[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21016025[/url]
[quote=BBC News][B]Peers have voted to block a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, which the coalition had originally planned to put in place for the next general election, in 2015.[/B]
The House of Lords voted by 300 to 231 to delay until 2018 a boundary review necessary to make the change.
Labour peer Lord Hart of Chilton said this would mean the review was based on a more accurate register of voters.
But he was accused of "riding roughshod" over Lords procedures.
Lord Hart had won cross-party support for his proposed amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, aiming to postpone the current review of the UK's parliamentary constituency boundaries until October 2018 at the earliest.
BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said: "Had there been a review of the boundaries, and a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, many analysts suggest that this could have helped the Conservatives secure an additional 20 seats at the next election."
[B]'Unwise'[/B]
A Downing Street spokesman said the government would try to overturn the Lords amendment when the legislation returned to the Commons towards the end of its parliamentary scrutiny.
"The PM remains of the view that we should have fewer MPs to cut the cost of politics, and more equal size constituencies so that people's votes have more equal weight," he said.
But our correspondent said the reduction in seats was now "very unlikely", with some Conservatives suggesting this could make the difference between them winning or losing the next general election.
Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced that his party would withdraw its support for the boundary review, after the coalition abandoned reform of the House of Lords.
But senior Lords officials had advised peers that the amendment was inadmissible because it was not sufficiently relevant to the main aim of the bill, which is to change the way people register to vote.
Urging Lord Hart to drop his amendment, the new Leader of the Lords, Conservative peer Lord Hill of Oareford, said it would be "unwise" to break with precedent and ignore the ruling from the clerks of the House.
[B]'Double cross'[/B]
The Labour peer refused, setting the stage for what BBC parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21006603]understands[/url] to be the "first occasion since the founding of the coalition in which Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers are whipped to vote in opposite lobbies".
The vote signifies that a majority of the House of Lords, which is a self-regulating chamber, disagreed with the clerks' ruling.
Lord Hart said the amendment would "ensure the 2015 general election was contested on the basis of current boundaries and provide a window of time to address the current deficiencies in the electoral register".
The peer also said it would ensure that the boundary review was based on the new system of individual voter registration, to be brought in under the bill with all-party backing.
But Tory former cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean accused Lord Hart of "driving a coach and horses" through Lords procedures and "riding roughshod" over the advice of the clerks.
He accused the Liberal Democrats of "double crossing" Prime Minister David Cameron and making "an attempt to gerrymander our constitution for political reasons".
[B]'Great sulk'[/B]
He said they were opposing the boundary review only because Mr Clegg was "cross" about the failure of House of Lords reform.
Senior Liberal Democrat peer Lord Rennard, said: "Many in my party take the view that the reduction in the number of MPs proposed in the boundary review should not take place without reform that would strengthen the legitimacy of this House.
"Too much will be made by the media of two coalition parties going into two different lobbies today, but in countries across Europe where coalition is much more the norm, it is much more normal and people understand that different parties vote in different ways on some issues, while agreeing on packages of measures where they can find agreement in what they both consider to be in the national interest."
He said the Conservatives had blocked Lords reform and should therefore not be surprised that they were now in this position.
But author and Conservative peer Lord Dobbs accused Mr Clegg of inventing a link between constituency boundaries and Lords reform as an excuse to "exact a little retribution" from his coalition partners.
"It's nothing less than a great political sulk," he said.
If it is to become law, the amendment will need to be approved by MPs when the bill returns to the House of Commons.
The boundary changes, approved in principle by Parliament last year, would see England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland lose 31, seven, 10 and two seats respectively.[/quote]
I see they are doing their job again, blocking stuff that is not in the best interest of the country but is in the best interest of the current government.
Why do people want to get rid of lords? They might not be elected but they do a good job.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39220690]Why do people want to get rid of lords? They might not be elected but they do a good job.[/QUOTE]
Because they're an unelected body of people who used to be in government, judges and other people we didn't vote for who can hold power for a long time if they're influential.
That, and the House of Lords has limited power anyway, as the Parliament Act means the Commons can override their decision if there is a long delay when Lords repeatedly rejects the Commons Bills that still have popular support.
