House of Lords reform

[Borchester]

pretty much what im saying to beely .

True Tommy. But while I agree that Beely is a good lad, it is never a bad idea to tell him eerything twice.

 

[Thomas]

 But once in he or she is unlikely to commit electoral suicide.

pretty much what im saying to beely .

[Borchester]

sorry beely i cant take the subject seriously , but i have been hearing labour jaw jaw about this subject and do nothing when elected all my life.

The problem is electoral arithmetic.



Under the first past the post system a party can win by a landslide and still have less than a majority of the vote, aka the Conservatives last December. The computer I am using will pack up for nothing so I don't want to paddle the electric internet overmuch, but I am pretty sure that governments that were elected by more than 50% of the votes cast have not been overly common.

So under FPTP, Boris has 43% of the votes but a majority of 80 seats. Under proportional Representation he would be about 45 seats short. So every politician will see the justice of some form of proportional representation while out of power. But once in he or she is unlikely to commit electoral suicide.

[Thomas]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOvoE6pWoAAVTkl.jpg">



Labour anti house of lords poster from 110 years ago  , 1910 .



Today , beely , talking of the futility of HOL reform , scottish labour for example has more unelected peers than its elected Mp`s , MEP`sand MSP`s combined.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOwGShTWoAAb-sT.jpg">



sorry beely i cant take the subject seriously , but i have been hearing labour jaw jaw about this subject and do nothing when elected all my life.

[Thomas]

quite agree.  This is just some "crowd pleasing" rhetoric.



It hasn't been thought through in practical terms

It probably won't happen

It doesn't address any of the actual problems



Classic BJ - garden bridge, new routemasters, water cannons etc.

So if you say that beely , then you must agree with my early comment to you on uk political reform that its a pointless topic as its never going to happen?



Im not saying you shouldnt talk about it.....thats up to you.In reality though its a completely pointless exercise for me personally as



1. My heart isnt in it as i want out the uk system.



2. It wont ever happen unless they are dragged kicking an screaming  and forced to implement change.



The main party closest to what you seem to be suggesting are labour , and as we all know labour have been talking about HOL reform for the last century or more and have done practically nothing about it.



As i said mate you are wasting your time. At best you might get some minute change that helps stack the odds in one parties favour rather than offer true political form for the good of the people , and thats it.

[BeElBeeBub]

Its mere symbolism from a one nation tory prime minister moving the hol to york to show he is determined to hold onto his northern english seats won from labour.



More a dog marking his new found territory rather than any sort of desire to change the deficiencies perceived or otherwise in the HOL.



Its going to take something drastic to change your house of lords beely , and i would be very surprised if it was changed by a tory prime minister.

quite agree.  This is just some "crowd pleasing" rhetoric.



It hasn't been thought through in practical terms

It probably won't happen

It doesn't address any of the actual problems



Classic BJ - garden bridge, new routemasters, water cannons etc.

[Thomas]

BJ has proposed moving the HoL to York.



The problems with the HoL stem not from their location but from their composition (and the rules around that).

Its mere symbolism from a one nation tory prime minister moving the hol to york to show he is determined to hold onto his northern english seats won from labour.



More a dog marking his new found territory rather than any sort of desire to change the deficiencies perceived or otherwise in the HOL.



Its going to take something drastic to change your house of lords beely , and i would be very surprised if it was changed by a tory prime minister.

[BeElBeeBub]

BJ has proposed moving the HoL to York.



Aside from the massive practical implications of physically separating the two houses of parliament by some 200 miles (eg the state opening of parliament would need to be completely rejigged and many long standing customs and protocols binned) it rather misses the point.



The problems with the HoL stem not from their location but from their composition (and the rules around that).



Whilst there is a very cogent argument to be made about locating government outside of London, it would need to be the entirety of parliament rather than half.



Actually that does give me an idea. What if parliament remained where it is (both houses) but the executive was moved to (eg) Birmingham.



In tandem with an executive *not* drawn from the legislature this would highlight the separation between the various  parts of government. Maybe moving the Supreme Court and the offices of the Lord Chief Justice to a 3rd location (eg Manchester) would also help with that.

