Reply to: It worked. It never upset the public.

[snaw]

What you describe is what the HoL has BECOME snaw, which is exactly the point. It's no wonder you have a low opinion of the Lords if you think it has always been like that. You must be too young to remember (pre-Blair) when the Lords had teeth, and DID throw out bad legislation by refusing to rubber stamp it.

Any chance of making your case without being quite so patronising, I'm much older than you apparently believe.

The lords in it's current form is as good as it's ever been imo, and it's still piss weak. I'm all for checks and balances in our government, imo the lords barely has any power - and as far as I'm aware this has been the case for almost 100 years. I'm not buying the bollocks about elected bodies etc - plenty of other countries manage fine with dual governmental bodies quite happily. So not doomed, etc.

[wendigo100]

1. I know perfectly well what it does, so get of your patronising high horse. It can send legislation back to the commons for review/amendment, twice (2nd time almost never rejected). That's it, at best it can delay things by one year . It can't throw out legislation as you put it.

What you describe is what the HoL has BECOME snaw, which is exactly the point. It's no wonder you have a low opinion of the Lords if you think it has always been like that. You must be too young to remember (pre-Blair) when the Lords had teeth, and DID throw out bad legislation by refusing to rubber stamp it.

[threaded]

From the article:

However, as no bill is being debated, the most popular option will not pass into law - but is likely to inform future government policy.

As MPs prepare for the vote, Labour peer Lord Lipsey, former economics editor of the Sunday Times, has published figures of £1,092m as the cost for the proposed shake-up.

So the point is?????????

Most of that money will go to existing party donors....

[BoredBloke]

"There was no need to change the HoL but given the high incidences of the Parliament act being invoked to force through piss poor legislation is it any wonder New Liebour want to get rid of what it sees as a barrier to it's plans?"

And that is the problem in a nutshell. In the commons votes happen according to party lines. At election time the winning party would probably have a majority in both houses meaning that nothing would ever get questioned since votes would be along party lines in both houses. The one benefit of the non elected body is that they can't be de-selected. They can vote on matters based on what they think is right or wrong, not on the istructions of a party whip.

[John Galt]

From the article:

However, as no bill is being debated, the most popular option will not pass into law - but is likely to inform future government policy.

As MPs prepare for the vote, Labour peer Lord Lipsey, former economics editor of the Sunday Times, has published figures of £1,092m as the cost for the proposed shake-up.

So the point is?????????

[zathras]

It's been around for hundreds of years, mostly served by members on hereditary peerages, representing their constituency (i.e. landed gentry and the very rich in the main). I find it hard to get sentimental about such a body personally.

The strength of our constitution is the checks and balances of three organisations controlling legislation. The Monarchy, The Lords and the Commons.

The Lords are able to query bad law and get the commons to re-think it. The Monarch has the final say however on something becoming law, although I'm not aware of the Queen preventing something becoming law as yet.

One only needs to look at history to see where an elected body has become a dictatorship because the country involved did not have these checks and balances.

Up till now the degree of patronage owed by members of the upper house has meant that it can question proposals from the lower house with impunity. It has also meant given the high degree of poorly thought out legislation that the current government has used the Parliament Act to force it through more than any other in this countries history. It's also a good reason why hereditary peers should have been kept. They owe their position to nothing more than an accident of birth.

If fully appointed then this principle of no patronage is severly weakened. If elected then it can legitimatly say that it is reflecting the interests of the electorate. Countries where there is a fully elected upper chamber can find them deadlocked when the political makeup is mirrored because both can say they are reflecting the wishes of the electorate.

There was no need to change the HoL but given the high incidences of the Parliament act being invoked to force through piss poor legislation is it any wonder New Liebour want to get rid of what it sees as a barrier to it's plans?

[snaw]

Sometimes Snaw, you worry me.

Election and appointment leads to a possibly biased house and consequently possible runaway Government.

How do you think the country would fair with a landslide victory for either party in both houses and the the Government of the day appointing more of its cronies.

If that scenario doesnt scare you then imagine the same thing with the BNP or a communist party as the landslide winner.

The old HOL has generally shown itself not to be biased in any way and because of the way it is made up has remained unnafected by politics or the need to toe any particular party line.

