DOOM: House of Lords

[WTFH]

When was that?

4th Century BC, when the first federalists leagues were set up in Greece, and many of the democratic cities sent their wealthiest citizens to represent them in the league. Partly because the wealthy could afford the time away, having managers and slaves to run their businesses in absentia, and partly because the cities wanted to show themselves as being very wealthy.

[malvolio]

4th Century BC, when the first federalists leagues were set up in Greece, and many of the democratic cities sent their wealthiest citizens to represent them in the league. Partly because the wealthy could afford the time away, having managers and slaves to run their businesses in absentia, and partly because the cities wanted to show themselves as being very wealthy.

Right. So the new upper house will be filled with people who have enough money to employ managers and staff to work on their behalf or enough property to be self-sufficient.

So how does that differ from the House of Lords of, say, 1820...?

It was the abolition of hereditary peers that did the real damage, since opening the House to life peers meant an immediate influx of people by patronage, not ability. Perhaps what neds to happen is a cull of those who do not contribute in any meaningful way, then keeping the membership at that new level, meaning you can't just bung in your mates to make up the numbers for your party.

[WTFH]

Right. So the new upper house will be filled with people who have enough money to employ managers and staff to work on their behalf or sufficient property to be self-sufficient.

So how does that differ from the House of Lords of, say, 1820...?

Struggling with comprehension?
The question was: "when did democracy get corrupted"
And my response was as I posted.

Your response is a complete non-sequitur.

[d000hg]

In our current system, it's hardly the Lords which are the biggest problem. They are typically the sensible ones, saving us from the nonsense those we actually elect keep trying to push through.
Change for change's sake IMO. Some trimming and tweaking wouldn't go amiss but if we must(?) have reform then focusing on FPTP seems more useful.

[malvolio]

Struggling with comprehension?
The question was: "when did democracy get corrupted"
And my response was as I posted.

Your response is a complete non-sequitur.

No, but you may be. Your answer described the pre-democracy model for supplying representatives of the people. I merely applied your criteria to the ongoing discussion.

Reductio ad absurdsam perhaps but entirely logical.

[DoctorStrangelove]

It's life Jim but not as we know it.

Oh.

Sorry.

Wrong login.

[d000hg]

This is in the news again today, Keir emphatically stating "I will demolish it ASAP".
All other things aside, how would one actually abolish/reinvent the house of Lords given that bills from the government goes through their house? Lords don't typically have to follow party direction do they, that's part of the point.

[SueEllen]

This is in the news again today, Keir emphatically stating "I will demolish it ASAP".
All other things aside, how would one actually abolish/reinvent the house of Lords given that bills from the government goes through their house? Lords don't typically have to follow party direction do they, that's part of the point.

It is part of the process to bring in a federal UK to shut up the SNP once and for all.

Thing is it doesn't have to be and shouldn't be brought in after Labour's first term.

[Smoggy]

I'd keep reform as simple as possible. Scrap all hereditary peers and religious appointments. Introduce 10/15/20 year Term limits. Decide on a target number of peers, 400 seems reasonable. Every 5 years a formula based on target number of peers and general election vote share will allocate a number of new/returning peer appointments to each party who can choose whoever they like as long as they pass vetting by a cross party committee of existing peers. A fixed number of apolitical appointments can also be made by a cross party committee of existing peers.

The peer appointments formula will allow a glidepath from the current number of peers down to 400 over the next 15 years, say so fewer appointments in the coming years until we reach equilibrium.

[NotAllThere]

Exactly same number of seats as the Commons. Whoever comes second in a constituency automatically goes to the upper house. The new chamber to have the same powers and function as the existing one. This will result in there being no chance of a tyranny of the majority, but still allow the government to function.

For the last general election, the Commons was:

Con	365
Lab	202
SNP	48
LD	11
DUP	8
SF	7
PC	4
SDLP	2
Alliance	1
Green	1
Ashfield Independents	0
Birkenhead Social Justice Party	0
Brexit	0
Ind	0
PBPA	0
Spk	0
UUP	0

Under this system, the second chamber would have been:

Lab	303
Con	216
LD	91
SNP	11
DUP	6
Alliance	4
Ind	4
Brexit	3
UUP	3
Green	2
SDLP	2
SF	2
Ashfield Independents	1
Birkenhead Social Justice Party	1
PBPA	1
Spk	1
PC	0