What do you think of Lords in the cabinet ?

[Sheepy]

I remember a few years ago on another forum JOG a long discussion on how we were heading for a new religion where we would be praying to science and it would control all parts of politics and through that every part of your life. Interesting that is how it has ended up.

[Nick]

My complaint would not be the HoC's en mass. It would be the MP' that went against their constituencies and the list is long. Anna Sourpuss being a prime example.

[johnofgwent]

Let me guess after spending over a couple of decades putting democracy in the hands of the electorate where it belongs against the wishes of the Westminster party and creating the opportunity to build on it via direct democracy and a worldwide web to help you along the right path, despite being trolled to death, I reckon the answer might be fairly obvious. but then probably not.

I would say myself that the best part of four years and TWO elections exposed the corruption and stinking rottenness behind the fact that the house of commons, while whingeing  that it is the seat of democracy, proved itself to be anything but as a treacherous opposition swore blind to respect the will of the people, then did the exact opposite.

[Sheepy]

Let me guess after spending over a couple of decades putting democracy in the hands of the electorate where it belongs against the wishes of the Westminster party and creating the opportunity to build on it via direct democracy and a worldwide web to help you along the right path, despite being trolled to death, I reckon the answer might be fairly obvious. but then probably not. 

[HDQQ]

I don't hold with the idea of an unelected upper house or indeed a hereditary monarchy.

But the House of Lords is what we've got at the moment and if, in exceptional circumstances, a member of the Lords has relevant expertise they can bring to the cabinet table, then I suppose it's acceptable. However, I'm now wondering . . . if we did reform the upper house so it was elected, would it then be more acceptable for one of its members to be in the cabinet?

[johnofgwent]

Hi JoG. I have to say I did not know that the PM need not be an MP!

In some ways it is good that decision makers are able to debate with (potentially) experts rather trying to reach agreement without understanding all the issues involved. But, on the other hand, it would be a dangerous precedent if ever their was a meglomaniac ever chosen as PM as decisions could be reached on the basis of whom was selected rather than properly debated. The electoral system is different here from that in the US but a Trumpian figure could arise at some point. And, no, whatever faults Boris may have, the main similarity with Trump is just strange hair.

Charles II agreed to return to become a constitutional monarch, and it fell to him to send "a trusted advisor" to the palace of Westminster, charged as the sovereigns Prime Minister there to attempt to form, from those parliamentarians elected, a government to govern in his name.


Peers of course cannot stand for election and must revoke their peerage before sending the nomina form in. Have any done this since Tony Benn ?


The last Prime Minister not drawn from the chamber of elected MPs served in post quite some time ago !!

[patman post]

Years ago I wondered why the UK needed such a large second chamber** whose only power is to send back legislation, perhaps with revising suggestions, and asking the Commons to think again.
Certainly have the House of Lords — it seems a simple way of rewarding 800 to 1000 or so people who have achieved something thought worthy of more than a medal or a knighthood. But strip it of its parliamentary powers, and give those to something like the US Supreme Court.   
Members of this new body would be appointed to sit until the age of 75, and each appointment would have to be approved by a vote in favour by MPs.  Lords' members would be free to debate and lobby govt, MPs and the Supreme Court  — but reservations over the justice or legality of proposed legislation, and instruction to "think again" would rest solely with the new body, the membership of which would alter as the years passed. Their remuneration would be in line with that of High Court Judges.
Members of the House of Lords would be able to claim a daily attendance allowance plus expenses for any Parliamentary work. Any appointed to Govt positions would be paid only that salary...

**650 MPs seems too many for the House of Commons — couldn't 500 be enough?

[grumzed]

Hi JoG. I have to say I did not know that the PM need not be an MP!

In some ways it is good that decision makers are able to debate with (potentially) experts rather trying to reach agreement without understanding all the issues involved. But, on the other hand, it would be a dangerous precedent if ever their was a meglomaniac ever chosen as PM as decisions could be reached on the basis of whom was selected rather than properly debated. The electoral system is different here from that in the US but a Trumpian figure could arise at some point. And, no, whatever faults Boris may have, the main similarity with Trump is just strange hair.

[johnofgwent]

Should we have a law that only an MP can hold office in the cabinet, or should we keep things as they are and allow unelected Lords to be part of government ?

You are, I presume, aware Her Majesty's Prime Minister need not be an elected MP ....

[srb7677]

It strikes me that unelected Lords holding positions of power is an affront to democracy. But then, an unelected second chamber is itself an affront to democracy. Replace the Lords with an elected second chamber, then they can legitimately sit in cabinet.

[patman post]

WWII cabinet sported a few Lords and Viscounts, and they seemed to get the job done — besides which, we don't get to vote for who's in the cabinet, that's the PM's job, and his/her party chooses them...

[Streetwalker]

Not for me . Anyone serving in government inc cabinet ministers needs to be elected by the people for democracy to be credible .

Of course nothing wrong with those ministers having advisers who can be whoever they like but being accountable and knowing where the buck hits the buffers is important IMO

[patman post]

But would they be those I classed as "likely to be considered"...?

[cromwell]

Seems sensible to enlarge the pool of talent.[highlight] Any peers that are likely to be considered will usually have already-proven skills and experience (which probably got them a peerage in the first place),[/highlight] that the govt thinks would be useful...

Or kicked upstairs because they're bloody useless or past their sell by date.

[patman post]

Seems sensible to enlarge the pool of talent. Any peers that are likely to be considered will usually have already-proven skills and experience (which probably got them a peerage in the first place), that the govt thinks would be useful...