|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 10, 2024 7:35:13 GMT
The House of Lords: should it exist ? In the past I've been ambivalent on this topic, but now I'm not so sure.... Over time, I've swung both ways on whether it should stay or be abolished. One of the arguments in favour of it is that it can play a useful role in critical (and occasionally expert) analysis of legislation generated from an HoC that is often overly populist, and near permanently over biased to the in-power ruling executive. The latter is a recognition that our FPP system is structurally destined to regularly return an HoC that is much more weighted to the party in power than it is representative of the country. And as such a body that can at least provide a temporary brake and thinking time to a govt. is no bad thing. However when I look at the constant stream of newly minted peers consisting of party donors, chums of the PM (or last PM or last but one PM), supporters of a single pet cause of the party in power, not to mention talentless former mistresses or daughters (allegedly), I despair. How can the HoL be said to be forming a useful constitutional function if it is being populated in the way it currently is ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68259178 |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015 
Likes: 5,144
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 10, 2024 7:45:13 GMT
However when I look at the constant stream of newly minted peers consisting of party donors, friends of the PM, supporters of a single pet cause of the party in power, not to mention talentless former mistresses or daughters (allegedly), I despair. How can the HoL be said to be forming a useful constitutional function if it is being populated in the way it currently is ? Is that an argument against the existence of a second chamber, or in favour of more stringent checks and balances on those appointed to it by the government? There's plenty of single-chamber government in the world... About 60% of countries. BUT... They're almost all small countries, with a good smattering of rubber-stampers for non-democratic rulers in there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,623
|
Post by keitha on Feb 10, 2024 11:46:32 GMT
And some of you will have seen this before but why reserved seats for C of E clergy, why not reserved seats for Muslim clerics, Jewish clerics, even atheists or Jedi Warriors.
yes it need reform.
I theory what would stop the PM from appointing 1000 tory party members as lords to flood the house with supporters to get legislation through
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 10, 2024 12:02:40 GMT
And some of you will have seen this before but why reserved seats for C of E clergy I do hope you aren't bashing the bishops, Keith? I like the way you say "in theory". commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05867/Between 1 May 1997 and 31 January 2020, 717 life peerages were created:
Tony Blair (May 1997-June 2007) 374
Gordon Brown (June 2007-May 2010) 34
David Cameron (May 2010-July 2016) 245
Theresa May (July 2016-July 2019) 43
Boris Johnson (July 2019-present*) 21
Total (May 1997-present*) 717Since then... lordslibrary.parliament.uk/membership-of-the-house-of-lords-july-2023-update/2020 - 55 2021 - 28 2022 - 42 2023 - 11 Total in four years - 136 Which means total since 2010 election - 445. 271 Lords currently sit as Tories, out of 535 who declare a party allegiance. "In 2016, the then Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, established a committee to look at the issue. The Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House, chaired by Lord Burns (Crossbench), published a report in October 2017 which made recommendations for how the size of the House could be reduced to a membership of 600 and maintained at that level. For example, it proposed a temporary “two-out, one-in” system of departures and appointments. The committee did not propose any legislation to implement the changes, but it called on the House and the government to work together to achieve the reduction in membership."That's going well, then. Current total - 827, of whom 91 are hereditary, 25 bishops, and 711 life (of whom 62.5% have been appointed since 2010). 1998 (the year before the removal of most hereditary peers) - 1,148 total, of whom 482 were life. So in 26 years the number of life peers has increased by 48%.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 10, 2024 13:26:58 GMT
Aside from how they get there, there are currently 784 members of the house of Lords. That means it has more members than the house of commons, and is the second largest legislative chamber in the world, after the National Chinese Peoples Congress*. All of whom of course can (but don't necessarily) claim attendance allowance and travel expenses.
And yes, why on earth do the Lords Spiritual actually exist ? In what is now as much a multi faith and no faith country, its a bit out of order isn't it**. But then no more so than some random person who happens to have been friends with Boris Johnson/Liz Truss/Theresa May/Rishi Sunak, or donated to the Tory (or Labour) party, or who was once the bit on the side for someone who was drawing up the list and needs them to keep their mouth shut (from now on, if not previously).
*Question: how many members of the Peoples Congress does it take to rubber stamp what Xi Jinping wants ? Answer: 2,977, apparently
**And the argument that the Head of State is also the Head of the CoE doesn't really wash with me, after all the Head of State in the UK is meant to be apolitical.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 10, 2024 15:03:57 GMT
Ok so its now increasingly being stacked with people who rather nakedly bought their peerages rather than the great and good.
The underlying idea that The Lords should be superannuated lower house politicians, elder statesmen as it were, and those recognised as servants of the people from outside politics, is quite good.
A way to go back to that is to say, if you were a donor to a political party that automatically disallows you from being nominated, to affirm the principle that a Lordship cannot be bought, but is earned.
That would restore the value and esteem of the honour. For those who did already buy their position, it should be made clear to them that they can keep the title but they are not welcome to vote or legislate. Make sure that they know that it is widely regarded that their entitlement is tainted.