Thirdly, Lords wasn't always a tool for good. The Sexual Offenses Act which tried to bring homosexual acts age limit in line with hetrosexual age limit was repeatedly blocked by Lords because of some anti-gay lobbying. This was only in 2000/2001
It's kinda complicated and convoluted, but I don't think the answer is to remove them and replace with more elected officials.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;39220855]Because they're an unelected body of people who used to be in government, judges and other people we didn't vote for who can hold power for a long time if they're influential.
That, and the House of Lords has limited power anyway, as the Parliament Act means the Commons can override their decision if there is a long delay when Lords repeatedly rejects the Commons Bills that still have popular support.
Thirdly, Lords wasn't always a tool for good. The Sexual Offenses Act which tried to bring homosexual acts age limit in line with hetrosexual age limit was repeatedly blocked by Lords because of some anti-gay lobbying. This was only in 2000/2001
It's kinda complicated and convoluted, but I don't think the answer is to remove them and replace with more elected officials.[/QUOTE]
I like them unelected, they kind of act as our version of the supreme court.
I just don't see the point in democracy for the sake of democracy, I say just go with what works, just get rid of any peers who get their position by default and replace them with appointed ones.
The lords seem like an old system that needs some revising.
Damn we were so close to stopping the Labour Gerrymandering in cities aswell.
[QUOTE=The mouse;39221206]Damn we were so close to stopping the Labour Gerrymandering in cities aswell.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to the Tories Gerrymandering in middle class/upperclass suburbs and rural areas?
House of Lords always seemed to me to sound like a group of old men playing at running the country. Personally, I don't think I like the idea of the House of Lords being separate from the House of Commons; hell I don't like the thought of MPs being selected by their peers, since it should be the people who decide who rules and/or helps to rule, not the guys who are ruling and/or helping to rule.
If anything, we should scrap the current House of Lords and elect more new blood. Actually, I think I have an idea; what about a tiered House system? There could be three "Houses"; the House of New Blood, the House of Ministers, and the House of Elders (sounds kinda like Dunwall Parliament, but whatever). House of New Blood would be sort of a "training" house, where the fresh political graduates are brought on and given situations in which their experience grows and they become more competent as politicians. House of Ministers would be like the "governing house", where the experienced political veterans do whatever politicians normally do, having learned their shit and gained commendations by public and peer alike (a peer's commendation would have to be equal to a commendation from old Granny Griselda or Tom Slate down the road) for their work in politics.
As for the House of Elders, that would be comprised of the older politicians, the ones who have had plenty of experience and have become wise, though despite what some are probably thinking right now, they wouldn't have more power than the House of Ministers. See, it's common knowledge that as we get older, we become more set in our ways, and sometimes those ways are wrong, so you can understand my concerns over a House of Elders having more power than a House of Ministers who are still flexible. In that case, the House of Elders is more of a "backbencher" house, with the Elders acting as advisors rather than using their power in conjunction with potentially archaic ideals.
It might sound like ageism, but isn't there proof of old people being prone to being set in their ways? Regardless, this isn't a system devised by a politics major or a cultural scientist, so take it with a dose of salt, and I apologize if I offend any elder posters.
[QUOTE=ironman17;39221363]House of Lords always seemed to me to sound like a group of old men playing at running the country. Personally, I don't think I like the idea of the House of Lords being separate from the House of Commons; hell I don't like the thought of MPs being selected by their peers, since it should be the people who decide who rules and/or helps to rule, not the guys who are ruling and/or helping to rule.
If anything, we should scrap the current House of Lords and elect more new blood. Actually, I think I have an idea; what about a tiered House system? There could be three "Houses"; the House of New Blood, the House of Ministers, and the House of Elders (sounds kinda like Dunwall Parliament, but whatever). House of New Blood would be sort of a "training" house, where the fresh political graduates are brought on and given situations in which their experience grows and they become more competent as politicians. House of Ministers would be like the "governing house", where the experienced political veterans do whatever politicians normally do, having learned their shit and gained commendations by public and peer alike (a peer's commendation would have to be equal to a commendation from old Granny Griselda or Tom Slate down the road) for their work in politics.
