Honest question

[spike220]

Can someone please explain to me what the house of Lords does?

It seems to me there must be some benefits in the Westminster government I am grossly ignorant of.

One of the reasons I supported yes was to move away from what I see as the old boys lining their pockets for doing next to nothing.

However I am open minded to there being something I am not getting or missing.

This is an honest question and not a pi$$ take. 55% of Scotland must see some use in this system, so I'd like to educate myself on the matter.

[Beefster]

There's a benefit in having a second chamber scrutinising government legislation IMHO. The House of Lords isn't the way that I'd do it though.

PS This is going to turn into an extension of the independence debate.

[Colr]

Can someone please explain to me what the house of Lords does?

It seems to me there must be some benefits in the Westminster government I am grossly ignorant of.

One of the reasons I supported yes was to move away from what I see as the old boys lining their pockets for doing next to nothing.

However I am open minded to there being something I not getting or missing.

This is an honest question and not a pi$$ take. 55% of Scotland must see some use in this system, so I'd like to educate myself on the matter.

They can amend legislation proposed by the House of Commons but not if it's been a manifesto commitment.
Bills can also be introduced here and members can also serve as government ministers providing another pool of talent.
At its best it's a group of so,e of the cleverest and most experienced minds in the Country and acts as a very useful check and balance to an elected chamber increasingly full of stuffed shirts and career politicians with zero real life experience.

I had lunch there a while back. It's pretty damned impressive!!

[spike220]

There's a benefit in having a second chamber scrutinising government legislation IMHO. The House of Lords isn't the way that I'd do it though.

PS This is going to turn into an extension of the independence debate.

What does the house the Commons do then?

PS. If it does it can be merged.

[spike220]

There's a benefit in having a second chamber scrutinising government legislation IMHO. The House of Lords isn't the way that I'd do it though.

PS This is going to turn into an extension of the independence debate.

How would you do it?

[Colr]

There's a benefit in having a second chamber scrutinising government legislation IMHO. The House of Lords isn't the way that I'd do it though.

PS This is going to turn into an extension of the independence debate.

I agree with your first point but what do you think is the right way to do it. I'm not at all convinced that we want another chamber of elected politicians.

Maybe in a more federal relationship there would be national representatives in equal proportion but it would be a backward step to exclude the great and good (some of whom actually are)

[Pretty Boy]

How would you do it?

Imo there has to be democratic process in the make up of the House of Lords.

Having an unelected upper chamber with the ability to delay legislation is completely incompatible with a democratic country.

[spike220]

Imo there has to be democratic process in the make up of the House of Lords.

Having an unelected upper chamber with the ability to delay legislation is completely incompatible with a democratic country.

My thoughts exactly, and that is what I cant understand. Are we the first nation to democratically vote against democracy?

[ballengeich]

I agree with your first point but what do you think is the right way to do it. I'm not at all convinced that we want another chamber of elected politicians.



If the second chamber was elected on the same basis as the Commons I'd agree as you'd get the same party-based results. If you listen to debates in the Lords you'll hear a higher intellectual standard than the Commons, and considerably better manners, even when ex MPs are contributing. How to preserve the strengths while adding a more democratic base is the challenge. Perhaps one idea would be that members of the second chamber cannot become government ministers until say ten years after leaving it. That might get a membership who are interested in addressing issues rather than advancing their own careers by mindlessly obeying party whips.

[Colr]

My thoughts exactly, and that is what I cant understand. Are we the first nation to democratically vote against democracy?

Then you just end up with the same bland politicians but just more of them.

Lords don't get paid but politicians would want to be. Frankly, I'd rather have nothing than another elected chamber.

[Colr]

If the second chamber was elected on the same basis as the Commons I'd agree as you'd get the same party-based results. If you listen to debates in the Lords you'll hear a higher intellectual standard than the Commons, and considerably better manners, even when ex MPs are contributing. How to preserve the strengths while adding a more democratic base is the challenge. Perhaps one idea would be that members of the second chamber cannot become government ministers until say ten years after leaving it. That might get a membership who are interested in addressing issues rather than advancing their own careers by mindlessly obeying party whips.

That would be reasonable and keep the politicos out. There's been rather too many overtly political appointments recently as well. Whereas there are political people who would not want to be an elected member but might serve in the Lords, maybe a panel could vet the quality of political appointments.

[Beefster]

What does the house the Commons do then?

