said: Whilst I agree about the next election, the Chester result isn't an indication of much at all It is an indication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 2, 2022 Moderator Share Posted December 2, 2022 Just now, Jareth said: It is an indication It really isn't, the turnout is too low. You can't tell if Labour has gained Tory votes or if more Tories stayed at home compared to Labour. And stay away Tories may not stay away at the next General Election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted December 2, 2022 Share Posted December 2, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, bickster said: It really isn't, the turnout is too low. You can't tell if Labour has gained Tory votes or if more Tories stayed at home compared to Labour. And stay away Tories may not stay away at the next General Election Semanticist Sir John Curtice, a professor of politics at Strathclyde University, told the BBC on Friday morning the result suggested the opposition party was heading for a “favourable” majority. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/02/labour-stays-on-course-for-power-with-chester-byelection-victory Edited December 2, 2022 by Jareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 4, 2022 Share Posted December 4, 2022 (edited) On 02/12/2022 at 10:25, bickster said: It really isn't, the turnout is too low. You can't tell if Labour has gained Tory votes or if more Tories stayed at home compared to Labour. And stay away Tories may not stay away at the next General Election They may not. But also they may. Ultimately the only thing that matters right now is that they are potential voters not using their vote for Tories. That might change to the Tories' benefit. Or detriment. Or not at all. I reckon @Jareth's choice of "indication" is therefore a perfectly fair one. It doesn't mean you just take a facsimile of that result and use it to assume the size of the Labour majority, but it's a perfectly useful bit of data to help to interpret how things are seen by the electorate right now. One thing it does help with is showing that the polls at the moment are pretty accurate in terms of likely vote share. Which it useful anyway in how trustworthy polling data is over the next two years. Anyway, in other "latest Starmer scandal" news... More on this "man sends his kids to the local state school" news as we get it. Edited December 4, 2022 by ml1dch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 4, 2022 Share Posted December 4, 2022 44 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Anyway, in other "latest Starmer scandal" news... More on this "man sends his kids to the local state school" news as we get it. It shows how little they have to attack him with when they are going with something like this. They'll be rehashing currygate next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted December 5, 2022 Author Share Posted December 5, 2022 14 hours ago, markavfc40 said: It shows how little they have to attack him with when they are going with something like this. They'll be rehashing currygate next. Yes but to be fair they were attacking sunak on what shoes he was wearing as well months back so not just starmer. These idiots need to attack them on things that need attacking nit ridiculous things like in these two instances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted December 5, 2022 Share Posted December 5, 2022 Abolishing the House of Lords? Yes please very much. Hope they actually follow through on this threat, archaic system serving only to maintain the status quo. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted December 5, 2022 Share Posted December 5, 2022 1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said: Abolishing the House of Lords? Yes please very much. Vote winner for me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted December 5, 2022 Author Share Posted December 5, 2022 Yes im all on this. A bunch of stuck up hasbeens that shouldnt be anywhere near politics Some of the :"lords" are a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phily85 Posted December 5, 2022 Share Posted December 5, 2022 Isnt it one of those things that will never be able to be achieved though? Wouldnt the Lords have to vote to abolish themselves ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 5, 2022 Share Posted December 5, 2022 21 minutes ago, phily85 said: Wouldnt the Lords have to vote to abolish themselves ? Probably not, for two reasons. Firstly, the Lords cannot indefinitely block the commons - if the Commons votes for a bill for a third successive session, and the Lords reject it a third time, the bill can go directly to the monarch for royal assent. So due to this, the most they could do is kick it down the road for 2-3 years. Also of interest is the Salisbury Convention - the idea that the Lords will not block a bill that enacts a manifesto commitment. There are members of the lords who don't support this, and we've not seen it put to the test, so it would be interesting, but we'll have a hell of a constitutional crisis on our hands if they were to try to cling on despite a commons majority voting to abolish them with a manifesto to back it up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted December 5, 2022 Share Posted December 5, 2022 I find it interesting how Starner has lifted so much from the Brexit/reform party lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 5, 2022 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2022 57 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Probably not, for two reasons. Firstly, the Lords cannot indefinitely block the commons - if the Commons votes for a bill for a third successive session, and the Lords reject it a third time, the bill can go directly to the monarch for royal assent. So due to this, the most they could do is kick it down the road for 2-3 years. Also of interest is the Salisbury Convention - the idea that the Lords will not block a bill that enacts a manifesto commitment. There are members of the lords who don't support this, and we've not seen it put to the test, so it would be interesting, but we'll have a hell of a constitutional crisis on our hands if they were to try to cling on despite a commons majority voting to abolish them with a manifesto to back it up. Simple to solve. Labour creates enough new Lords to make sure they abolish themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts