|
Post by jade on Mar 15, 2010 12:44:39 GMT
Labour unveils radical plans to scrap 700-year-old House of Lords for elected 'senate' By Gerri Peev
Labour will pledge to scrap the House of Lords in its election manifesto in an effort to goad the Tories into a class war.
More than 700 years of tradition would come to an end as the upper chamber is replaced with an elected 'senate'.
The number of Lords would be cut to just 300, fewer than half the existing 746, under the plan by Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
Read more: LinkSo Labour finds ground that will show some disctance between them and the tories (at last!) but will it woo the common man? Will it energise discussions in pubs all over England? Would you care if the Lords were abolished or would you happily vote for a Senate? Personally I love the notion of aristocracy, and would happily contrive to keep the Lords (but maybe make it all hereditary so that oiks coud not get in by buying a place. O actually they always have, haven't they? OK maybe let in the oiks with money but keep the political snourts to a minimum. Except that was always the other way of gaining a title wasn't it?)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 13:29:15 GMT
There is a huge advantage in having a house where members are not subject to the vagaries of the electorate, and don't have to impress with oratory skills and soundbites.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 15, 2010 14:23:52 GMT
But what can the PM offer now, in return for a large cash donation? These benefactors always come at a price, and if he can't offer a peerage, they are hardly likely to settle for a mere "K". Hard times are a comin'
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 15, 2010 15:47:50 GMT
Labour unveils radical plans to scrap 700-year-old House of Lords for elected 'senate' By Gerri Peev
Labour will pledge to scrap the House of Lords in its election manifesto in an effort to goad the Tories into a class war.
More than 700 years of tradition would come to an end as the upper chamber is replaced with an elected 'senate'.
The number of Lords would be cut to just 300, fewer than half the existing 746, under the plan by Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
Read more: LinkSo Labour finds ground that will show some disctance between them and the tories (at last!) but will it woo the common man? Will it energise discussions in pubs all over England? Would you care if the Lords were abolished or would you happily vote for a Senate? Personally I love the notion of aristocracy, and would happily contrive to keep the Lords (but maybe make it all hereditary so that oiks coud not get in by buying a place. O actually they always have, haven't they? OK maybe let in the oiks with money but keep the political snourts to a minimum. Except that was always the other way of gaining a title wasn't it?) It was traditional to behead and to hang draw and quarter, but we don't do that anymore An elected chamber would be democratic whereas what you seek to contrive to keep is a lottery where tumbling out of the right womb grants you high office. Are you really that mediaeval? Would you prefer a one party state? True that's pretty much what the Tories and New Labour amount to, but we should be aiming to maximise democracy, not keep a museum piece going. Blow parliament up and start again
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 15, 2010 15:55:39 GMT
before the house of lards was tampered with by bliar....it had the greatest group of skills under one roof...acording to an article i read...the members lived in every concievable type of house and circumstance and had a range of jobs from plumbing to living off income unearned[not every lord has or had a country pile or a private income..very far from it]] but as it has been tampered with.....get rid of it all together..what price tradition...compared to snouts in troughs and political shenanigins.....and above all get rid of people paying for peerages to political parties..get rid of peerages all together another elected house..lol do we really need another elected house of thickets and yes men all aboard the gravey train
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 15, 2010 17:24:21 GMT
We will have to wait and see what they have in mind, but I wouldn't mind wagering that any prospective candidate for election to this new "Senate" will be hand picked and approved by the government of the day. If anyone thinks that they will allow anyone to stand----------well, I MIGHT be wrong!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 15, 2010 17:33:12 GMT
We will have to wait and see what they have in mind, but I wouldn't mind wagering that any prospective candidate for election to this new "Senate" will be hand picked and approved by the government of the day. If anyone thinks that they will allow anyone to stand----------well, I MIGHT be wrong! We don't even know what the term of office would be, eg 5, 7 years etc. WE don't know what their constituencies would be, either. Its typical noo Labour, it hasn't been thought through.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 21:36:02 GMT
The whole point of a second chamber is to have members who are there for a long time and therefore don't have to worry about what the electorate is thinking. They can stand back from issues instead of fretting about appeasing the current gut reaction to some revelation in the news.
Electing them therefore seems to defeat the object somewhat. Democracy isn't the be all and end all... who was it who said it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 15, 2010 21:41:35 GMT
The whole point of a second chamber is to have members who are there for a long time and therefore don't have to worry about what the electorate is thinking. They can stand back from issues instead of fretting about appeasing the current gut reaction to some revelation in the news. Electing them therefore seems to defeat the object somewhat. Democracy isn't the be all and end all... who was it who said it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority? That's your view, I and others have our views. That is why it should be put to the people; what kind of upper revising chamber do you want? You never know, they might opt for what you want. Who said Democracy was the least worst system? Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 21:57:16 GMT
Fretslider: An un- elected second chamber gives us the best of both worlds. The cut and thrust of politics is carried out by elected members; an ideale second chamber reflects, considers and takes an objective view.
Which is, sad to say, more than most of us do. We don't have the time, for a start, to read and listen to all the argumenst on every subject. Often if we are interested in a subject it is because we have some personal experience.
I don't know how these paragons should be chosen. Some of the hereditary peers are very good; they have almost been brought up to the job. Others are downright awful and only turn up to vote on things like foxhunting.
We could have a second chamber peppered with ancient academics I suppose, or retired Spectator journalists...but spare the Chamber please from mob rule.