PS. If it does it can be merged.

Make the legislation.


How would you do it?

I'd have the second chamber elected, ideally with folk not standing on party lines. Experts, scientists, community leaders, entrepreneurs and more standing for election on their own experience and reputation.

There is hee-haw chance of that happening though so probably a certain number of candidates (say 30-50) from each country of the UK with the candidates being selected by PR in each country.

[Beefster]

Are we the first nation to democratically vote against democracy?

You seem to want it to become an extension of the independence debate?

The referendum was on the future of Scotland, not on the House of Lords.

[Colr]

Make the legislation.



I'd have the second chamber elected, ideally with folk not standing on party lines. Experts, scientists, community leaders, entrepreneurs and more standing for election on their own experience and reputation.

There is hee-haw chance of that happening though so probably a certain number of candidates (say 30-50) from each country of the UK with the candidates being selected by PR in each country.

Would they want to stand for election. Campaigning is not everyone's cup of tea or talent. Some very able and valuable people are erasable ***** after all.

[Colr]

My thoughts exactly, and that is what I cant understand. Are we the first nation to democratically vote against democracy?

Wot?

[ballengeich]

I'd have the second chamber elected, ideally with folk not standing on party lines. Experts, scientists, community leaders, entrepreneurs and more standing for election on their own experience and reputation.

There is hee-haw chance of that happening though so probably a certain number of candidates (say 30-50) from each country of the UK with the candidates being selected by PR in each country.

I agree about both a lack of party lines and PR being desirable. I'd also be inclined to have a lack of responsibility for constituencies so that the members don't get bogged down in helping individual constituents. A second chamber's function is to think calmly (and possibly slower) about the detail of legislation away from the adversarial first chamber, and to suggest amendments when flaws are found. If it's elected using the same basis as the Commons there's no point in its existence.

[spike220]

You seem to want it to become an extension of the independence debate?

The referendum was on the future of Scotland, not on the House of Lords.

No this is a detailed debate about the mechanisms of Westminster, in the context of the independence discussions (ie If we could do it better what would it look like).

We could have a poll about whether this thread is a extension of the independence debate, but I must warn you the results of the poll would be binding for one generation! :cb

[Colr]

No this is a detailed debate about the mechanisms of Westminster, in the context of the independence discussions (ie If we could do it better what would it look like).

We could have a poll about whether this thread is a extension of the independence debate, but I must warn you the results of the poll would be binding for one generation! :cb

Another pertinent extension of the independence debate might be what does Whitehall do?

[spike220]

Then you just end up with the same bland politicians but just more of them.

Lords don't get paid but politicians would want to be. Frankly, I'd rather have nothing than another elected chamber.

I thought they got 300 quid a day just for signing in? or am I mistaken??

[Beefster]

Would they want to stand for election. Campaigning is not everyone's cup of tea or talent. Some very able and valuable people are erasable ***** after all.

If they don't want to stand for election, presumably they wouldn't want to be part of the legislature if it was entirely election-based.

[Colr]

I thought they got 300 quid a day just for signing in? or am I mistaken??

No, I think you're right but I should have said a salary.

[Colr]

If they don't want to stand for election, presumably they wouldn't want to be part of the legislature if it was entirely election-based.

Yes. That's what I'm getting at. The election process would put a lot of people off and we would lose the contribution from some substantial talents.

[lord bunberry]

It's another lair of government that we don't need IMO. I know they have the power to send back proposals to the House of Commons, but they can be overruled by the parliament act.

[cabbageandribs1875]

this is what they do in the house of snooze

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/sleepingpeer203.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/9/2/12/enhanced-buzz-11445-1378140769-4.jpg

http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/migration_catalog/article25740271.ece/ab88e/ALTERNATES/h342/sleepinghttp://38.media.tumblr.com/e393398e67d0a82d78acc05c91cabfc1/tumblr_mv6upqHDPx1rgizm7o1_500.jpg

[snooky]

I thought they got 300 quid a day just for signing in? or am I mistaken??

My thinking too. Recently reported that a lot of the Lards turn up for 15min so the can collect their attendance dosh.

That being the case, I'm offering my services to the Upper House AND, I'm willing PAY a hunner smackeroonies per day - because I love my country. :cb

[Colr]

My thinking too. Recently reported that a lot of the Lards turn up for 15min so the can collect their attendance dosh.

