Labour pledges to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate
58 replies, posted
[QUOTE] Labour would replace the House of Lords with an elected senate if the party won next May's general election, party leader Ed Miliband is to say.
[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] He will tell a conference in Blackpool on Saturday the current system "fails to represent large parts of the UK".
Senators would be elected from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions instead of from constituencies like MPs.
This will give the senate a "clearly defined different role", Labour says.
He is expected to say: "We're going to reverse a century of centralisation and make sure that £30bn of resources is devolved to the city and country regions that need it.
[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849"]Source[/URL]
What on earth are they doing?
In a time where you're trying to make governence seem less political, the last thing you should be doing is creating a new class of politician and removing the only institution of our state which discourages party politics and encourages expertise and debate. An elected Senate would just deadlock the Houses if there isn't a majority in both, make it impossible for a government to be scrutinised if they had a majority in both houses and give the upper house less time to debate because they'd be spending all their time worrying over whether they'll keep their job. You can't just replace a successful institution because "democracy is better, shut up" there are good reasons why we have an appointed upper house and I wish more people would stand up for it.
wouldn't the bill that removes the house of lords require the backing of the house of lords to go through? thats the whole point of our two tiered system, I'm curious as to how its bypassed in situations like this.
to be honest though, I'm all in favour of getting rid of the house of lords. I don't mind two tiered systems like this but the HoL is just inherently elitist. not sure how I feel about some sort of senate though.
I think this is a good idea. Hereditary seats are very archaic and certainly not democratic.
[QUOTE=download;46380346]I think this is a good idea. Hereditary seats are very archaic and certainly not democratic.[/QUOTE]
The House of Lords isn't hereditary, that was abolished in 1997. Now peerages are given based on achievements and expertise.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380310][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849"]Source[/URL]
What on earth are they doing?
In a time where you're trying to make governence seem less political, the last thing you should be doing is creating a new class of politician and removing the only institution of our state which discourages party politics and encourages expertise and debate. An elected Senate would just deadlock the Houses if there isn't a majority in both, make it impossible for a government to be scrutinised if they had a majority in both houses and give the upper house less time to debate because they'd be spending all their time worrying over whether they'll keep their job. You can't just replace a successful institution because "democracy is better, shut up" there are good reasons why we have an appointed upper house and I wish more people would stand up for it.[/QUOTE]
Would those "good reasons" be things like perpetuating an outdated system of aristocracy in the name of "tradition?"
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46380377]Would those "good reasons" be things like perpetuating an outdated system of aristocracy in the name of "tradition?"[/QUOTE]
I gave you a list of good reasons in the OP.
[QUOTE=download;46380346]I think this is a good idea. Hereditary seats are very archaic and certainly not democratic.[/QUOTE]
House of Lords is made up of the best people in their field. Theres no reason to have them elected if the House keeps holding their standards to what they currently are up. The people there are giants in economics, politics, religion, law, society, culture, all sorts of stuff.
Why would you want the House of Lords to become just another gimmick for campaigns where the richest people with the best PR wins like most politics are already? You do good in your field, you work hard, you become a lord. It works.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380362]The House of Lords isn't hereditary, that was abolished in 1997. Now peerages are given based on achievements and expertise.[/QUOTE]
And allowing for the general public to elect people based on their achievements and expertise is always healthier for a democracy than having a legislative body that is appointed, not elected. As pointed out by the primary author of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, the legislature in any democracy is inherently the most powerful body. As such, upholding democratic principles ought to be stressed most in the legislature.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46380398]And allowing for the general public to elect people based on their achievements and expertise is always healthier for a democracy than having a legislative body that is appointed, not elected. As pointed out by the primary author of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, the legislature in any democracy is inherently the most powerful body. As such, upholding democratic principles ought to be stressed most in the legislature.[/QUOTE]
But the problem with having an elected Upper House is that Candidates won't be selected by their parties based on their expertise, they'll be selected on their loyalty to their party, which is a step back in the running of a country, not a step forward. James Madison was refering to the US democracy where they have a president as the executive. In the UK we select our executive from the legislature and so in the UK the executive is the most powerful body. If you had an elected Upper house you would infact neuter the ability of the Legislature to scrutinise the executive because the Upper House wouldn't challenge the government if they both had a majority of the same party.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380445]But the problem with having an elected Upper House is that Candidates won't be selected by their parties based on their expertise, they'll be selected on their loyalty to their party, which is a step back in the running of a country, not a step forward. James Madison was refering to the US democracy where they have a president as the executive. In the UK we select our executive from the legislature and so in the UK the executive is the most powerful body. If you had an elected Upper house you would infact neuter the ability of the Legislature to scrutinise the executive because the Upper House wouldn't challenge the government if they both had a majority of the same party.[/QUOTE]