[Thomas]

I find myself in agreement on the situation, although possibly for another reason



The House of Lords is supposed to be a revising chamber. It had other powers, such as the highest court in the land, but Blair's establishment of a Supreme Court stripped it of that (and I wonder why he did that). It also had the power of veto, but the Parliament Act put a stop to that. As sucn then, its role is solely that of a committee intended to chew on the detail of each bill, complain about the unworkable bits, and put amendments to the commons for a rethink.



There is no way on gods earth you need more people to do that than vote on the bill in the first place. End Of.



The chamber is today little more than a place where the political elite and the beneficiaries of patronage enjoy the finest day care in the country.



I don't have any ACCEPTABLE solutions (my solution of choice would be ricin) but something must be done

 :thup:

[johnofgwent]

Well why do we need lots of mps in one house and lots of MUH in the other?



Surely 650 in one and 450 in another is massively out of proportion to the size of the uk state?



For the purposes of this discussion i would think a much smaller , highly paid and vastly experienced group of people elected on merit in both houses would do a far better job and be much better than the current overbloated , underpaid and underskilled rabble we have infesting both houses at present?



Surely a respectable amount of politicians based  on a realistic size comparable to the four small nations that make up the uk as it stands( hopefully not for much longer) is much better than what we have at present based on ancient out of date tradition and over the top pomp and ceremony?



One of the things i hear time and gain is the "too many chiefs not enough indians " argument we have at present.



Look at all the layers of politicians at differing levels , from brussells , westminster ,  holyrood , down to council level.



Despite this vast quantity of politicians , do we have better governance as a result?



Surely we need to reduce the quantity and increase the quality?



Also the major problem of the uk state is and always has been the massive centralisation of power in your capital city. Even the northern english say they feel remote and neglected .



So reduction in size and decentralisation of power. What we have at present is devolving responsibility , and centralisation of power.



You seem to want to work within the confines of a broken system and tinker at the edges.



As a scot i wont accept any system that gives one country 80% of the power in what is supposedly a union of countries.

I find myself in agreement on the situation, although possibly for another reason



The House of Lords is supposed to be a revising chamber. It had other powers, such as the highest court in the land, but Blair's establishment of a Supreme Court stripped it of that (and I wonder why he did that). It also had the power of veto, but the Parliament Act put a stop to that. As sucn then, its role is solely that of a committee intended to chew on the detail of each bill, complain about the unworkable bits, and put amendments to the commons for a rethink.



There is no way on gods earth you need more people to do that than vote on the bill in the first place. End Of.



The chamber is today little more than a place where the political elite and the beneficiaries of patronage enjoy the finest day care in the country.



I don't have any ACCEPTABLE solutions (my solution of choice would be ricin) but something must be done

[Thomas]

I agree.  I think a real trick was missed when they didn't relocate Parliament to B'ham whilst the renovations occurred.



I would be happy if Westminster became a tourist attraction, perhaps only used for a few official occasions (state opening etc)

well beelbeeb i dont see it as my parliament but im simply kicking ideas around with you.



The uk is past any relevance to me , so outwith the debate on this thread , its up to you what you do with your parliament.

[Thomas]

It may be but what is the yardstick to compare with - is there a universally agreed ratio between legislators and population?

According to my calculations the uk  in general and england in particular seems to have too many legislators for its population when compared to many other countries around the world.



England could fit in france five times over , and has a population smaller than them , But comparing the uk in general to france , france has 577 in the lower house and 348 in the upper , compared to the uk 650 lower and 850 in the upper. 1500 in the uk compared to 925 in france.



We discussed the usa , which spans a continent with a population of 320 million , yet has 435 representatives and 100 senators.



plenty of other examples  , and of course as we know for a tiny island the MUH as we call it is the second biggest legislator in the enitre world.



So the question becomes why do we need so many compared to other countries and states around the world?



FFS the lords holds more than the brussells parliament representing 28 nations.

I would argue that a more important metric of a governance system is the overall quality of governance

So would i  , so the question then becomes if we are starting from scratch in this new political system , why are we talking about the old as though the current numbers have merit?



Surely the current system proves bigger isnt necessarily better?

I'm not trying to "win points" here but do you see the contradiction and could you expand on it?

i understand what you are saying but im simply saying 12 / 650 / 850 is the extreme end of the spectrum.



All im saying couldnt we have a more reflective median figure , as you say based on quality not quantity?

