Reply to: DOOM: House of Lords

[DoctorStrangelove]

thus spake zarathrusta

I thought he did rockets.

Very Big Rockets.

[NotAllThere]

It means the second chamber is full of rejects and, what is worse, set up to vote along party lines, which will almost certainly be a reverse of the make-up of the House. So what is the benefit?

That is the benefit!

[_V_]

Shirly, it's treason for the supposedly Official Leader of the Opposition to make such proposals, what's next - abolish the monarchy?

One can only hope, would love to see a Brexit style bus with abolish the monarchy on the side

[AtW]

Shirly, it's treason for the supposedly Official Leader of the Opposition to make such proposals, what's next - abolish the monarchy?

[sadkingbilly]

It is a measure of Sunak's weakness that Labour are ahead, not of Starmer's ability or popularity.

thus spake zarathrusta

[malvolio]

It's kind of pointless arguing what the HoL should be. It will either be as it is now (full of lickspittles and party donors) OR the Labour vision of a new progressive and fair upper house.

Since the odds are the next govt will be lead by Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB KC you lot need to get over it

Sadly there are a lot of legal, constitutional and political experts out there who will destroy Starmer's master plan. The system we have has worked for the last 350 years or so: the problem is not the system but the pygmies it currently contains. A few statesmen wouldn't go amiss but instead we get politicians.

Equally sadly, Starmer is a populist who says whatever he thinks people want to hear that week.

It is a measure of Sunak's weakness that Labour are ahead, not of Starmer's ability or popularity.

[_V_]

It's kind of pointless arguing what the HoL should be. It will either be as it is now (full of lickspittles and party donors) OR the Labour vision of a new progressive and fair upper house.

Since the odds are the next govt will be lead by Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB KC you lot need to get over it

[malvolio]

Well, first of all, unless you're tactically voting, you're not voting explicitly for someone to not be in power.

It solves the problem of the tyranny of the majority.
It means that your vote isn't wasted in safe seats.
It means the second chamber is minority elected - but with FPP that's also true.

It means the second chamber is full of rejects and, what is worse, set up to vote along party lines, which will almost certainly be a reverse of the make-up of the House. So what is the benefit?

If you want to escape the tyranny of the majority (aka democratic process) then make a good, sensible and workable case for PR in the main House. Then, and only then, would your proposal for the second chamber make any kind of sense. But not much even then.

[NotAllThere]

So again, what's the point of your suggestion? Instead of an unelected group of people we get a group of people we explicitly voted NOT to be in power.

Well, first of all, unless you're tactically voting, you're not voting explicitly for someone to not be in power.

It solves the problem of the tyranny of the majority.
It means that your vote isn't wasted in safe seats.
It means the second chamber is minority elected - but with FPP that's also true.

[d000hg]

The AI needs to go back to the drawing board. Neither of those satisfy the purpose of the second chamber.

Like many regular people, the AI is just regurgitating things it heard once

[malvolio]

The AI suggests the following:

There are several potential systems that could replace the House of Lords in the UK. One option would be to establish a new, democratically elected body to serve as a second chamber of Parliament. This could be done through a popular vote, with members of the new chamber being chosen by the people. Another option would be to give more power to the existing House of Commons, which is already democratically elected. This could involve changing the rules of Parliament to give the Commons more authority to pass legislation and make decisions on its own.

The AI needs to go back to the drawing board. Neither of those satisfy the purpose of the second chamber.

[_V_]

The AI suggests the following:

There are several potential systems that could replace the House of Lords in the UK. One option would be to establish a new, democratically elected body to serve as a second chamber of Parliament. This could be done through a popular vote, with members of the new chamber being chosen by the people. Another option would be to give more power to the existing House of Commons, which is already democratically elected. This could involve changing the rules of Parliament to give the Commons more authority to pass legislation and make decisions on its own.

[d000hg]

Never heard of the Parliament Act then? The Lord's can only veto a very few laws. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/...arliamentacts/

So again, what's the point of your suggestion? Instead of an unelected group of people we get a group of people we explicitly voted NOT to be in power.

[NotAllThere]

What exactly is the point if that? To ensure no legislation ever gets passed? Sounds like the USA.

Never heard of the Parliament Act then? The Lord's can only veto a very few laws. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/...arliamentacts/

[d000hg]

You miss the point that the Upper chamber is supposed to be a repository of experience and wisdom to guide the Lower house. For that reason, the old House of Lords populated with bishops and peers worked quite well, it was only the creation of life Peers that buggered it up by adding lots of politically-inspired dunderheads and losers to the pile. Replacing life Peers with a buggins turn mechanism would bugger it up all over again.
Also any mechanism that enshrines party loyalty, as yours does, would be worse than what we have now.

Set a fixed number of seats - 200 is probably too many. Turf out those who don't contribute in a meaningful way, starting the few hundred who only turn up to collect the money. Replace empty seats by election from the whole House as needed. Simples...

wE are in a rare moment of agreement over a political question! Well I'm not sure about your proposed reforms but the first part I totally agree with.