James Madison was actually speaking generally. I was referring to the following quote from "Federalist No. 51"
[quote=James Madison]In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.[/quote]
And yes, I am more than aware of the glaring differences between our political systems. I'm not ignorant.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46380465]James Madison was actually speaking generally. I was referring to the following quote from "Federalist No. 51"
And yes, I am more than aware of the glaring differences between our political systems. I'm not ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Well in which case he was wrong because it isn't inherently the most powerful body, it entirely depends on the political system.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380445]But the problem with having an elected Upper House is that Candidates won't be selected by their parties based on their expertise, they'll be selected on their loyalty to their party, which is a step back in the running of a country, not a step forward. James Madison was refering to the US democracy where they have a president as the executive. In the UK we select our executive from the legislature and so in the UK the executive is the most powerful body. If you had an elected Upper house you would infact neuter the ability of the Legislature to scrutinise the executive because the Upper House wouldn't challenge the government if they both had a majority of the same party.[/QUOTE]
If your argument is that the executive is most powerful in the UK because he also has the major support of the House of Commons, since the PM is the leader of the majority party, then could the same principle not be applied to the United States? That is, if the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency were all held by the same party, would that not, by your standards, make the executive most powerful? I would argue otherwise.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380362]The House of Lords isn't hereditary, that was abolished in 1997. Now peerages are given based on achievements and expertise.[/QUOTE]
(Read: a bunch of cronies stuffed in by successive governments)
The current Lords system is ludicrous. Making it electable would be even worse. It'd be like the Commons, but with less power. Labour are just still mad that the Lord's opposed them on a lot of their crap.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380486]Well in which case he was wrong because it isn't inherently the most powerful body, it entirely depends on the political system.[/QUOTE]
The legislature holds the "power of the purse." Ultimately, for any democracy, money is needed to run the government, and the legislature controls that. The only significant difference, thus, in this principle between the United Kingdom and the United States is that the manner in which the Prime Minister is selected in the United Kingdom and the President in the United States dictates that the Prime Minister will, by default, have a majority of the House of Commons willing to budget more or less to his or her whim, while the same is, of course, not true of Congress in the United States in regards to the President's whims.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380362]The House of Lords isn't hereditary, that was abolished in 1997. Now peerages are given based on achievements and expertise.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure a large chunk of the House of Lords is still hereditary.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46380499]If your argument is that the executive is most powerful in the UK because he also has the major support of the House of Commons, since the PM is the leader of the majority party, then could the same principle not be applied to the United States? That is, if the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency were all held by the same party, would that not, by your standards, make the executive most powerful? I would argue otherwise.[/QUOTE]
It's not the same thing though because although all 3 might be controlled by the same party, the president doesn't have a constitutional ability to whip both houses to follow him, they'd do it because they wanted to. In the UK the executive is literally part of the executive therefore the government literally controls the legislature.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380362]The House of Lords isn't hereditary, that was abolished in 1997. Now peerages are given based on achievements and expertise.[/QUOTE]
so basically they are token seats given out like committee chairs in the US congress which are given to people for being rank and file party politicians?
[QUOTE=download;46380520]Pretty sure a large chunk of the House of Lords is still hereditary.[/QUOTE]
Only about 80 something out of 793 or so iirc. When the hereditary peerages were revoked, they removed most of the hereditary peers who they considered to be bad and only left the ones who frequently participated in debates.
Labour are idiots. Having an elected senate would prevent any sort of legislation from being passed. Plus with an elected senate you'd get the problem of the career politicians with no specialties like we have in the Commons right now. If anything, the Commons needs reformed to remove its partisan nature so that representative legislation can actually be passed, and the legislature can actually do its job of scrutinising the executive rather than getting involved in a party fueled slagging match.
I'd rather take an appointed Lords that actually has experts that can amend the Commons' awfully drafted legislation than a senate that's as clueless as elected MPs. Plus, with an elected senate, you'd lose the political neutrality of the Lords. About a 1/3rd of the House is made up of cross bench lords who have no party affiliation - having elections would remove this independent standpoint. As it stands, no party has an overall majority in the Lords.
