Refoming the House of Lords

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.

The difference is that they have been elected by the people and are accountable. If their activities or personal choices are deemed unacceptable, the opportunity exists to dispense with them.
 
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.
What are you dribbling about?
 
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.
Agreed, simply part of the same scheme, honestly if you put the Saxe-Coberg-Gotha-Battenberg-Windsors up against the Corleone' family our Latin friends come out as far more liberal, law abiding and kind. Make no mistake they are the masters and we are irrelevant.
 

Chef

LE
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.
The presence of safe seats and the parachuting in of favoured candidates suggests that those in power will ensure the 'right' people get in. To the extent that Jack Dromey husband of Harriet Harman was selected for an all women's list to get into parliament.

As for dynasties, Mandelson, Kinnock, Benn all second generation MPs on the back of family connections.

Maybe an all elected system like Brussels could be a better choice.
 
Maybe an all elected system like Brussels could be a better choice

Actually, the parallels between the HoL and EU Commission are quite interesting.

Both comprise unelected and largely unaccountable appointees, a major difference being there are just short of 800 sitting in the HoL and 27 EU Commissioners and that none of the EU Commissioners are appointed by sole reason of heredity.

We quite rightly kicked the EU into touch.
 

Chef

LE
Actually, the parallels between the HoL and EU Commission are quite interesting.

Both comprise unelected and largely unaccountable appointees, a major difference being there are just short of 800 sitting in the HoL and 27 EU Commissioners and that none of the EU Commissioners are appointed by sole reason of heredity.

We quite rightly kicked the EU into touch.
I was under the impression that commissioners are, technically, elected by the elected MEPs. At least that's what was being implied by the remainers just recently.

The point is that every system becomes self protecting. Vis the HoC banding together against the common foe when one of the various expenses scandals came to light.

The pre Blair HoL seemed to work reasonably well and no system is perfect. However a second elected house will fill up with place men in no time. Look at some of the dross that's elevated to the peerage. Certainly I'd want the Lords to have fewer members than the Commons, but I'd hesitate to offer any new system as it would become as corrupted as the current one has been since Mr Blair 'reformed' it.

Perhaps it was a bit to independent for him. Rather like Frank Field actually doing what Mr Blair told him to do and 'Think the unthinkable' when he did so Mr Blair soon showed him the door.
 
I was under the impression that commissioners are, technically, elected by the elected MEPs. At least that's what was being implied by the remainers just recently.
A single President of the Commission candidate is nominated by the EU Council and then put up for election by the MEPs (curiously without alternative(s) being available). The Commissioners are nominated by the heads of state and then there is a rather curious system where the whole 'College' is ratified, as an entirety, by the MEPs.

An unencumbered, intuitive and transparent process? Hardly. But strangely even that is marginally more democratic than the appointments to the HoL where not even this pretence of democratic process is made.
 

Chef

LE
A single President of the Commission candidate is nominated by the EU Council and then put up for election by the MEPs (curiously without alternative(s) being available). The Commissioners are nominated by the heads of state and then there is a rather curious system where the whole 'College' is ratified, as an entirety, by the MEPs.

An unencumbered, intuitive and transparent process? Hardly. But strangely even that is marginally more democratic than the appointments to the HoL where not even this pretence of democratic process is made.
Agreed up to a point, but as I also said I'd hesitate to offer a new system with any great confidence that the vested powers wouldn't subvert it in short order to suit themselves.

Do you have any thoughts on the subject? (Apologies if you've already listed them).

To misquote Churchill 'It's the worst possible system apart from all the others'.
 
The difference is that they have been elected by the people and are accountable. If their activities or personal choices are deemed unacceptable, the opportunity exists to dispense with them.
As discussed upthread - it is but a twice-a-decade opportunity, and in the meantime they have license (as we are seeing with recent leaks) to pretty much mark their own homework.

Bottom line is that - even if British monarchy is in decline, the socio-economic group with which it is most closely identified continues to be disproportionately represented in Parliament.

I'm perplexed as to why the rest of us accept this as being OK, in a "It's the way we've always done it", kinda way.
 
A single President of the Commission candidate is nominated by the EU Council and then put up for election by the MEPs (curiously without alternative(s) being available). The Commissioners are nominated by the heads of state and then there is a rather curious system where the whole 'College' is ratified, as an entirety, by the MEPs.

