If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
what to do with lords
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
what shal lwe do with house of lords
if it was all elected then itd just be commons effecvtively and thus wouldnt hold the commons bills to account, and if its all appointed then its be seen as undemocratic
personally i see an independtant body appointnig and a mix of elected as unelected doesnt necesserily mean undemocratic
if it was all elected then itd just be commons effecvtively and thus wouldnt hold the commons bills to account, and if its all appointed then its be seen as undemocratic
personally i see an independtant body appointnig and a mix of elected as unelected doesnt necesserily mean undemocratic
0
Comments
The upper chamber must be fully elected or at least appointed, and no one should be able to hold the post for life without possibility of being removed.
i love the vagueness
come on people give some REAL slightly possible solutions
i say make em fight for it to the death
how would u suggest making it different, just suggestions
id say terms of 6 years, and possibly a % of seats are decided by a group of population like academics or something, or all professional trades or something
i hate people criticising things and not even coming up with suggestions
like we made suggestions on here once before aobut higher education and came up with possibly the best system ever, i was gona send it to the government, but forgot it :mad:
Also, the regions for elections to Lords should be different to the regions to the Commons, again, to avoid a mirror image. After all if one house alone isn't acceptable, then two houses the same aren't going to be any different.
However, now they've been messed with then the process needs to be completed.
It should be first past the post for the lower house and proportional representation in the upper house.
What do you think of my proposals for certain standards in lords?
Hmm, are you attempting to preclude any even slightly working class people getting in? Because thats not really a bad idea, I'm just interested in your intentions.
intentions are to have people who can be critical in terms of legitmacy and constitutional and less career politicans who have it their ife goal to be politicans ie ex student union officers like at uni
so commons does bills according to the public, and then its criticsied, like if the principles of the nation are being raped by heil blunkett
I'm trying to avoid stupid people getting in, which I think is totally understandable. It's possible in this country no matter where you start from to get to a position and prove your intelligence, it's not about class it's about mental capability.
It probably would lead to a house full of slightly left liberals though, who would faff about and never really think anything was bad because they could always see two sides to everthing.
You havn't met my maths lecturer. Who is incidentally acceptable under my propsals, he's got a Ph.d.
Not that thats a hugely bad thing, but we need a second house who dont want any new laws. Who really make the lower house justify new laws.
Seeing both sides of everything isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, having a standard postit note for the lower house saying "why?" isn't a bad idea either.
I don't think they should be elected necessarily. I like Fiend's idea of having a mixture of academics and professionals. But that does exclude a lot of the population. I think it would be acceptable to have tradespeople and housewives as well.
What I do hate about the current appointment system (and politics in general) is the old boys mentality of who you know. But that's just life, sadly.
It'd be cute to have unprofessionals there, it makes it seem more personal to the public. The point of the second house is to put a check on the 'public' house though. The whole idea of having academics and professionals is that you are guarenteed a certain level of intelligence. I don't want you to think that housewives and tradesmen are stupid, but those who have achieved a certain level of excellence definatly aren't.
The point of fptp for commons and proportional representation for Lords is so that you don't have two exact copies, if you did, where would the checking system be?
theres a purpose t having academics and so on only eligable to be elected, as in it is their job to criticise bills and fix them to make them workable
public opinion is for the common, a level of critcism comes from the lords
So would the Lords have political affiliations or would it be a condition of their appointment that they are not politically active. Either way, how would you ensure a spread of political opinion? And how would we know who to vote for? Would we vote along party lines, or for a particular profession, or gender, age...
Absolutly not, I am more than aware of the level of intelligence the lies with the unqualified. For example, my mother was just as intelligent as my father (D-phil from Oxford) but she never finished her D-phil thesis having become pregnant with my brother. What the qualification of intelligence and experience gives is a guarentee of a reasoned critique of any bill passing through.
The Lords already do have political affiliations, though a condition of no political activity would be lovely. We would vote for them as independent candidates, they'd each lay out their priorities and elections would proceed from there.
Again, you overestimate academics. How is that a 'guarantee' of reasoned critique? Sometimes you need someone with a bit of common sense rather than expert knowledge to point out the bleeding obvious. I fully agree with this. We have had this discussion on here many times, and I think fully independent, locally elected lords are the way forward. Their ideologies and qualifications for the job should be published [and publicised], and anyone should be allowed to apply. No party political selection, just a nomination. Maybe hundreds would apply, maybe a few, but everyone would be able to get involved in central politics.
I think you need to have another look at my list of those qualified.
:yes: Up to a point.
My point is that the Lords has a crucial role not only in reviewing legislation from the Commons, but also endorsing the motive behind the legislation. I'm not saying that the Lords should be absolutely representative of society but everyone should be allowed to at least apply to be considered for the Lords.
Intelligence is not only measured in academia.
Perhaps there could be special cases. Richard Branson for example, didn't even get his GCSEs as I recall, but is clearly succesful and intelligent. Though how would you measure such things?
However, the upper house should have representatives from the smaller parties to put forward other view points on the legislation.
That way in the checks and balances stage minority views would also be taken into account.
well you need some way of picking eligible people
you could base it on professions, but those without being in it otherwise theyd be vested interests