They should also cut numbers by half by drawing a line where if you haven't spoken or voted in the previous two years, you are now not considered a member of the active House of Lords, your free money and title are safe but don't show up anymore thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 11, 2024 13:05:40 GMT
And some of you will have seen this before but why reserved seats for C of E clergy [...] So in 26 years the number of life peers has increased by 48%. ...which, surprisingly, is relatively restrained. Tony Blair managed to swell the number by 50% in just 10 years. Before that, Margaret Thatcher, during her 11 years, created 53%, but (back when there were far fewer life peers), Harold Wilson's first term saw an increase of 214% in under 6 years. I agree they should have limited the absolute number years ago, though.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 11, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
[...] So in 26 years the number of life peers has increased by 48%. ...which, surprisingly, is relatively restrained. Tony Blair managed to swell the number by 50% in just 10 years. Before that, Margaret Thatcher, during her 11 years, created 53%, but (back when there were far fewer life peers), Harold Wilson's first term saw an increase of 214% in under 6 years. I agree they should have limited the absolute number years ago, though. Blair - 395 in 10 years (17 were former Hereditary peers, given life peerages to enable them to stay in the house - 40/yr average... but 665 hereditary peers removed, so net 270 fewer, -27/yr avg Brown - 34 in 3 years - 11/year Cameron - 245 in 6 years - 40/yr May - 32 in 3 years - 11/year Johnson - 88 in 3 years - 30/year Truss - 3 in 42 days - 30/year Sunak - 42 in 18 months - 30/year - plus 15 currently awaiting ennoblement, so 57 in 18 months - 40/year Labour 1997-2010, 429 over 13 years, 33/yr - or 236 fewer after hereditaries, so -18/yr Conservative 2010-date, 410 over 13.5 years, 30/yr - or 425, 31/yr including those en route. 
|
|
daveb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 253
Likes: 210
|
Post by daveb on Feb 11, 2024 20:08:43 GMT
You could get the advantages of a less populist 2nd chamber without the stench of corruption by electing a third of the chamber every 15 years. That's long enough that the senators or whatever they'd be called could stand up to the whips for what they believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Feb 12, 2024 16:19:44 GMT
You could get the advantages of a less populist 2nd chamber without the stench of corruption by electing a third of the chamber every 15 years. That's long enough that the senators or whatever they'd be called could stand up to the whips for what they believe. I like this idea. Add people chosen by the public to experienced politicians and outstanding contributors to society from outside politics and you'd have a house of peers whom the public respect, rather than people like Baroness Charlotte Owen (Aged 6) whose elevation to a life peerage was found to be a good idea by er... no-one.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,623
|
Post by keitha on Feb 12, 2024 16:29:23 GMT
You could get the advantages of a less populist 2nd chamber without the stench of corruption by electing a third of the chamber every 15 years. That's long enough that the senators or whatever they'd be called could stand up to the whips for what they believe. I like this idea. Add people chosen by the public to experienced politicians and outstanding contributors to society from outside politics and you'd have a house of peers whom the public respect, rather than people like Baroness Charlotte Owen (Aged 6) whose elevation to a life peerage was found to be a good idea by er... no-one. or randomly draw 250 members of the public to take on the position for a year, on a similar basis to jury service
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 12, 2024 16:58:32 GMT
I like this idea. Add people chosen by the public to experienced politicians and outstanding contributors to society from outside politics and you'd have a house of peers whom the public respect, rather than people like Baroness Charlotte Owen (Aged 6) whose elevation to a life peerage was found to be a good idea by er... no-one. or randomly draw 250 members of the public to take on the position for a year, on a similar basis to jury service That sounds like its written by a man who's never done jury service  Based on a couple of juries I've been on, there's no way I'd want half the people sitting in parliament.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,623
|
Post by keitha on Feb 12, 2024 17:01:59 GMT
Never sat on one but would like to, my Dad was the only one of his 9 brothers and sisters who got called and he was called 3 times.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 12, 2024 17:23:53 GMT
Never sat on one but would like to, my Dad was the only one of his 9 brothers and sisters who got called and he was called 3 times. I've been called I think it was 4 times. The first 3 times I got out of it (not that I wanted to get out of it per se). First time I was about to start my finals at uni, so not good timing. The second and third times I was on time critical stuff at work and I think my employer pulled the 'crucial national defence' card (which I was a bit fed up at 'cos I'd like to have gone). The final time I definitely could have pulled out again as I had moved and was essentially out of area. Not that I was 100% sure of that until the first day of duty, when they gave me the option. But I opted to stay.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 12, 2024 17:25:11 GMT
or randomly draw 250 members of the public to take on the position for a year, on a similar basis to jury service That sounds like its written by a man who's never done jury service Based on a couple of juries I've been on, there's no way I'd want half the people sitting in parliament. But itsn't that the point - we don't want people who I like or you like. In a democracy we want representatives don't we? Which brings me back to the fact that the most efficient system (meritocracy like in China and most corporations) is not the fairest.
|
|
Based on a couple of juries I've been on, there's no way I'd want half the people sitting in parliament. 