An unencumbered, intuitive and transparent process? Hardly. But strangely even that is marginally more democratic than the appointments to the HoL where not even this pretence of democratic process is made.

Which bizarrely the HoL doesn't really need. The House of Commons has supremacy in Parliament. The Lords can not stop a Bill from being passed should the Government of the day so insist. The Lords can advise, amend and occasionally outright correct Bills. The Government and Commons can accept or reject those amendments as they please. The Lords can not bypass the Commons to pass a Bill in any way.

In the US system a Bill could, in theory, be supported by every single member of one House and killed stone dead by the other.

Bliar's "reform" of the Lords was nothing of the sort. It was a petty revenge by a shallow man who was unhappy the Lords had sent back more Bills than ever before, all marked F for Fail, try harder.
 

Chef

LE
Bliar's "reform" of the Lords was nothing of the sort. It was a petty revenge by a shallow man who was unhappy the Lords had sent back more Bills than ever before, all marked F for Fail, try harder. Edited for brevity.
My point exactly, the HoL seemed to be working, Mr Blair didn't like it so 'reformed' it until it was neutered. It was inevitable
 
Agreed up to a point, but as I also said I'd hesitate to offer a new system with any great confidence that the vested powers wouldn't subvert it in short order to suit themselves.

Do you have any thoughts on the subject? (Apologies if you've already listed them).

To misquote Churchill 'It's the worst possible system apart from all the others'.

The HoL is a body of unelected appointees (or who are there by virtue of some archaic ancient hereditary or spiritual right). Its purpose as a check on the HoC is nowadays almost entirely notional. They can delay somewhat bills passing through Parliament, but in the final analysis they can and will be overruled.

So, nearly 800 unelected individuals who form little more than an expensive debating society and a retirement home for political chums. If it were abolished wholesale does there actually need to be anything put in its place? Politicians have vested interests in its continuation and as someone else has suggested, we can also be wedded to tradition for the sake of tradition. Some of the practices, traditions, offices, baubles and garbs in the HoP seem risible to me in 2021.

I don't know, but I think there might be a place for a small overseeing body (not composed of political appointees) that has the power, if necessary, to review legislation and to hold Parliament and its members to account. I can see it being formed by some kind of a judiciary body. However, there might well be 'separation of powers' considerations under this sort of arrangement.

Irrespective of the last consideration, I cannot see the HoC wearing it. They fought tooth and nail against their expenses being audited.
 

Chef

LE
The HoL is a body of unelected appointees (or who are there by virtue of some archaic ancient hereditary or spiritual right). Its purpose as a check on the HoC is nowadays almost entirely notional. They can delay somewhat bills passing through Parliament, but in the final analysis they can and will be overruled.

So, nearly 800 unelected individuals who form little more than an expensive debating society and a retirement home for political chums. If it were abolished wholesale does there actually need to be anything put in its place? Politicians have vested interests in its continuation and as someone else has suggested, we can also be wedded to tradition for the sake of tradition. Some of the practices, traditions, offices, baubles and garbs in the HoP seem risible to me in 2021.

I don't know, but I think there might be a place for a small overseeing body (not composed of political appointees) that has the power, if necessary, to review legislation and to hold Parliament and its members to account. I can see it being formed by some kind of a judiciary body. However, there might well be 'separation of powers' considerations under this sort of arrangement.

Irrespective of the last consideration, I cannot see the HoC wearing it. They fought tooth and nail against their expenses being audited.
If nothing were put in its place then there really are no checks to the commons.

If a small overseeing body were to be created, not, as you say, composed of political appointees. How would you appoint them? The judiciary have become pretty much an unelected political body in their own right. So I doubt there'd be much change if they were the overseeing body or involved in selecting it.

I honestly have no idea what shape a new check would take, but short of picking people at random off the street like jury service, any system where politicos can get there hands on it will sooner or later degenerate into another reward scheme for the yes men and toadies.

At worst I can imagine a new scheme being set up and running in tandem with the old one, rather like the arrival of PPCs. Extra jobs for the boys. Trebles all round!
 
I cannot see the HoC wearing it. They fought tooth and nail against their expenses being audited.
And, indeed, against any check or balance of their authority, be it Crown/Head of State or Second Chamber.

I think you are beginning to catch my drift.
 

Latest Threads

Top