Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords

#1
This House has considered e-petition 209433 relating to a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords - By Rob Mc Bride
Parliamentlive.tv

(No idea how the embedding process works). A couple of very good speeches in this; well worth listening to., particularly Davis.

Result: slippery political bullshit, as expected.
 
#3
It will never happen, to many interconnections of the old school tie, corporate directorships, pall mall men's clubs, contacts in the banking world, the judiciary , and the highest echelons of royalty. Its not who you are, its who you know.
Rules are observed by the lower orders, and laws are for the entertainment of rich and powerful men........Dream on.
 
Last edited:
#4
It will never happen, to many interconnections of the old school tie, corporate directorships, pall mall men's clubs, contacts in the banking world, the judiciary , and the highest echelons of royalty. Its not who you are, its who you know.
Rules are observed by the lower orders, and laws are for the entrainment of rich and powerful men........Dream on.
A bit like Brexit then!
 
#7
Well "Established";) self & collective interest & protectionisms within the ancient ermine lined Westminster "Village Mafias" will ensure this is consigned to the bin.
What a load of moon howling tosh.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#8
There could be a referendum of the Great Unwashed but the HofL would just ignore the result if they don't like it - sort of like they are doing with Brexit!

Also it would take a PM with some testicular fortitude (regardless of gender as this is just a phrase) to get HofL reform through to Royal Assent. We certainly don't have that at present.
 
#9
The upper house is an important part of the parliamentary procedure, but it needs serious reform.
 
#10
The upper house is an important part of the parliamentary procedure, but it needs serious reform.
I agree with you, but what reforms are needed?
Electected members like a senate?
Reduced numbers to stop governments stacking it full of yes men and women?
More due diligence on the members conflict of interests?

There are many other reforms that people talk about. It would be great if it happens, but it would mean going against the establishment.
 
#11
All the time that the HoL is a depository for those rewarded for sycophancy and bribery to the party in power at the time you will have a 2nd House that will do anything to justify its existence. Take Brexit, most of those that are making waves will have a vested interest in keeping the own EU gravy train flowing.
 
#12
Reading all of the previous comments, I, and others will I hope come to the same conclusion, the people that make and ratify the laws of the land, are not subject to their enforcement. The ruling elite seem to function on a higher plane, with a totally different mind-set, morals, and standards of fair play. A race apart, divorced from the real world, and existing in a more self absorbed and narcissistic existence. Somewhat on the Victorian attitude that we know best, and the lower orders must be kept firmly in their place. nothing changes, only the uniform.
 
#13
Way ahead for the HoL reform.

1. Reduce numbers at 400 max or less.
2. No Ex-MP's into the HoL, within 5 yrs of sitting in /leaving the HoC
3. Maximum period of service in HoL 10/15 yrs max (to be debated)
4. Failure to attend and vote more than 25% of the time (unless on sabbatical/medical etc) leads to removal from HoL
5. Maximum number of ex HoC members set at no more than 20%
6. Once "new" number of members reached, stick at 1 out and 1 in
I am sure there are other possible options, but these would be a good start.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#14
Way ahead for the HoL reform.

1. Reduce numbers at 400 max or less.
2. No Ex-MP's into the HoL, within 5 yrs of sitting in /leaving the HoC
3. Maximum period of service in HoL 10/15 yrs max (to be debated)
4. Failure to attend and vote more than 25% of the time (unless on sabbatical/medical etc) leads to removal from HoL
5. Maximum number of ex HoC members set at no more than 20%
6. Once "new" number of members reached, stick at 1 out and 1 in
I am sure there are other possible options, but these would be a good start.
1. Agree
2. That will never happen
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Debatable - what if someone ex HoC goes off for their 5 years is successful there and comes back under that umbrealla?
6. That then becomes Dead Man's Shoes and I am not so sure about that. This goes along with #1 so maybe some leeway needed on numbers, say +/- 5%. Trouble is PMs will keep it at 105% with their placemen.
 
#16
Some good points here. I think the biggest reform should be some fashion to ensure peers of a certain political background aren't present in disproportionate numbers to their own party in the commons, to stop them disproportionately affecting legislation that got through parliament.

I have no ideas how to achieve this - except for the 5 year delay period mentioned above - or perhaps by preventing nominations from peerages from any political sphere?
 
#17
1. Agree
2. That will never happen
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Debatable - what if someone ex HoC goes off for their 5 years is successful there and comes back under that umbrealla?
6. That then becomes Dead Man's Shoes and I am not so sure about that. This goes along with #1 so maybe some leeway needed on numbers, say +/- 5%. Trouble is PMs will keep it at 105% with their placemen.
Auld-Yin, it shouldn't be to much dead-mans shoes, and certainly better than it used to be in the Band !!! If you have a max number of 400, and a max term of 20 years, it would be a minimum of 20 new members a year.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#18
Auld-Yin, it shouldn't be to much dead-mans shoes, and certainly better than it used to be in the Band !!! If you have a max number of 400, and a max term of 20 years, it would be a minimum of 20 new members a year.
One of the arguments that no doubt would be raised about length of tenure is MPs are able to remain in the HofC for 40-50+ years, look at Skinner and Clarke. The counter, of course, is that MPs are elected and if their constituents want them, so be it. HofC are not elected therefore tenure can be used. It would take a lot of time and juggling to get to the 20 out, 20 in.

The first I would like to see go are the Lord's Spiritual. IMO the Church, any church, has no place in a democratic government.
 
#19
Some good points here. I think the biggest reform should be some fashion to ensure peers of a certain political background aren't present in disproportionate numbers to their own party in the commons, to stop them disproportionately affecting legislation that got through parliament.

I have no ideas how to achieve this - except for the 5 year delay period mentioned above - or perhaps by preventing nominations from peerages from any political sphere?
This.

Absolutely the last thing we should be after is another elected house. Firstly, most importantly (and often overlooked), that would bring into question the primacy of the Commons leading to a constitutional mess. As is evidenced by the current Brexit shenanigans. Secondly - do we really want yet another tranche of people hawking themselves round every 5 years or so, promising this that and the other? There's enough pollies and elections already.

Lastly, the purpose of the Lords is to review and suggest corrections to proposed legislation from a relatively impartial perspective. It's very rare to find anyone with a completely impartial political view, but the aim ought to be to put in people with practical experience in business, teaching, engineering, forces etc etc, rather than reward political hackery, which is what seems to be happening now. The value of the old hereditary peers was that they rarely needed patronage to support themselves and could therefore be more independent (albeit with a certain bias toward the status quo).
 
#20
The upper house is an important part of the parliamentary procedure, but it needs serious reform.
Agreed. The political gimmes shouldn't be part of the institution to avoid bias. Stick to the hereditary peers and make them work for it.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top