House of Lords or House of Cards?

Former Member

So the proposal for the new 'second chamber' (or 'House of Senators' as Gerald Kaufman would have it) is for 20% elected, 20% appointed by 'independant' body and 60% granted by political patronage based on the parties support in the General Election (does this mean 42% empty seats? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">).

So do you think that this is the perfect answer to a difficult question, or a project doomed to failure (or change by the next party in government?)...

---

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif"&gt;

A pessimist is never disappointed
http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent

Former Member

The house of lords is a total joke these days. Labour will just fill it up with their little assbandits and they will get their own way on everything. Blair will be able to live out his dictatorship fantasies more than ever.

Hereditary lords are out, which is a good thing in my view.
Government appointed lords are just a joke.
Independant body? Hmmm ill wager it would be people like the CRE who come in here. Again, a farce.

I reckon its gonna have to be 100% democratically elected. At least when labour win in all decisions we will know it was down to the utter stupidity of the voting public rather than cronyism.

Former Member

The government uses expert advisors for all sorts of things: defence, health, tax. So surely there is something between the 'stupid' public and the hereditary 'cronies'.

There are plenty of intelligent people in the country. I say we use them.

What would be the point of a second elected chamber? We elect MPs to voice our opinions to the government. So why do we need to elect another set of people to do the same? The turnout in elections is pathetic so would creating another elected chamber be truly democratic anyway?

Former Member

Kentish,

I honestly cant see how the house of lords can work then.

Democratically elected lords will be just the same as the house of commons, as you said.

Any lords that are chosen by the govt will most certainly be avid supporters of that government, in which case they will just pass everything the PM wants.

Unless you split the house of lords 50/50 between the govt and opposition..but then its the same as commons again.

There are few intelligent people in this country without party affiliations so it gets real complicated.

Tell you one thing, it was a hell of a lot simpler when lordships were hereditary..May not have been fair but it was simple. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt;

Former Member

So should the second house use PR as the means of election?

HoC could keep it's current systme, thus ensuring that we rarely have a hung parliament. The second house could then be elected based on % of votes, thus ensuring that it truly reflected the wishes of 'the people' - therefore your greens, racists, commies and other fringe parties would have a voice in the seat of power.

Naturally the HoC would need to retain the right of veto that it currently enjoys...

How many other countries have appointees as lawmakers?

---

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif"&gt;

A pessimist is never disappointed...

http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent

Former Member

As you rightly point out, MoK, proportional representation is not perfect because it can result in a hung parliament or unstable coalition - obviously not ideal.

And it also causes problems when deciding which colour of MP is allocated to which constituency. e.g. If a constituency normally votes blue and therefore has a tory MP under first-past-the-post, they may end up with a red MP if other parts of the country have bigger blue majorities. F-p-t-p is just a scaled down version of PR after all.

Plus, as I said before: what would be the point of a second elected chamber (even if PR)?

Former Member

The second chamber wouldn't need to cover constituences though. The commons takes care of that already.

What a second chamber elected using PR would have is representatives from all parties - without the problem of hung parliaments, because they wouldn't form the Govt - did the Lords? The only real difference which I would like to see is that those sitting in the Lords should be elected. All of them. Other than that the job should stay the same..effectively.

The Govt would still be elected using 1st past post system - this seems to be the best way even if democratically speaking it sucks - the house of commons wouldn't change.

The second house is used to read through the laws, make suggestions and changes but doesn't have the power to stop the commons forcing through legislation if the want to. Why should this change? The main complaint about the Lords was that it was not representative of 'the people' and the same acusation is levied at the commons. Look at the Govt we have - only 40% of the vote - more people didn't bother to vote at all!

people like those on urban75.com and the racists will always claim that they don't get a voice. So give them one, but they would have to stand in the General Election to qualify. On this basis Labour would have only 40% of the seats in the second house - and thanks to their support in Oldham, the BNP would probably have a member sitting. THAT is democratic.

What we have now is Govt by patronage regardless of what people actually vote for. Added to that many votes are 'wasted', the constituency where I live has been Tory for over 100 years now - so anyone who votes against the Tories here is effectively silenced, politically speaking. Over 50% of the voters get ignored here, because they split their votes to other parties. SUrely we should ALL have a voice in the seat of Govt?

---

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif"&gt;

A pessimist is never disappointed...
http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent

[This message has been edited by Man Of Kent (edited 08-11-2001).]

Former Member

I see what you're saying. So would each constituency effectively have two MPs or we there be separate ballot papers?

If only 40% turn up to vote, though, I'm not sure this way is any more democratic. You still have the problem of voter apathy. And your own true-blue constituency (not dissimilar to mine) would still end up with a tory MP wouldn't it?

