Ad Lib Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I've yet to meet a single person with anything positive to say about the odious House of Lords. In terms of improving the quality of legislation, which is what they're there for, they actually do an excellent job. Their committees also tend to be far more insightful than either the Commons or Holyrood committees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 In terms of improving the quality of legislation, which is what they're there for, they actually do an excellent job. Their committees also tend to be far more insightful than either the Commons or Holyrood committees. Agreed - a very useful check and balance in the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 In terms of improving the quality of legislation, which is what they're there for, they actually do an excellent job. Their committees also tend to be far more insightful than either the Commons or Holyrood committees. So an unelected, job for life, buy my vote, bunch of b*****ds can decide how the rest of us should live. Would it not be far better for us to elect a second house. It's called Democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 So an unelected, job for life, buy my vote, bunch of b*****ds can decide how the rest of us should live. I didn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 In terms of improving the quality of legislation, which is what they're there for, they actually do an excellent job. Their committees also tend to be far more insightful than either the Commons or Holyrood committees. Would you say they are value for money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Would you say they are value for money? I don't know how much they cost. You could slim down the House of Lords considerably. That much is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I didn't say that. What about the next part of the post you quoted? Should we not have a democratically elected 2nd house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I don't know how much they cost. You could slim down the House of Lords considerably. That much is true. And how do you pick the ones you want to keep. Vote for them ? What about the (I believe) 240 english bishops who are also there telling us how to live. They are also untouchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joozy Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Agreed - a very useful check and balance in the current system. I don't have a massive problem with the House of Lords, it certainly doesn't rank very highly on the things that I would be desperate to change. I understand perfectly why many people view it as an anachronism, but I'm not particularly keen on any of the alternatives. I don't feel that having a fully-elected second chamber would be an improvement necessarily - although it could be interesting if it was elected on a fully PR basis. I still think the fact that members of the Lords don't need to seek election allows it act as a bulwark against populism. It's been a while since I studied politics, and I don't know if the comparison has been properly researched, but I've always thought of the HoL as being more like the US Supreme Court in many ways than the US Senate. I think it goes without saying that it could be slimmed down, there's no need for the many hundreds of members that it has currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 What about the next part of the post you quoted? Should we not have a democratically elected 2nd house? The problem with democratically electing a 2nd house is that you will substantially increase the idiot percentage in it, therefore reducing their effectiveness. There's a happy medium to be found though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The problem with democratically electing a 2nd house is that you will substantially increase the idiot percentage in it, therefore reducing their effectiveness. There's a happy medium to be found though. Have you ever watched the HoL on the telly/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I don't know how much they cost. http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-allowances/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 The way to do it is to vote for your favourite party and then a party getting X% of the vote gets to appoint X% of the HOL. They can still appoint field experts etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joozy Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The problem with democratically electing a 2nd house is that you will substantially increase the idiot percentage in it, therefore reducing their effectiveness. There's a happy medium to be found though. Some people are far too obsessed with ideological dogma at the expense of how things work in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Have you ever watched the HoL on the telly/ Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-allowances/ That doesn't explain how much the allowances system actually costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabinoban Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Some people are far too obsessed with ideological dogma at the expense of how things work in reality. Some people are pissed off with the current system and are certain things can be done better, fairer, more affordably and more suited to their needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I don't have a massive problem with the House of Lords, it certainly doesn't rank very highly on the things that I would be desperate to change. I understand perfectly why many people view it as an anachronism, but I'm not particularly keen on any of the alternatives. I don't feel that having a fully-elected second chamber would be an improvement necessarily - although it could be interesting if it was elected on a fully PR basis. I still think the fact that members of the Lords don't need to seek election allows it act as a bulwark against populism. It's been a while since I studied politics, and I don't know if the comparison has been properly researched, but I've always thought of the HoL as being more like the US Supreme Court in many ways than the US Senate. I think it goes without saying that it could be slimmed down, there's no need for the many hundreds of members that it has currently. I think there is scope for reform of the Lords. The question is what you want it to do. Do you want it to be a revising chamber or do you want it to be a pro-active means of policy generation. It could be used to represent the nations' interest in a federalised constitution if that's your thing. I think it should be mainly elected (80% or so), but on a national or regional closed list system and with a small number of appointed non-aligned individuals along the lines of the cross-benchers and continue to do what it does now: revise, gather evidence and scrutinise, with occasional interferences into Commons politics. I think it should have a power of referral for legislation it believes to be structurally defective, requiring it to be reviewed by, e.g. the Law Commission. I'm also of the view that Cabinet Ministers shouldn't have to be MPs though. They should be appointed by the Prime Minister (who should be an MP or directly elected like a President) but have a right of appearance and duties of office to appear before Parliament failing which they can be impeached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The problem with democratically electing a 2nd house is that you will substantially increase the idiot percentage in it, therefore reducing their effectiveness. There's a happy medium to be found though. Since the house of Lords is stuffed full of former MPs, and given how many of them were sent there to get them out of the way, or as a 'long service' award for sycophantic, anonymous toeing of the line, wouldn't that mean it already has a critical mass of idiocy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Since the house of Lords is stuffed full of former MPs, and given how many of them were sent there to get them out of the way, or as a 'long service' award for sycophantic, anonymous toeing of the line, wouldn't that mean it already has a critical mass of idiocy? He's already answered it by giving a YES to my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.