Then you've had the history of the Lords protecting people's civil liberties - we have a case where the Commons attempted to pass legislation on control orders, that would allow politicians institute them rather than a judge. Thankfully, the Lords blocked it through their amendations.
Trust me when I say the Lords works perfectly as it is now. It's the mockery of the Commons who have no interest in the departments they manage that need reformed.
[QUOTE=Sableye;46380535]so basically they are token seats given out like committee chairs in the US congress which are given to people for being rank and file party politicians?[/QUOTE]
No, not at all.
[QUOTE=Midas22;46380397]House of Lords is made up of the best people in their field. [..] The people there are giants in economics, politics, religion, law, society, culture, all sorts of stuff.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Midas22;46380397]House of Lords is made up of the best people in their field. Theres no reason to have them elected if the House keeps holding their standards to what they currently are up. The people there are giants in economics, politics, religion, law, society, culture, all sorts of stuff.
Why would you want the House of Lords to become just another gimmick for campaigns where the richest people with the best PR wins like most politics are already? You do good in your field, you work hard, you become a lord. It works.[/QUOTE]
I understand what you're saying, but by the same logic why don't we scrap voting for members of the commons? If appointment based on merit is superior to the electoral system of gimmicky PR campaigns, why don't we apply it to all significant government offices?
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46381054]I understand what you're saying, but by the same logic why don't we scrap voting for members of the commons? If appointment based on merit is superior to the electoral system of gimmicky PR campaigns, why don't we apply it to all significant government offices?[/QUOTE]
Because the majority of the Lords is appointed by the democratically elected Prime Minister. It's that democratic legitimacy that allows for representation of the people balanced by the expertise of the Lords. As it stands, the current system allows for effective scrutiny of the executive, which the Opposition in the Commons cannot do because it will always lose as it will never have a majority.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46380362]The House of Lords isn't hereditary, that was abolished in 1997. Now peerages are given based on achievements and expertise.[/QUOTE]
Wait, doesn't that mean smarter or more worthy people have a higher chance to get in? Why would you want to replace that with more pandering politicians?
[QUOTE=Hizan;46380778]No, not at all.[/QUOTE]
who's best in their field is extremely subjective, accordingly the republican appointed head of the committee on sciences is supposed to be the best for the job and he wants to slash all funding to any project, review the review systems and doesn't believe in science in general, and from what has been said in this thread there's no real reason why parties can't appoint people there as a reward for being lock-step politicians
Well... fuck. So now we have a choice between anti-EU or anti-Lords when I support both.
[QUOTE=Midas22;46380397]House of Lords is made up of the best people in their field. Theres no reason to have them elected if the House keeps holding their standards to what they currently are up. The people there are giants in economics, politics, religion, law, society, culture, all sorts of stuff.
Why would you want the House of Lords to become just another gimmick for campaigns where the richest people with the best PR wins like most politics are already? You do good in your field, you work hard, you become a lord. It works.[/QUOTE]
honestly wish the US had this, atm our scientific community is a bunch of rich people with little to no education on their topics. like one guy who didn't even know the basic rules of physics with water displacement.
Hell yeah!
Maybe in a few decades you can get rid of your monarchy too.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46381184]Hell yeah!
Maybe in a few decades you can get rid of your monarchy too.[/QUOTE]
And lose all of that money from the American fandom? Nah mate.
[QUOTE=Sableye;46381093]who's best in their field is extremely subjective, accordingly the republican appointed head of the committee on sciences is supposed to be the best for the job and he wants to slash all funding to any project, review the review systems and doesn't believe in science in general, and from what has been said in this thread there's no real reason why parties can't appoint people there as a reward for being lock-step politicians[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/about_us.aspx[/URL]
That's why we have the Lords Appointment Commission. Absolutely an appointment system could be abused. That's why appointments are scrutinised to prevent a political party from appointing peers for purely political motivation to gain more party seats in the Lords.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;46381196][URL]http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/about_us.aspx[/URL]
That's why we have the Lords Appointment Commission. Absolutely an appointment system could be abused. That's why appointments are scrutinised to prevent a political party from appointing peers for purely political motivation to gain more party seats in the Lords.[/QUOTE]
ah ok so that makes more sense, i honestly wish we had something like that for the committee system in the US congress, people with decades worth of experience are just chucked to the curb for young up-commers because the parties have shifted
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.