House of Lords reform

[Thomas]

Mind you, having seen what the remain camp got up to between July 2016 and December 2019 I can see that unicameralism isnt a sole source of undemocratoc despotism ...

Exactly john.  :thup:

[johnofgwent]

There does , but it doesnt necessarily need a second chamber to do this.



Half the nations in the world have single legislatures or chambers , some have three .

Well, I don't know if it really is "half the nations in the world" as yu say, but there are a lot....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#List_of_unicameral_legislatures">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicamera ... gislatures">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#List_of_unicameral_legislatures



My concern is that some of the worst examples of rogue state despotism are among that list.



Mind you, having seen what the remain camp got up to between July 2016 and December 2019 I can see that unicameralism isnt a sole source of undemocratoc despotism ...

[Thomas]

There has to be a revising chamber.

There does , but it doesnt necessarily need a second chamber to do this.



Half the nations in the world have single legislatures or chambers , some have three .

[Thomas]

At the end of the month we get Brexit - the UK will cease to be a member of the EU as per the referendum. "BRINO" is just a term that some leavers came up with to describe not getting an outcome that was explicitly ruled out before the referendum by all the leading voices on the Leave side.

I completely disagree with you. Again , its not my opinion that counts , its the perception of the people of england and wales that counts.



If the tories or anyone else try and sell people BRINO , where they say the uk is no longer an eu member , but continues to pay in to the eu budget , accept FOM and ECJ jurisdiction etc etc ,then the idea this is delivering "brexit" is yet again laughable beelbeeb.



You have already made the mistake of believing people are stupid , dont make that same mistake twice.

If a labour leader had campaigned properly during the ref it is far less likely the result would have been as it was.

Again , you take the easy way out and blame corbyn.



Labours problem was highlighted time and again over brexit.



The majority of their voters and constituencies were leave , the majority of the membership were remain. They took the easy way out and sat on the fence , despite people clearly highlighting the absurdity of their position from the top of the party to the bottom.



You look at their position from your own selfish perspective of being a remainer. Offering up some half hearted second ref on brexit where the choice was between remain or remain as though this would appeal to a country ( England) that was in the majority leave(54%) was always going to be an idiotic strategy. They needed to do as the tories did , turn from being a remain party into a leave party , and grasp the bull by the horns , and they failed spectacularly.



Again though we go over old ground. You might not like or agree with brexit , but you cant argue the fact its something the majority want in your country.

that aside, let us suppose he was replaced straight after the 2017 election with a competent leader.

Like who?



From where i am sitting labours problem isnt corbyn , its their severe lack of talent and inept strategy .



Had someone like Keir starmer headed the party and stood on a clear remain ticket , the result wouldnt have been much different.



This all sounds remarkably like the navel gazing labour had after 2015 GE , when one minute Ed milliband was the knight who was going to lead labour to the promised land , and the next , labourites were wistfully remarking its should have been his blairite brother leading the party.



They never learn.



It doesnt matter who leads labour , if you take a contrary position to the public view , and campaign on it , you will get crushed. Labour lost the brexit argument years before corbyn got elected.

Pushing for a referendum on the negotiated deal is an entirely rational approach.

No you take this out of context.



Offering up a referendum that gives a binary choice between some BRINO and remain , and then saying you will campaign against the BRINO because you want to remain against the public will was clearly and self evidently a disasterous strategy.Again you let your own personal wishes cloud your judgement.

(As an aside my approach if I was DC in the days after the ref would have been to say "OK let's create DEXEU headed by BJ, JRM, IDS etc, charged with the entirety of negotiating an exit package, as per their promises, from the EU and whatever they put together, whenever they do it, will be put to the people again". That way all the leavers could fight like rats in a sack until they came up with something and the rest of us could get on with our lives. If they came back with a negotiated deal as good as the one they claimed they could get I'd vote for it.)

Again you treat people as fools.There is no deal brexiters could possibly come up with that is as good for remainers as staying in the eu , and satisfies the requirements of leaving CU , ECJ , Paying in to the EU , and the four freedoms.



The public want out of these things , and have made that clear time and again. You can dress up brexit any way you like , but if these things dont happen , then the public will punish you accordingly , they arent stupid.



Again and again we are simply re running the same argument from before 2016 , and the majority seem to disagree with you going by elections and referendum results.

I would not be too smug if I were a leaver, he is as likely to throw Brexiters under a bus as not.

I dont think leavers are being smug , what give you that impression?



From my perspective , they appear to believe they have taken yet another step towards what the majority want , nothing more , and are patiently waiting for johnson to enact their vote.



If he throws them under a bus , and i dont disagree he is capable of doing so , they will punish him and his party severely. Eventually as we saw in scotland , FPTP will only save labour and conservatives for so long before even that system gets smashed and people tire of their duplicity and vote for someone  else in their droves.



