Tin gongs and corrupt vootes.

[Anchorman]

The latest batch of 'honours' from the westminster mob  brings another 45 unelected waste of spaces into the antidemocratic mess of Westminster.
More vermin in ermine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dissolution-peerages-2015

[Gordon]

Yep - with you on this this Jim.

I say bin it, and then sort out how we best use our democratically elected people in revised governance arrangements - and while we are at it let us also dispose of the Monarchy.

[jeremyp]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

[Anchorman]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

Very much undemocratic, though,

[Harrowby Hall]

It is indeed undemocratic.

And will be a nail in the coffin of Cameron's reputation when the history books are written. following the result of the Scottish referendum, he had the opportunity to establish a commission to look at the British constitution and modernise the governance of the United Kingdom in a way which would satisfy the needs of each of its constituent nations.

Instead he he just looked for party interests. What a failure.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

Damned by faint praise

[Hope]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

Very much undemocratic, though,

I'd agree with jeremy.  Some of the people in the HoL have extensive knowledge of a whole host of areas of British society, economics and politics, a knowledge that most elected people would sacrifice arms and legs to have.

Does democracy always have to be through elected people?  Look, for instance, at a US President's 'Cabinet' - how many of them are elected?  Surely, having people who are experts in their fields to advise and fine-tune legislation is more important than having elected representatives who may lack any of this expertise?  Jim, if you really wanted to ensure the expertise, rather than blind political allegiance, how would you go about creating an electoral system to provide it?  Would you have teachers elect teachers. medics elect medics, geographers elect geographers, etc.?

[Anchorman]

Hang on, Hope.
Are you trying to tell me that the unelected house of Lords with its privilage, subsidised perks, and expenses - after the People's Republic of China the biggest legislature on earth - has any right to make, review or pass legislation which can affect my future?
Really?

[Hope]

Hang on, Hope.
Are you trying to tell me that the unelected house of Lords with its privilage, subsidised perks, and expenses - after the People's Republic of China the biggest legislature on earth - has any right to make, review or pass legislation which can affect my future?
Really?

No, but what I am saying is that having a second chamber which is able to bring expertise and knowledge - often greater than that within the 'first' chamber - to bear in the creation of legislation is often a valuable aspect oif British governance.  Does that 'expertise and knowledge' have to be elected?  If so, does it have to be elected by the totality of the electorate, or can it be elected by expertise-specific groupings?

I have always fully agreed with the removal of hereditary peers (even if they are then returned to the House on the strength of a particular expertise) and the bulk of antiquated, passed it, MPs.

Remember that many democracies are bi-cameral, and where this is purely based on political allegiance - as it the States, for instance - there is often stalemate between the two houses.

[Anchorman]

A second revising chamber - a senate which is elected by the constituent parts of this union (while it lasts) is a good idea.
A chamber composed of a faction of religious delegates from one church in one part of the union, a few inbreds who are there by the fact their parents had sex in the right bed, a lot of failed politicians appointed by political parties, a few celebs and a token number of 'experts' hiring Moss Brothers fantasy robes and pretending they are at King Arthur's court, calling each other 'noble' when more than a few are convicted criminals, does not seem a reasonable way to scrutinise legislation.

[Outrider]

Does democracy always have to be through elected people?

It doesn't have to be - in principle you could organise a public vote on all issues, the ultimate in reality TV! In practice, though, parliamentary democracies are the most common form.

Look, for instance, at a US President's 'Cabinet' - how many of them are elected?  Surely, having people who are experts in their fields to advise and fine-tune legislation is more important than having elected representatives who may lack any of this expertise?

The thing is, the President's advisors have no actual power or authority.

Jim, if you really wanted to ensure the expertise, rather than blind political allegiance, how would you go about creating an electoral system to provide it?  Would you have teachers elect teachers. medics elect medics, geographers elect geographers, etc.?

Ah, meritocracy, and the endless discussions about a) who chooses what topics need to be represented and b) who chooses what constitutes expertise in those areas.

In theory it's a fantastic system, but in practice it just breeds different special interests, and there would still be group of professional 'administrators' to occupy the central ground in co-ordinating your meritocracy, electing their own kind to be the lynch-pin of the system. Institutionalised politicians.

O.

[Harrowby Hall]

Does democracy always have to be through elected people?  Look, for instance, at a US President's 'Cabinet' - how many of them are elected?  Surely, having people who are experts in their fields to advise and fine-tune legislation is more important than having elected representatives who may lack any of this expertise?

Not a particularly good example, Hope.

The US President's "Cabinet" comprises advisors only. Only the President has executive power. And only Congress can make legislation.

The HoL not only acts as a revising chamber but it can instigate legislation itself.

There is a need for a second chamber, but I think that staffing it through patronage (and by sexual intercourse between a very limited number of people) is a practice well beyond its dustbin date.

[Hope]

There is a need for a second chamber, but I think that staffing it through patronage (and by sexual intercourse between a very limited number of people) is a practice well beyond its dustbin date.

I'd agree, but the question is - does that body have to be elected in order to have any validity, and if so, how should it be elected.  Is it elected by the totality of the electorate, as in a General Election for the House of Commons, which would likely mean that it became just another party-political jousting area or by means of votes within specific groups of society that provided the country with a selection of expertise chosen by their profesional and other peers (apologies for the pun, sort of).

[Jack Knave]

Does democracy always have to be through elected people?