I'm interested in the tension between your earlier argument about having a smaller, higher skilled legislature and also your complaint about over centralization. Surely the two aims are in opposition?

How so?



Decentralisation means the weakening of central power , and in effect the spreading around of governance nation wide.



Why is this in opposition to having a smaller highly skilled legislature?



Having  highly skilled legislators spread across your country ( england) based in smaller parliaments / assemblies call them what you will instead of a mass of politicians based in london out of touch with the rest and holding all the purse strings is surely a better way of governance?



People didnt reject the regional assemblies in england because they thought the idea was crap , it was because they saw what we got in scotland ireland and wales , devolved responsibility and little to no power.



A small local parliament in say lancashire with full local control over everything local  except defence and foreign affairs , full fiscal powers that paid a fee into the central parliament instead of getting pocket mostly given out of the central parliament would i think have support.

[BeElBeeBub]

:thup:



I think Englands parliament should be in the midlands , maybe birmingham and as patman says turn westmidden into some historic house for tourists , selling tickets on the door.



Devolving responsibility without real power is a complete and utter waste of time and an insult to the public at large.

I agree.  I think a real trick was missed when they didn't relocate Parliament to B'ham whilst the renovations occurred.



I would be happy if Westminster became a tourist attraction, perhaps only used for a few official occasions (state opening etc)

[BeElBeeBub]

Well why do we need lots of mps in one house and lots of MUH in the other?



Surely 650 in one and 450 in another is massively out of proportion to the size of the uk state?

It may be but what is the yardstick to compare with - is there a universally agreed ratio between legislators and population?



In the grand scheme of things the cost of legislators (salary, overheads etc) is insignificant compared to the cost of screwing up governing.



I would argue that a more important metric of a governance system is the overall quality of governance  

For the purposes of this discussion i would think a much smaller , highly paid and vastly experienced group of people elected on merit in both houses would do a far better job and be much better than the current overbloated , underpaid and underskilled rabble we have infesting both houses at present?

It's possible, though we should be sure we are not getting ourselves confused between the business of legislation and the business of the executive.



Imagine we had a legislature of 12 people.  These people would vote to accept or reject the proposals of the executive.



These people could be the most highly trained and intelligent people the country could offer.



Would people think that was democratic?  You only have to look at the vitriol poured over the supreme court to get an inkling.



On the other hand many here (yourself included IIRC) regard a group of millions, with zero requirement to understand the issue at hand as the ultimate legislative body?



I'm not trying to "win points" here but do you see the contradiction and could you expand on it?

Surely a respectable amount of politicians based  on a realistic size comparable to the four small nations that make up the uk as it stands( hopefully not for much longer) is much better than what we have at present based on ancient out of date tradition and over the top pomp and ceremony?



One of the things i hear time and gain is the "too many chiefs not enough indians " argument we have at present.



Look at all the layers of politicians at differing levels , from brussells , westminster ,  holyrood , down to council level.



Despite this vast quantity of politicians , do we have better governance as a result?



Surely we need to reduce the quantity and increase the quality?



Also the major problem of the uk state is and always has been the massive centralisation of power in your capital city. Even the northern english say they feel remote and neglected .



So reduction in size and decentralisation of power. What we have at present is devolving responsibility , and centralisation of power.



You seem to want to work within the confines of a broken system and tinker at the edges.



As a scot i wont accept any system that gives one country 80% of the power in what is supposedly a union of countries.

I'm interested in the tension between your earlier argument about having a smaller, higher skilled legislature and also your complaint about over centralization.  Surely the two aims are in opposition?

[Thomas]

Couldn't agree more too,many politicos,devolved power is used an excuse to bung a few quid the way of more politicians lower down the rungs and so bloody stupid and a desire for self aggrandisement they don't see its when the crap hits the fan central govt can say "not our fault guv" In my area we have a failed labour politician foisted on us as mayor when we voted against it,I suppose he thought one had already taken the strictly route so he went the mayoral way.



You have councils with cabinet members one now responsible for climate emergency,bloody tossers their job is to see the bins emptied,grids,roads and paths cleaned and the street lights on.

 :thup:



I think Englands parliament should be in the midlands , maybe birmingham and as patman says turn westmidden into some historic house for tourists , selling tickets on the door.



Devolving responsibility without real power is a complete and utter waste of time and an insult to the public at large.