I think a second chamber should be totally apolitical, and just there to keep tabs on the Commons. Not sure how to get that though...

Former Member

Only one ballot paper needed. You vote for the person/party of choice, the same as now. Difference is that one ALL votes had been counted we eould have an idea of the percetages nationally cast.

Using the recent election it would leave Labour with 40% of the house to 'nominate'/select of whatever system the party wants, but what you would get is a democratic second house.

If a party wants to get a seat in either house they would have to stand at the General Election, and in enough seats to give them a realistic chance - ie the one off nutter wouldn't end up the the 'senate', but if he was party of a party and the people voted enough across the country, then a seat would be available...

Lets put it this way - do we have ANY voice now? Would we have any under the White Paper's 'solution', is 20% in anyway democratic?

next time you are told you live in a democracy, you know the answer. In a true democracy EVERY vote counts...

---

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif"&gt;

A pessimist is never disappointed...

http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent

Former Member

I would much rather have two ballot papers. One for the Commons laid out as normal. The other with the names of, say, 10 local people with no local party political affiliations. Each booth would have a list of these 'independents' and a brief manifesto for each. The idea being to introduce some ordinary people to the 'Lords'. For example, that consultant doctor chappy who stood in the last election as an independent for the 'save the local hospital' party or whatever it was. The point of an apolitical vote would be to create a totally independent second chamber to keep tabs on the Commons as I said before. It would be fairer than the current lords because a coalminer could be elected to the second chamber if the constituents thought he was up to the job.

Former Member

Okay, just two points for starters...

1. WHO chooses the ten?

2. john Prescott was a bar steward when he started on the slippery slope...

---

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif"&gt;

A pessimist is never disappointed...

http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent

Former Member

The ten are nominated and seconded as independent candidates are at the moment. It may end up being more or less than 10 depending on how many people are interested in each constituency.

What has JP got to do with it??

Former Member

As you probably know, I'm not a great beleiver in pure democracy, agreeing with Churchill.

I have come to the conclusion that with synthetyic systems, such as our own, the whole is indeed a great deal more than the sum of its parts.

I see our curent system as being composed:

PM (dictatorship)
Cabinet (mertiocraric pop. rep. oligarchy)
Government (popular representational democracy)
House of Lords (heriditary oligarchy)
Queen's Royal Assent (monarchy)
I think the PMs powers should be slapped right back, and government should work on making cabinet more accountable - but that's another issue.

The way the Lords was working wasn't right, but this isn't theright fix.

I'm glad that they aren't making the second chamber entirely elected, but they should have dropped or equalised the religious component.

My democratic plan for a second chamber is selection by lottery of the electoral roll, for life.

Former Member

Hmmmmmm, can I be as cynical as you when I grow up daddy?

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish Man:
What has JP got to do with it??

You mentioned that a 'coalminer' could be elected. I was trying to point out that this didn't mean that things would get better, afterall JP was a Bar Steward originally. Just having 'normal' people elected wouldn't make things better. You need the RIGHT 'normal' people...

I see what you mean about the 'independants', it makes some sense - more than Kaufman's suggestions anyway...

The major problem with Carriage's ballot for life, is the 'for life' part. If you get a bunch of no-hope moron (or the lib dems as they are currently known <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">) you would have no means of getting rid of them. In theory you could end up with 600 racists...

---

<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/parental.gif"&gt;

A pessimist is never disappointed...

http://www.faceparty.com/manofkent

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
If you get a bunch of no-hope moron (or the lib dems as they are currently known <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif"&gt; )

LMAO
Aint that the truth
That's the funniest thing I've read all week. That tickled my funny bone did that.

Former Member

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no point in replacing unelected hereditary peers with equally unelected appointed cronies. The whole lords reform has been a shambles. They should have just left it as it was. I don't think there is any need for what is essentially a scrutinising and reviewing chamber to be fully elected, but I don't think filling it with Labour cronies is a good idea. The hereditary system has worked well for hundreds of years, so why should we change it now?

---

If at first you don't succeed, hit it with a bigger hammer.

Former Member

If you bother to read the original postings on this thread, you will notice that we were not suggesting the replacement of unelected hereditary peers with unelected cronies. In fact, my own idea suggested filling the lords with elected independents.

And the lords blatantly hasn't worked well for hundreds of years. If it had we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish Man:
If you bother to read the original postings on this thread, you will notice that we were not suggesting the replacement of unelected hereditary peers with unelected cronies. In fact, my own idea suggested filling the lords with elected independents.

And the lords blatantly hasn't worked well for hundreds of years. If it had we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

I wasn't referring to your posts, I was referring to what has actually happened with the Lords. If it hasn't worked, why has it taken them so long to change and why are they still making a mess of it?

---

If at first you don't succeed, hit it with a bigger hammer.