The legislation is to have 'some' elected reps - could be 80%, could be 20%. I personally don't see a problem with having elected rep's in the lords, much rather that than the 90 hereditary peers we still have. I'd even hazard a guess and suggest that they're much less likely to toe the party line.

I hear your arguement, but I simply don't agree that with it. I've no fear of more elected representatives, and of changing the mix in the lords. Like I say, I'd be happy to give it more powers, make it a true balance rather than the piss weak thing it is atm.

[The Lone Gunman]

Sometimes Snaw, you worry me.

Election and appointment leads to a possibly biased house and consequently possible runaway Government.

How do you think the country would fair with a landslide victory for either party in both houses and the the Government of the day appointing more of its cronies.

If that scenario doesnt scare you then imagine the same thing with the BNP or a communist party as the landslide winner.

The old HOL has generally shown itself not to be biased in any way and because of the way it is made up has remained unnafected by politics or the need to toe any particular party line.

[snaw]

snaw,

1. You don't see what the HoL does because little of what it does is headline stuff. It threw out more bad legislation under Thatcher than it has done under Blair. The difference now is that Blair threatens the Parliament Act at every turn, and so his bad legislation gets through.

2. The very fact that the Lords is being neutered should be a concern.

3. Turning it into an elected body will replicate what we have in the commons, which removes it's point.

4. Your point about privilege and landed gentry is utterly irrelevant to me, as it should be to everyone, who should be more interested in the purpose and performance of the upper house. I believe it is more effective filled with people who are not professional vote-chasing politicians.

1. I know perfectly well what it does, so get of your patronising high horse. It can send legislation back to the commons for review/amendment, twice (2nd time almost never rejected). That's it, at best it can delay things by one year . It can't throw out legislation as you put it.

2. It's being neutered, how? This vote is to change how it's being composed, nothing about it's actual powers.

3. Umm, as far as I can see the choices seem to range from 80% elected to 20% elected. Why's this a bad thing, many other democracies function very well with two elected bodies, with different responsibilities.

4. The point was in response to the statement that's it's worked well for hundreds of years. I'd dispute that claim, as I said in my reply. I'm all for having appointed and elected rep's and as I said I don't think it's 'purpose and performance' is all that great that we should be worried about a little shake up.

[wendigo100]

snaw,

1. You don't see what the HoL does because little of what it does is headline stuff. It threw out more bad legislation under Thatcher than it has done under Blair. The difference now is that Blair threatens the Parliament Act at every turn, and so his bad legislation gets through.

2. The very fact that the Lords is being neutered should be a concern.

3. Turning it into an elected body will replicate what we have in the commons, which removes it's point.

4. Your point about privilege and landed gentry is utterly irrelevant to me, as it should be to everyone, who should be more interested in the purpose and performance of the upper house. I believe it is more effective filled with people who are not professional vote-chasing politicians.

[snaw]

It's a free vote ffs. Correct me if I'm wrong but this change isn't a proposal to get rid of it, it's one to change how's it's made up (Proportion of appointees and electees). You're gettng a little hysterical ... doomed etc.

It's been around for hundreds of years, mostly served by members on hereditary peerages, representing their constituency (i.e. landed gentry and the very rich in the main). I find it hard to get sentimental about such a body personally.

It's a bit neutered imo. In my life I don't see it having achieved much at all (Unlike in other democracies where you have two bodies, with some sort of powers that check and balance each other), if it was up to me I'd give it more powers, but only if the actual composition was changed to something more palatible (Happy with a cross section of appointees and elected reps).

[The Lone Gunman]

**** me, threats under every stone or what.

The HOL has served as a counter to the Commons for hundreds of years and up to now it has worked well.
Without this balance our democracy IS threatened.
NL abuse of the parliament act should worry you.

[wendigo100]

Why give a sh!t anyway, it's a pretty useless body in it's current guise, and it's a free vote.

**** me, threats under every stone or what.

Are you serious snaw?

[threaded]

Why give a sh!t anyway, it's a pretty useless body in it's current guise, and it's a free vote.

**** me, threats under every stone or what.

Well, in a parallel universe the New Lie removed the house of Lords in their first term. There never was another election after that.

[snaw]

Why give a sh!t anyway, it's a pretty useless body in it's current guise, and it's a free vote.

**** me, threats under every stone or what.