Could the brexit party in England emulate the snp in scotland  in the future if brexit is yet again reneged on? I wouldnt count against it?

I saw a quote - he stands around looking at whichever direction people are walking then runs to the front and shouts "follow me!"

Well thats been the tory election strategy all my life , jumping on the populist bandwagon , and its why they are the most successfull party in uk political history.



The tories go with the flow , while labour go against the grain time and again on many issues while patronisingly telling people we know best.

Well quite, but the point is that we can kick the ideas around here.



No preference for any of those options? What would you think is a scheme such as I outlined were proposed for iScotland?

No because while i am open to the idea of a second revising chamber , i will not accept a chamber being stuffed in any way ( election / proposing) of hereditary lords or religous leaders as you say in the quote below....

So I propose



A fixed number of lords (say 450)

[papasmurf]

Something has to be done, and I wouldn't rule out abolition in favour of commons parliamentary rule.

There has to be a revising chamber.

[Barry]

They should all have to retire at age 66 on a pension of £160 a week, JoG. They will have sucked enough from the taxpayer before they retire to build up their own nest-egg.

Something has to be done, and I wouldn't rule out abolition in favour of commons parliamentary rule.

[johnofgwent]

Much of this entire sub forum is unlikely to happen.  The chances of replacing the FPTP system are tiny because any change will have to be enacted by a party that is only in power because if it. The perfect self perpetuating system!



That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.  After all you're still discussing Scottish Independence after that was seemingly dead and look where we are now.

Well I think both your and Thomas's posts here have merit



Thomas is right, it will never happen



But something should happen. The current use of the place as a day care centre for decrepit political hangers on has to go. The rationale behind a goodly number of the appointments also has to be given a kicking.

[BeElBeeBub]

Well thats not quite true as i discussed on here yesterday. At the end of the month there will be BRINO.



Then we will stay as we are in the transition period till at least next december. Wether you have  a sticker saying you are a member or not , if nothing is changing then no need to get despondent. Everything else  remains the same , including ECJ jursidiction citizen rights etc.



Long way to go yet beely , you give in too easy.

At the end of the month we get Brexit - the UK will cease to be a member of the EU as per the referendum. "BRINO" is just a term that some leavers came up with to describe not getting an outcome that was explicitly ruled out before the referendum by all the leading voices on the Leave side.

Dont agree as i said to you before. By sitting on the fence corbyn alienated his own northern english backyard over brexit , and decimated his party in the process.



Just when you think labour couldnt be any more incompetent , they take the party to new depths never before seen.

Not going to argue with much of that.

Telling people you where either going to revoke their 2016 vote because it was the wrong vote or piss all over it by having another ref till you got the right answer while taking people for fools was of course the worst thing you could do. Old argument  between us, and i have since been proven correct and you wrong.

It wouldn't necessarily have required Corbyn to immediately be an out and out remainer from the 24th June 2016.



First, if you look at his record it is clear he was a Leaver.  If he hadn't been Labour leader in 2016, He would have been alongside the likes of Stuart and Hoey with Farage.



That aside, by aligning with the Tories for 3 years he further entrenched the Labour split over Brexit.  By the time we got to 2019 he had already (deliberately) boxed himself in.



If a labour leader had campaigned properly during the ref it is far less likely the result would have been as it was.



that aside, let us suppose he was replaced straight after the 2017 election with a competent leader.



that leader could have spent the intervening time clearly countering the Leave/Tory messaging about brexit.



Instead he kept on about his "labour brexit" - thus implying that there was a possibility of a beneficial brexit.  This moves the fight to if X or Y brexit is beneficial not if or not Brexit is a good idea in the first place.  



Pushing for a referendum on the negotiated deal is an entirely rational approach.



(As an aside my approach if I was DC in the days after the ref would have been to say "OK let's create DEXEU headed by BJ, JRM, IDS etc, charged with the entirety of negotiating an exit package, as per their promises, from the EU and whatever they put together, whenever they do it, will be put to the people again".  That way all the leavers could fight like rats in a sack until they came up with something and the rest of us could get on with our lives.  If they came back with a negotiated deal as good as the one they claimed they could get I'd vote for it.)

As for swinson , i did say she was a complete political muppet out of her depth. Once she got out from the protection she received in scotland from unionist journalists , and was exposed to the wider english media who tore her to feckin shreds , game was over for her.

No particular quibble

Anyway we are going back over old ground . its all water under the bridge now.







Of course not , and im not suggesting you do , so why give up now?



