The Upper House

[SteveH]

Most people agree that the House of Lords needs major reform. Here's my idea:
The Upper House, which can be called the House of Lords, the Senate, or whatever you like, should be entirely directly elected on a constituency basis, using the same constituencies as the House of Commons. Once elected, though, a member has the job for life, or until they choose to stand down, or lose a vote of no confidence of their fellow members, or commit a crime carrying a custodial sentence. Therefore, after an initial election immediately following the creation of it, there will be no general elections to the upper house; there will be elections in individual constituencies after any of the above events renders a constituency vacant. This job-for-life system will prevent the members always having one eye on the next election, and being cowed by a party machine: they will be able, and more likely, to speak out sincerely and question the government. However, the possibility of losing a vote of no confidence will stop them just taking the salary and doing nothing. No party whips will be allowed in the upper house.
Thoughts?

[SusanDoris]

I think it should stay as it is.

Agreed. In fact one of the latest blogs of my local MP is about that very subject. He points out the various reasons why it should stay as it is.

[SteveH]

A mish-mash of hereditary peers and appointees, none of them elected? What have you got against democracy?

[SteveH]

I think it should stay as it is.

Reasoned argument, such as you repeatedly demand of others, would be nice.

[SusanDoris]

Try this link:
http://www.desmondswaynemp.com/ds-blog/not-reforming-the-lords/

[Gordon]

The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic. At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.

I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.

[SteveH]

The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic. At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.

I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.

Good point, and one I've considered myself, but if we're to have one, then I think my suggestion makes sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A mish-mash of hereditary peers and appointees, none of them elected? What have you got against democracy?

It smells of Lynx and has perfect teeth?

[SteveH]

Try this link:
http://www.desmondswaynemp.com/ds-blog/not-reforming-the-lords/

He's a bloody Tory, but I suppose even tories aren't always wrong about absolutely everything. He doesn't come up with much in the way of objective argument, though. What does he have against electing the upper house? Is he a democrat, or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He's a bloody Tory, but I suppose even tories aren't always wrong about absolutely everything. He doesn't come up with much in the way of objective argument, though. What does he have against electing the upper house? Is he a democrat, or not?

Electoral colleges should be the order of the day. College of public servants, college of academics, college of world view, College of commerce, college of labour elect for life

[SusanDoris]

The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic. At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.

I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.

Just because you can't see why the whole lot can't b binned, doesn't make it the right thing to do!!

However, just think that through. You do realise, don't you, that the way of life, legislation, and a million other things would become so completely disrupted that chaos would prevail. There absolutely has to be a gradual, evolving change, not a revolution.

[SteveH]

Electoral colleges should be the order of the day. College of public servants, college of academics, college of world view, College of commerce, college of labour elect for life

You do realise, I suppose, that that is pure facism? It was the main plank in the platform of the British Union of Fascists.

[ippy]

He's a bloody Tory, but I suppose even tories aren't always wrong about absolutely everything. He doesn't come up with much in the way of objective argument, though. What does he have against electing the upper house? Is he a democrat, or not?

Steve, I went to a debate about ridding ourselves of the House of Lords, it was held at the Covent Garden conference hall, the Opera house, it was one of those intelligence squared debates, I dare say you can find it on YouTube somewhere, anyway, I went in having it set in my mind that these people should stand for some kind of election so that they could only have a place in T H L based on merit, well I can tell you I came out of there and I no longer know the answer, the only thing I haven't changed my mind about is the blindingly obvious wrong of holding seats especially for Bishops, (no problem with a Bishop in the H O L, on merit but certainly not as of right).

If you can find the debate on Y T go for it it's worth taking the time, I still feel there's something wrong about the set up of this House but no longer have any idea how to resolve my, at present, feelings about the place.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do realise, I suppose, that that is pure facism? It was the main plank in the platform of the British Union of Fascists.

Citation please.
Everyone would fall into a category and get to elect the electorate, that way everyone would be represented.

An elected house would just return a huge house of commons surely

[ippy]

Citation please.
Everyone would fall into a category and get to elect the electorate, that way everyone would be represented.

An elected house would just return a huge house of commons surely

Are you O K Vlad?

Kind regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

Steve, I went to a debate about ridding ourselves of the House of Lords, it was held at the Covent Garden conference hall, the Opera house, it was one of those intelligence squared debates, I dare say you can find it on YouTube somewhere, anyway, I went in having it set in my mind that these people should stand for some kind of election so that they could only have a place in T H L based on merit, well I can tell you I came out of there and I no longer know the answer, the only thing I haven't changed my mind about is the blindingly obvious wrong of holding seats especially for Bishops, (no problem with a Bishop in the H O L, on merit but certainly not as of right).

If you can find the debate on Y T go for it it's worth taking the time, I still feel there's something wrong about the set up of this House but no longer have any idea how to resolve my, at present, feelings about the place.

