Refoming the House of Lords

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
We need to get rid of heredity peers. Want I want to replicate is the non-party political selection. People become peers by virtue of merit demonstrated elsewhere and which nobody can stop.
 
Indeed, and I would add that while in the past the hereditary peers could possibly argue that they had a greater level of education, that would be difficult to argue now and also they were overwhelmingly big-C Conservative, giving us a chamber that was not only undemocratic but also had a bias to one political party.

What we have now is a bit better, but not by much IMO.
I'm not even certain that is true. Like 'em or not, the hereditary gang were (effectively) the Monarch's power-base in Parliament. Diminish their number sufficiently (as Our Tone most certainly did) and you weaken the (nominal) Head of State to the position where Crown is powerless, and cannot/dare not interfere in Parliament - as in "to hold MPs to account for taking the piss with their expenses claims" or any other matter, for fear of being further stripped of prestige and privilege, which leaves (IMHO) the supposed checks and balances of our much vaunted democratic monarchy's unwritten constitution in metaphorical tatters.
 
I'm not even certain that is true. Like 'em or not, the hereditary gang were (effectively) the Monarch's power-base in Parliament. Diminish their number sufficiently (as Our Tone most certainly did) and you weaken the (nominal) Head of State to the position where Crown is powerless, and cannot/dare not interfere in Parliament - as in "to hold MPs to account for taking the piss with their expenses claims" or any other matter, for fear of being further stripped of prestige and privilege, which leaves (IMHO) the supposed checks and balances of our much vaunted democratic monarchy's unwritten constitution in metaphorical tatters.

The Monarchs' power base today is you and me and every loyal Subject.
If whoever comes next loses our support - goodwill will not last for long.

My gut feeling is that the less politicians elevated - the less crooked expenses claims will occur in future
 
The Monarchs' power base today is you and me and every loyal Subject.
If whoever comes next loses our support - goodwill will not last for long.

My gut feeling is that the less politicians elevated - the less crooked expenses claims will occur in future
To a certain degree, though much of the corruption seems to emanate from appointed cronies, rather than politicians who continue to job they've always done, but without the boring fag of getting elected.
 
To a certain degree, though much of the corruption seems to emanate from appointed cronies, rather than politicians who continue to job they've always done, but without the boring fag of getting elected.

What I meant was an MP who had done nothing in life other than a Degree in politics or a few years working in a Council or Union environment before taking the next step up the ladder.

That person may have a places in the Commons.

I reckon they have no place in the Lords as they bring nothing else to the table other than their desire to be in authority.
 

Chef

LE
We need to get rid of heredity peers. Want I want to replicate is the non-party political selection. People become peers by virtue of merit demonstrated elsewhere and which nobody can stop.
The flaw in your idea is that as soon as one is appointed to the 'peerage' or whatever new name the second chamber is known as one is beholden to the person or party who appoints you.

With the best will in the world all systems where a third party hands out power will eventually become corrupted.
For example two people equally qualified for one seat in the second chamber. One is dead set against your views the other less so. Who is more likely to get the promotion/

The one advantage that hereditary is there is little room for argument. one either is or isn't the offspring of a current member. They may be mad as a box of frogs or hold views that their parent doesn't but they owe their position to an accident of birth.

One could argue that such a system is unfair and prevents merit rising up and this may be true. The next monarch will be Charles, There is certainty, a rare coin in politics. As far as merit goes we could have a second chamber filled with intellectual giants and powerful figures like Dianne Abbott or Ed Davey.

Unfortunately no system of representing the people is anywhere near perfect, but as a rule of thumb anything that Mr Blair wanted changed should be reset to factory settings ASAP.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
We need to get rid of heredity peers. Want I want to replicate is the non-party political selection. People become peers by virtue of merit demonstrated elsewhere and which nobody can stop.
Who chooses these people? Politicians? Civil Servants? 'Community Leaders'?
 
And when nothing comes to court? Or it comes to court and they are found Not Guilty? Or the accuser is proved to be a known liar and fantasist doing what he does best?
Then, clearly this was a very difficult thing to decide or work out for yourself, they have all rights and privileges returned to them. Clearly rocket science
 
I'm not even certain that is true. Like 'em or not, the hereditary gang were (effectively) the Monarch's power-base in Parliament. Diminish their number sufficiently (as Our Tone most certainly did) and you weaken the (nominal) Head of State to the position where Crown is powerless, and cannot/dare not interfere in Parliament - as in "to hold MPs to account for taking the piss with their expenses claims" or any other matter, for fear of being further stripped of prestige and privilege, which leaves (IMHO) the supposed checks and balances of our much vaunted democratic monarchy's unwritten constitution in metaphorical tatters.