It looks like you might have a new found friend in boris johnson and the tory party .I think they are about to stitch brexiters up and i will be very surprised if we have anything other than BRINO , not just this month , but going forward.

honestly, I have no idea.  BJ is not interested in Brexit.  He's interested in whatever gains him power.  If the ref had been over abortion or scottish independence or becoming a republic he would pick whichever side he felt would advantage him most.



I would not be too smug if I were a leaver, he is as likely to throw Brexiters under a bus as not.



I saw a quote - he stands around looking at whichever direction people are walking then runs to the front and shouts "follow me!"

im very interested in these issues beely.



To be honest with brexit over the last four years , the preceding indy ref near miss and defeat , and the years beforhand running up to it i hae got lost in many of the issues i used to discuss on many of the scottish forums around governance.



The basic premise many people seems to agree with is what is acutally the point in scottish indy if we are merely going to copy england/UK as it stands once independent.?



From memory people were looking for less political  centralisation around edinburgh , complete severance from the FPTP system ,some favoured the old single legislature scotland once had , others an elected upper house and revising chamber .



I think from memory there were many ideas put forth  , but all agreed it was obviously pointless till we got independence.

Well quite, but the point is that we can kick the ideas around here.



No preference for any of those options?  What would you think is a scheme such as I outlined were proposed for iScotland?

[Baron von Lotsov]

Our country's problems are not the fault of the Lords. The House of Lords has worked for hundreds of years. Our biggest problem is that people don't have their own minds, but get told what to think by media corporations, and they are experienced in media.



I've been listening to the local radio a bit recently and the way I see it is the average listener is presumed to have the mentality of a child between about 5 and 10 year's old. The style is reminiscent of how children's programs were put together. This is the problem. People are not achieving mental development beyond the age of ten. Clearly children can not run the country, so your democracy idea will make it worse.



You suggest placing more constraints in the system but a constrained system is less intelligent. It's the simplest system that has the most power, like in commerce the basis of contract law is very simple, and so it allows far more solutions than a tighter system, e.g. that practiced in the USSR.

[Thomas]

From the perspective of my preventing Brexit stance, you are correct I am indeed defeated.  I see no (realistic) path that will prevent the UK ceasing to be an EU member at the end of the month. .

Well thats not quite true as i discussed on here yesterday. At the end of the month there will be BRINO.



Then we will stay as we are in the transition period till at least next december. Wether you have  a sticker saying you are a member or not , if nothing is changing then no need to get despondent. Everything else  remains the same , including ECJ jursidiction citizen rights etc.



Long way to go yet beely , you give in too easy.

We were defeated when Corbyn failed to support a GNU to hold a 2 ref and Swinson decided to roll the dice on a GE.

Dont agree as i said to you before. By sitting on the fence corbyn alienated his own northern english backyard over brexit , and decimated his party in the process.



Just when you think labour couldnt be any more incompetent , they take the party to new depths never before seen.



Telling people you where either going to revoke their 2016 vote because it was the wrong vote or piss all over it by having another ref till you got the right answer while taking people for fools was of course the worst thing you could do. Old argument  between us, and i have since been proven correct and you wrong.



As for swinson , i did say she was a complete political muppet out of her depth. Once she got out from the protection she received in scotland from unionist journalists , and was exposed to the wider english media who tore her to feckin shreds , game was over for her.



Anyway we are going back over old ground . its all water under the bridge now.

That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea or that I support it.

Of course not , and im not suggesting you do , so why give up now?



It looks like you might have a new found friend in boris johnson and the tory party .I think they are about to stitch brexiters up and i will be very surprised if we have anything other than BRINO , not just this month , but going forward.

Let me ask you this. ASssuming Scotyland somehow becomes independent. How would *you* like to see the governance arranged?

A formal separation between executive and legislature?

A single legislature or a bicameral legislature?

If bicameral then how would members of the "upper" chamber be selected?



It seems to me that as a committed Scots Independence supporter you should be extremely interested in theses issues.

im very interested in these issues beely.



To be honest with brexit over the last four years , the preceding indy ref near miss and defeat , and the years beforhand running up to it i hae got lost in many of the issues i used to discuss on many of the scottish forums around governance.



The basic premise many people seems to agree with is what is acutally the point in scottish indy if we are merely going to copy england/UK as it stands once independent.?



From memory people were looking for less political  centralisation around edinburgh , complete severance from the FPTP system ,some favoured the old single legislature scotland once had , others an elected upper house and revising chamber .



I think from memory there were many ideas put forth  , but all agreed it was obviously pointless till we got independence.

[BeElBeeBub]

Of course you can discuss it. Not being funny beely but two things spring to mind ,the lack of interest from your fellow forum members except myself on this topic and the fact you sound like a defeated man  , wanting to discuss mere minutiae while the major issues of the day pass you by.