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 15, 2010 22:57:53 GMT
The whole point of a second chamber is to have members who are there for a long time and therefore don't have to worry about what the electorate is thinking. They can stand back from issues instead of fretting about appeasing the current gut reaction to some revelation in the news. Electing them therefore seems to defeat the object somewhat. Democracy isn't the be all and end all... who was it who said it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority? That's your view, I and others have our views. That is why it should be put to the people; what kind of upper revising chamber do you want? You never know, they might opt for what you want. Who said Democracy was the least worst system? Precisely. I abhor the fact there is an unelected chamber making decisions that affect me. Who gave them my mandate? Of course we should have an elected 2nd chamber, who represent the people not their own interests and are there because the people want them not because their family happened to interbreed for a few generations and snaffle loads of cash on the backs of the working classes OR are there because they are flunkies of whichever party. Then again it would be nice to have most of that in the 1st chamber too! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 16, 2010 9:06:35 GMT
I don't know how these paragons should be chosen. I'd be tempted to give over the job to Simon Cowell Parliament's Got Talent anyone?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 16, 2010 9:31:19 GMT
strewth i though that sort of thinking was dead in the water.. but it would be nice if the majority of voters actually voted...insteat of a minority..a minority that got us three terms of bliar and i am at the stage where i dont mind who governs[except labour] as long as they CAN actually govern and not follow EDICTS from the EU and party lines i despise the whole lot of em.....greedy grasping barstewards
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 16, 2010 15:05:04 GMT
Fretslider: An un- elected second chamber gives us the best of both worlds. The cut and thrust of politics is carried out by elected members; an ideale second chamber reflects, considers and takes an objective view. Which is, sad to say, more than most of us do. We don't have the time, for a start, to read and listen to all the argumenst on every subject. Often if we are interested in a subject it is because we have some personal experience. I don't know how these paragons should be chosen. Some of the hereditary peers are very good; they have almost been brought up to the job. Others are downright awful and only turn up to vote on things like foxhunting. We could have a second chamber peppered with ancient academics I suppose, or retired Spectator journalists...but spare the Chamber please from mob rule. Skylark An unelected chamber is not an option. The Romans forbade public office, eg Consul, Senator etc to anyone below the age of 40 Those who wish to stand for election, as long as they are over 40...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2010 17:13:22 GMT
Fretslider
Of course an unelected chamber is an option. We have one now. The main advantage of the Lords is as a check and balance to the gut-reaction politics of elected members. The Lortds will not be able to do this if they too are subject to the whims of the public. They need to be appointed for life, and appointed carefully by people who know them and trust them.
Electing members of a second chamber would be a bit like asking the public to vote for the Vice Chancellor of a university (I was going to say "or the Pope" but on reflection that might be a jolly good idea).
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 16, 2010 19:09:16 GMT
Fretslider Of course an unelected chamber is an option. We have one now. The main advantage of the Lords is as a check and balance to the gut-reaction politics of elected members. The Lortds will not be able to do this if they too are subject to the whims of the public. They need to be appointed for life, and appointed carefully by people who know them and trust them. Electing members of a second chamber would be a bit like asking the public to vote for the Vice Chancellor of a university (I was going to say "or the Pope" but on reflection that might be a jolly good idea). Skylark An unelected chamber is not an option. Yes there is one now and its stuffed with yes men, donors and 'friends' And you really believe that is a better alternative to the democratic choice of the people? All of these placemen in the Lords, with which you seem so enamoured, can always stand for election. If they really believe in doing public service, they will. The Lords may huff and puff once in a blue moon, but there's always the Parliament Act. The whole bally system needs ripping up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2010 19:46:02 GMT
Fretslider - would you have the Lords elected for life, or would you have them standing for re-election every so often - if so how long?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 17, 2010 8:51:53 GMT
Fretslider - would you have the Lords elected for life, or would you have them standing for re-election every so often - if so how long? No job for life, oh no. 5 years but staggered between elections for the lower house.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2010 11:57:50 GMT
In that case, what will be the point of even having a second chamber? They will merely be clones of the Commons.
The only merit of the Lords is that it is (as I've said earlier) not subject to policitcal pressure, who can (or at least should) filter out the gut-reaction politics and study the facts.
I suspect that the majority of the Lords who take part in debate are life peers who already have a firm grounding in politics but with the benefits of more experience and maturity than the average MP. They don't come under such public scrutiny, but sometimes the most intelligent, well thought comments I read in the papers come from a life peer.
An elected peer will be under just the same pressures as an MP. Might as well scrap the whole idea....it will be yet another wasted layer of government, and gooness knows we have enough of those.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 17, 2010 13:21:53 GMT
In that case, what will be the point of even having a second chamber? They will merely be clones of the Commons. The only merit of the Lords is that it is (as I've said earlier) not subject to policitcal pressure, who can (or at least should) filter out the gut-reaction politics and study the facts. I suspect that the majority of the Lords who take part in debate are life peers who already have a firm grounding in politics but with the benefits of more experience and maturity than the average MP. They don't come under such public scrutiny, but sometimes the most intelligent, well thought comments I read in the papers come from a life peer. An elected peer will be under just the same pressures as an MP. Might as well scrap the whole idea....it will be yet another wasted layer of government, and gooness knows we have enough of those. I did not realise that your grasp on how democracy works is, er, that limited. Of course it would not be a clone. An elected peer? Surely an oxymoron if ever there were one.
|
|