That being the case, I'm offering my services to the Upper House AND, I'm willing PAY a hunner smackeroonies per day - because I love my country. :cb

Could auction the places like Lloyd George did.

[One Day Soon]

I think there is a lot of value in having a second chamber - particularly when it can bring to bear people with a lot of experience and specific expertise. But, it isn't elected which I don't like. As soon as you start to elect you will get party labels whether you like it or not.

It is very imperfect but it serves a very useful purpose. The question is how do you fix it without killing the value of it?

[RyeSloan]

I think there is a lot of value in having a second chamber - particularly when it can bring to bear people with a lot of experience and specific expertise. But, it isn't elected which I don't like. As soon as you start to elect you will get party labels whether you like it or not. It is very imperfect but it serves a very useful purpose. The question is how do you fix it without killing the value of it?

There would appear to be no obvious answer. I suppose it depends what you want the second chamber to do.

Is it to prevent party political or overly populist legislation or is it there to improve and refine or even guide?

That said Scotland would appear to have a government that functions quite well without a second chamber and not every nation has one.

I assume one was not created in Scotland due to the questions on how it would be created, additional complexity and with a thought that the primary chamber was not really designed to have a one party majority. I'm not too up on how the committee system works in Edinburgh but maybe the answer is you don't need one if your primary chamber is elected 'correctly' and the committees which legislation must pass through have appropriate powers?

[NAE NOOKIE]

It's another lair of government that we don't need IMO. I know they have the power to send back proposals to the House of Commons, but they can be overruled by the parliament act.

As I understand the determination of Blair's government to reform the Lords came to a head when one of new Labour's bills was returned 5 times for amendment by the 2nd chamber. Not surprisingly Mr Blair was rather nonplussed as to why a bunch of hooray Henrys without a vote to their name were able to defeat the ends of democracy in that way.

In the end the Lords were able to keep 92 hereditary peers in place after some threatened to delay every bill set before them. Instead of caving in the democratically elected Parliament should have charged them all with treason and shut the place.

In a modern society the very idea of an unelected chamber ... never mind one with 92 hereditary peers and 26 Church of England Bishops ... with the power to amend bills or delay their progress is an anathema and an affront to democracy. The fact that we got to the end of the 20th century before this disgrace began to be addressed is frankly unbelievable. If you allow people power over the population due to an accident of birth you have a feudal society.

I for one couldn't care less if the House of Lords carries out its function with the wisdom of Solomon and the compassion of Mother Theresa. It shouldn't exist.

[RyeSloan]

I for one couldn't care less if the House of Lords carries out its function with the wisdom of Solomon and the compassion of Mother Theresa. It shouldn't exist.

Ha quality quote!!

It's not like you to sit on the fence ;-)

[Sergio sledge]

I didn't realise that there were still hereditary peers, ridiculous. Also didn't realise that, with 774 members, the house of lords is the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy, again ridiculous. I'm not against an upper chamber, but the current system is out dated and a spectacular waste of money IMHO.

The ConDems proposed this in 2011:

Detailed proposals for Lords reform including a draft House of Lords Reform Bill were published on 17 May 2011. These include a 300-member hybrid house, of which 80% are elected. A further 20% would be appointed, and reserve space would be included for some Church of England bishops. Under the proposals, members would also serve single non-renewable terms of 15 years. Former MPs would be allowed to stand for election to the Upper House, but members of the Upper House would not be immediately allowed to become MPs.
The details of the proposal were:
The upper chamber shall continue to be known as the House of Lords for legislative purposes.
The reformed House of Lords should have 300 members of which 240 are "Elected Members" and 60 appointed "Independent Members". Up to 12 Church of England bishops may sit in the house as ex-officio "Lords Spiritual".
Elected Members will serve a single, non renewable term of 15 years.
Elections to the reformed Lords should take place at the same time as elections to the House of Commons.
Elected Members should be elected using the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation.
Twenty Independent Members (a third) shall take their seats within the reformed house at the same time as elected members do so and for the same 15-year term.
Independent Members will be appointed by the Queen after being suggested by the Prime Minister acting on advice of an Appointments Commission.
There will no longer be a link between the peerage system and membership of the upper house.
The current powers of the House of Lords would not change and the House of Commons shall retain its status as the primary House of Parliament.

I'd probably go for something like that, except remove the CofE bishops.

Sent from my Venue 8 Pro 5830 using Tapatalk