As for the House of Elders, that would be comprised of the older politicians, the ones who have had plenty of experience and have become wise, though despite what some are probably thinking right now, they wouldn't have more power than the House of Ministers. See, it's common knowledge that as we get older, we become more set in our ways, and sometimes those ways are wrong, so you can understand my concerns over a House of Elders having more power than a House of Ministers who are still flexible. In that case, the House of Elders is more of a "backbencher" house, with the Elders acting as advisors rather than using their power in conjunction with potentially archaic ideals.
It might sound like ageism, but isn't there proof of old people being prone to being set in their ways? Regardless, this isn't a system devised by a politics major or a cultural scientist, so take it with a dose of salt, and I apologize if I offend any elder posters.[/QUOTE]
Lords are not MP's, also they're usually appointed based on their speciality, thus we have Engineers, scientists, judges etc in lords.
Plus they have so little power, practically being advisors for the HoC, that electing them would be utterly pointless, and personally I have a distaste for elected politicians, with most of them having a tendency to lie for their own gain. I prefer it the way it is, there just needs to be a bit of clean up.
Hmmm, you have a point there. However, another thought crossed my mind when you mentioned the Lords being appointed based on speciality; what if we had Houses that were based around different matters, like a House of Agriculture or a House of Energy? Each of these different houses would be called upon to manage matters associated with them, and in some cases there would be inter-house collaboration, such as the Houses of Energy and Environment being called upon to deal with matters concerning clean energy sources and restoring environments damaged by the energy industries.
Also, each house would probably have an elected representative, one who excels in their field of expertise and represents their house as a whole, putting forward plans assembled by the members of the house, with prior review by peers and public alike, and requesting that they be put into action. I don't understand how politics generally works, but there we go.
The house of lords already works with specialist expert groups to make informed decisions.
Personally I'd rather have a House of Technocracy. Appointed specialists that aid in policy making. Cut out Life Members and have a 3-5 year position, like in Commons.
Since there is already Judges/scientists there, all you'd have to do is remove life peers and a large number of former politicians and bang.
I'd trust this more if it wasn't a sitting government trying to change boundaries - Labour was guilty of this as well during their last spell of power, and I'm pretty sure both sides have done it before then. The boundaries need to be set and decided by an independent body, not by anyone who could gain from it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39220690]Why do people want to get rid of lords? They might not be elected but they do a good job.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, in fact, they seem to take a more sensible approach on most issues in comparison to our unaccountable corporate-bought elected "representatives" in the commons
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;39221784]Personally I'd rather have a House of Technocracy. Appointed specialists that aid in policy making. Cut out Life Members and have a 3-5 year position, like in Commons.
Since there is already Judges/scientists there, all you'd have to do is remove life peers and a large number of former politicians and bang.[/QUOTE]
Get rid of the bishops as well.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39221413]Lords are not MP's, also they're usually appointed based on their speciality, thus we have Engineers, scientists, judges etc in lords.
Plus they have so little power, practically being advisors for the HoC, that electing them would be utterly pointless, and personally I have a distaste for elected politicians, with most of them having a tendency to lie for their own gain. I prefer it the way it is, there just needs to be a bit of clean up.[/QUOTE]
If lords have so little power then there is no point to having them, elected politicians are no different to unelected ones. It just seems you favour tradition to actual method.
[QUOTE=Vasili;39222553]If lords have so little power then there is no point to having them, elected politicians are no different to unelected ones. It just seems you favour tradition to actual method.[/QUOTE]
They have enough power to stop bullshit getting through, kind of like the US supreme court who despite being unelected can throw laws in the bin if they deem them unconstitutional (although lords can only block them and attempt to force amends)
And unelected politicians who are appointed based on what they do well are very much different to the usual elected oxbridge fuckers we usually have.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39228569]They have enough power to stop bullshit getting through, kind of like the US supreme court who despite being unelected can throw laws in the bin if they deem them unconstitutional (although lords can only block them and attempt to force amends)
And unelected politicians who are appointed based on what they do well are very much different to the usual elected oxbridge fuckers we usually have.[/QUOTE]
I'd love it if somebody established Oxbridge university.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