Monarch's power base? What's this, the Charles Stuart Appreciation Society?
 
My gut feeling is that the less politicians elevated - the less crooked expenses claims will occur in future
There were very few 'crooked' claims, but that just tells you that the rules are 'generous', to say the least - the root of the scandal, it seems to me, is that MPs are allowed to mark their own homework - constitutionally there is nobody / no body with the authority to hold them to account, until election time, which is a pretty blunt-edged weapon.
 
There were very few 'crooked' claims, but that just tells you that the rules are 'generous', to say the least - the root of the scandal, it seems to me, is that MPs are allowed to mark their own homework - constitutionally there is nobody / no body with the authority to hold them to account, until election time, which is a pretty blunt-edged weapon.

Yes - we can only vote the bastards out once every 4 years .
And - they do seem to get away with mucho profiteering now and again.

the bastards
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
Then, clearly this was a very difficult thing to decide or work out for yourself, they have all rights and privileges returned to them. Clearly rocket science
And all the press coverage, no platforming, windows smashed, job lost, threats of violence, social media hate campaign has no effect at all?

I think that is the rocket science. How many people still believe the lies about Lord Bramhall,
Ted Heath, Nigel Lawson, despite them never having been charged, let along found guilty in a court of law?
 
Monarch's power base? What's this, the Charles Stuart Appreciation Society?
Theoretically, under our unwritten constitution, the Monarch has authority to hold Parliament to account.

That would involve the exercise of power.

Since the power to hold to account is not enshrined in law, it follows that a substantial power base in parliament would be required by Crown, to mitigate the inevitable backlash against Crown by Commons should Crown try to exercise this supposed authority. Absent such a power base, Crown is hostage to Commons.

Which is fine, but not if your imaginary constitution doesn't recognise that the theoretical checks and balances on which we are told we depend for the health of democratic government don't actually exist any more.

It ain't rocket science.
 
And all the press coverage, no platforming, windows smashed, job lost, threats of violence, social media hate campaign has no effect at all?

I think that is the rocket science. How many people still believe the lies about Lord Bramhall,
Ted Heath, Nigel Lawson, despite them never having been charged, let along found guilty in a court of law?
Doing something is better than doing nothing, which is what happens now. If jail time for offences were tripled, it might be a better deterrent for people planning harassment
 
Theoretically, under our unwritten constitution, the Monarch has authority to hold Parliament to account.

That would involve the exercise of power.

Since the power to hold to account is not enshrined in law, it follows that a substantial power base in parliament would be required by Crown, to mitigate the inevitable backlash against Crown by Commons should Crown try to exercise this supposed authority. Absent such a power base, Crown is hostage to Commons.

Which is fine, but not if your imaginary constitution doesn't recognise that the theoretical checks and balances on which we are told we depend for the health of democratic government don't actually exist any more.

It ain't rocket science.

Evidently you don't find the concept of an unelected and unaccountable hereditary dynasty looking to a body composed of unelected and unaccountable members of similarly hereditary dynasties as a means to overrule the will of a fully elected and accountable parliament of commoners as slightly alarming.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
Doing something is better than doing nothing, which is what happens now. If jail time for offences were tripled, it might be a better deterrent for people planning harassment
That's true but not the same as naming people the minute they are accused of anything and putting them at risk.

You can't put that genie back in the bottle and you will ruin the lives of innocent people by doing so.
 
Evidently you don't find the concept of an unelected and unaccountable hereditary dynasty looking to a body composed of unelected and unaccountable members of similarly hereditary dynasties as a means to overrule the will of a fully elected and accountable parliament of commoners as slightly alarming.
That's not it at all: but what we have right now is not what we think we have, and some key checks and balances simply do not function.

This is cause for concern, in my book anyways, but nobody seems bothered that the structure of government in Westminster is a fvcking mess.
 
Last edited:
Evidently you don't find the concept of an unelected and unaccountable hereditary dynasty looking to a body composed of unelected and unaccountable members of similarly hereditary dynasties as a means to overrule the will of a fully elected and accountable parliament of commoners as slightly alarming.
Or more to the point defer for the whole of our lives to others, the random output of sexual intercourse whose postion and privilege was created and is maintained by the two Houses in Parliament?

Add to that murder, theft, slave trading, drug trafficking etc, etc

No wonder the devolved Nations want out.
 
Or more to the point defer for the whole of our lives to others, the random output of sexual intercourse whose postion and privilege was created and is maintained by the two Houses in Parliament?
If the concern is that we should not in a steate of constant deference to those from the over-privileged classes, then I think lately we should be more concerned about the preponderance (across all parties in the House of Commons) of a disproportionately large number of MPs who are either the products of 'elite' schools, or the offspring of older politicians, or both.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top