It doesn't have to be - in principle you could organise a public vote on all issues, the ultimate in reality TV! In practice, though, parliamentary democracies are the most common form.

Look, for instance, at a US President's 'Cabinet' - how many of them are elected?  Surely, having people who are experts in their fields to advise and fine-tune legislation is more important than having elected representatives who may lack any of this expertise?

The thing is, the President's advisors have no actual power or authority.

Jim, if you really wanted to ensure the expertise, rather than blind political allegiance, how would you go about creating an electoral system to provide it?  Would you have teachers elect teachers. medics elect medics, geographers elect geographers, etc.?

Ah, meritocracy, and the endless discussions about a) who chooses what topics need to be represented and b) who chooses what constitutes expertise in those areas.

In theory it's a fantastic system, but in practice it just breeds different special interests, and there would still be group of professional 'administrators' to occupy the central ground in co-ordinating your meritocracy, electing their own kind to be the lynch-pin of the system. Institutionalised politicians.

O.

Basically true but what would you have in its place?

[Outrider]

Does democracy always have to be through elected people?

It doesn't have to be - in principle you could organise a public vote on all issues, the ultimate in reality TV! In practice, though, parliamentary democracies are the most common form.

Look, for instance, at a US President's 'Cabinet' - how many of them are elected?  Surely, having people who are experts in their fields to advise and fine-tune legislation is more important than having elected representatives who may lack any of this expertise?

The thing is, the President's advisors have no actual power or authority.

Jim, if you really wanted to ensure the expertise, rather than blind political allegiance, how would you go about creating an electoral system to provide it?  Would you have teachers elect teachers. medics elect medics, geographers elect geographers, etc.?

Ah, meritocracy, and the endless discussions about a) who chooses what topics need to be represented and b) who chooses what constitutes expertise in those areas.

In theory it's a fantastic system, but in practice it just breeds different special interests, and there would still be group of professional 'administrators' to occupy the central ground in co-ordinating your meritocracy, electing their own kind to be the lynch-pin of the system. Institutionalised politicians.

O.

Basically true but what would you have in its place?

When I was younger I was fanatically supportive of the idea of a meritocracy, but the older I get the more and more I find myself agreeing with Churchill on this one:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

O.

[2Corrie]

A second revising chamber - a senate which is elected by the constituent parts of this union (while it lasts) is a good idea.

Agreed. Why couldn't we have an elected senator / sheriff for each county.

[Anchorman]

A second revising chamber - a senate which is elected by the constituent parts of this union (while it lasts) is a good idea.

Agreed. Why couldn't we have an elected senator / sheriff for each county.

Because the Tories, in a misguided effort to try and end Labour one-party rule, re-organised Scottish local authorities.
Were one senator* returned in each local authority within this rotten union, Scotland wouuld have a disproportionately  high representation.

* - 'Sherrif' in Scotland, has an entirely different meaning with that in E&W.

[floo]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

Nor do I.

[Anchorman]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

Nor do I.

-
So you think someone should be able to make laws on your vbehalf regardless of the fact that niether you, nor anyone else, voted for them?

[OH MY WORLD!]

Your House of Lords drafts laws? I thought the Commons did that and the Lords goes over it and wastes time and money. We are about done with our second chamber but constitutionally we can't kill it unless all provincial governments agree. Plus opening the constitution is a bad thingy in Canada. We DON"T like doing that because of the demands that will be made by Le Belle province.

[Anchorman]

A bill can come from either house of Wastemonster, JC.
The undemocratic champagne charlies in the HOL are supposed to be a 'revising chamber'. with the HOC having the final say.
Though the 800 supernumeraries whom no-one elected can - and do introduce legislation, and amend legislation passed to it from the semi-democratic HOC.
So legislation passed by a semi-democratic HOC is changed by a completely undemocratic HOL.
Democracy, British style.



You may like to link to an article from a UK newspaper, the Guardian, which reveals the criminals who can legally vote on our future though no-one elected them, as members of 'her majesty's' hous of peers....
In the forthcoming byelection, nine of the 15 are Conservative, four are crossbenchers (including a Ukip sympathiser) and two are Lib Dem – presumably of the reforming variety that shares, with Labour’s self-abnegating Lords Prescott and Hattersley, the consuming desire to abolish itself. At least one, Lord Margadale, has posed with dead boars. Among hereditaries, such attributes are thought to compare most advantageously with those of pushy “career”, ie, elected, politicians, and with life peers who paid cash for their titles – more on account of appearances than anything else, given the aristocracy’s enduring debt to honours salesman Lloyd George.

[Enki]

I doubt if all of them are complete wastes of space.

Nor do I.

-
So you think someone should be able to make laws on your vbehalf regardless of the fact that niether you, nor anyone else, voted for them?

A bit like the West Lothian question, then.

Incidentally I too would want a completely democratic HofL. The present system, imo, is totally corrupt.

[OH MY WORLD!]

So does a bill from the Lords have to be passed by the Commons to become law.

[Anchorman]

A bill, whether introduced from either pseudemocratic anachronism, goes through three stages before being passed to the other chamber to be debated, rewritten etc. Then the final bill goes back to the Commons - after being changed beyond recognition - to be approved before someone pulls Liz's strings to sign it into law.

[Hope]

So does a bill from the Lords have to be passed by the Commons to become law.

All laws, regardless of where they have started out, have to complete their stages of consideration in the House of Commons.