Regards ippy

The whole thing is - there isn't a way of doing things that is so much better, so much more efficient, so much a part of British life, that it can take over; and unless something superior is available, can be tried and tested and shown to be superior, then it ain't broke - don't fix it. Yes, it will probably change gradually, as things do, but not in a hurry. I personally think it will be the Bishops who will quietly (well, perhaps not quietly on their part, but it will have to be quiet because they'll know it is inevitable!! ) go first and thatwill be because a larger number of people recognise the total lack of any believed-in god, especially because of continued religious fanaticism.

But some of us won't  be here to see it!

[Gordon]

Just because you can't see why the whole lot can't b binned, doesn't make it the right thing to do!!

However, just think that through. You do realise, don't you, that the way of life, legislation, and a million other things would become so completely disrupted that chaos would prevail. There absolutely has to be a gradual, evolving change, not a revolution.

Nope, you're advancing a slippery slope argument: the HoL/Monarchy combination is anachronistic, undemocratic and not fit for purpose so I'd say revolution is the order of the day, and that we just get rid. It should be perfectly feasible to design more accountable political governance arrangements involving an electoral process to replace the current undemocratic nonsense.

[jeremyp]

The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic.

Anachronistic isn't an argument.

It's not very democratic, but now consists mainly of people appointed by democratically elected parties. I would argue that it is very much fit for purpose, that purpose being to apply sanity to the highly politically motivated output of the Commons.

At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.

I don't see any need to change the monarchy. We have a constitutional head of state whose sole purpose is to appoint the government and open parliament. The exact duties should, perhaps, be better defined by law but there is no decision taking going on, so having a hereditary head of state is no different to electing somebody.

I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.

MPs have to look out for their own narrow interests. With SteveH's idea (or the current system) you would have a body of people who can look beyond the end of the election cycle.

[SteveH]

LONG LIVE THE MONARCHY and The House of Lords.

and that is as close as we'll get to a rational argument from you, going on previous experience.

[SteveH]

Citation please.
Everyone would fall into a category and get to elect the electorate, that way everyone would be represented.

An elected house would just return a huge house of commons surely

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists
Note in particular

The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups—a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, "less factionist" democracy.

[SteveH]

I make no apology for being a Royalist, or supporting the House of Lords. Heaven help up us if the UK became a Republic and we had a cretin like Trump as a president.

I didn't ask you to apologise for anything; I just suggested that something in the way of an argument might not go amiss.

[SusanDoris]

Gordon

It occurs to me that what you believe to be necessary and say about royalty and government amounts to personal incredulity!!

Surey you must concede that a better system needs to be available and in detail before those who want to drag the whole system down are allowed to proceed?

[ippy]

They have served us well over the years, The Queen has done an excellent job and it will be sad when she goes.

Nothing I say will convince you Republicans otherwise, so I might as well remove myself from this thread before my BP hits the ceiling.

Before your BP hits the ceiling, I suppose it must feel good, doing the equivalent of, catching a pick pocket with their hand in your pocket, having to thank them for specially choosing your pocket and bowing or curtsying as you back away with all  humility and reverence, as you do so.

Waite till that big eared, talking to his plants, prat gets placed in that position, we got Betty by luck alone, choice didn't come into it.

I expect Phill the Greek has used the bathroom 365 times over the last year, so that'll be another 365 medals for him.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

Before your BP hits the ceiling, I suppose it must feel good, doing the equivalent of, catching a pick pocket with their hand in your pocket, having to thank them for specially choosing your pocket and bowing or curtsying as you back away with all  humility and reverence, as you do so.

Waite till that big eared, talking to his plants, prat gets placed in that position, we got Betty by luck alone, choice didn't come into it.

I expect Phill the Greek has used the bathroom 365 times over the last year, so that'll be another 365 medals for him.

Regards ippy

Blimey, so much hate. Take a chill pill.

[SusanDoris]

Before your BP hits the ceiling, I suppose it must feel good, doing the equivalent of, catching a pick pocket with their hand in your pocket, having to thank them for specially choosing your pocket and bowing or curtsying as you back away with all  humility and reverence, as you do so.

Waite till that big eared, talking to his plants, prat gets placed in that position, we got Betty by luck alone, choice didn't come into it.

I expect Phill the Greek has used the bathroom 365 times over the last year, so that'll be another 365 medals for him.

Regards ippy

Ohdearohdearohdearohdear....Just step back and think a minute!!! It doesn't matter what Charles does, how eccentric he might or might not be, or how uninteresting; he will do the job he has to do, whether happily, or grudgingly, or somewhere in between. His wife will support him and things will chug along nicely  until he dies and William moves into the role.
When have you had to bow or scrape or back away? The Queen is a little old lady who is remarkable for her age, bearing in mind that she stands, walks and sits  with poise and stamina; who does not look down her nose at anyone she meets - on the contrary, people afterward say how lovely she was and I bet people feel somewhat protective towards her.

In conclusion, name someone who could fill that role better than the Queen, and of course better than Charles, and then William.