Reform of the house of lords has been getting discussed for more than a century. As you well know its normally something labour trot out now and again when things are bleak to rally the troops , then later on  socialist republicans within the party like ally darling forsake their chest thumping morals over the HOL to take the ermine.



Discuss away beely , thats what the forum is for. Im not trying to shut down your wee debate , im simply and gently pointing out you dont seem to have much support ( except from me the nasty scottish nationalist and i dont count as not only does my party refuse to sit in it , but want to take all scots completely out of it anyway). :thup:

From the perspective of my preventing Brexit stance, you are correct I am indeed defeated.  I see no (realistic) path that will prevent the UK ceasing to be an EU member at the end of the month.  We were defeated when Corbyn failed to support a GNU to hold a 2 ref and Swinson decided to roll the dice on a GE.



 :shrg:



That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea or that I support it.



Post Brexit I shall continue to ask those here how they think it is going as I expect the promised benefits will fail to appear and I will be interested in their rationalizations when they don't ("We never wanted car makers anyway!" - "it's due to diesel/war in the ME/China!" etc).  Alternatively I look forward to being proved wrong and living in the sunlit uplands they believe in.



However, it is probably more fruitful to look to changes to the system that brought us to this point.



Let me ask you this.  ASssuming Scotyland somehow becomes independent.  How would *you* like to see the governance arranged?



A formal separation between executive and legislature?

A single legislature or a bicameral legislature?  

If bicameral then how would members of the "upper" chamber be selected?



It seems to me that as a committed Scots Independence supporter you should be extremely interested in theses issues.



Pushing for a major constitutional rupture without thinking about the minutiae of what happens afterwards is exactly why we are in this mess with Brexit.

[Thomas]

Much of this entire sub forum is unlikely to happen.  The chances of replacing the FPTP system are tiny because any change will have to be enacted by a party that is only in power because if it. The perfect self perpetuating system!



That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.  After all you're still discussing Scottish Independence after that was seemingly dead and look where we are now.

Of course you can discuss it. Not being funny beely but two things spring to mind ,the lack of interest from your fellow forum members except myself on this topic and the fact you sound like a defeated man  , wanting to discuss mere minutiae while the major issues of the day pass you by.



Reform of the house of lords has been getting discussed for more than a century. As you well know its normally something labour trot out now and again when things are bleak to rally the troops , then later on  socialist republicans within the party like ally darling forsake their chest thumping morals over the HOL to take the ermine.



Discuss away beely , thats what the forum is for. Im not trying to shut down your wee debate , im simply and gently pointing out you dont seem to have much support ( except from me the nasty scottish nationalist and i dont count as not only does my party refuse to sit in it , but want to take all scots completely out of it anyway). :thup:

[BeElBeeBub]

Happy new year beelbeeb.



Nae offence pal , i appreciate the time you take to write in depth posts on the subject of uk political reform , but again its no gonnae happen .



You are simply sweeping out the utility room while the house burns.



The HOL wont reform within your lifetime or anyone on this forum , and probably the closest you will get is if the jock and paddy lords get booted out upon scottish/northern irish indy.



Aside from that its business as usual.



Second biggest legislature in the entire world for  a state that makes up part of a  wee group of islands off the coast of europe and only has a tiny population of 65 million souls is some record.



I think the HOL will be reformed only just after the monarchy loses its position and is abolished and not before.

Much of this entire sub forum is unlikely to happen.  The chances of replacing the FPTP system are tiny because any change will have to be enacted by a party that is only in power because if it. The perfect self perpetuating system!



That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.  After all you're still discussing Scottish Independence after that was seemingly dead and look where we are now.

[Thomas]

Happy New Year to all!



The House of Lords is a vital part of parliament and is currently not very democratic.



There are multiple proposals ranging from an elected house to abolishing it outright



Here's my starter for 10....



First, I think that a 2nd house to counterbalance the house of commons is very necessary.



Our constitution gives unlimited power to Parliament and having zero check on that seems a bad idea.



So that rules out abolition.



The second possibility is an elected upper house.  The problem with that is that it (almost by definition) will result in it being packed with politicians.  The electoral cycle (and the need to get re-elected) will result in party politics becoming ever more important.



What I believe the HoL should be is a "counter weight" or "damper" on the House of Commons.  By design it should always be a little "behind the times" and "old fashioned".  It's job is to be a check on populist tendencies.



The (as I see it) important ingredients to achieve this are



a) Tenure - the freedom from having to be popular allowing them to sometimes say unpopular things.

b) Expertise - the Lords need to have some sort of expertise in a given field (which could be politics or civil service) which they can bring to bear on debates.

c) Impartiality - obviously there will always be some bias towards one party or another but once "appointed" the lords should be as free from the institutional influence of parties as possible. Ideally there should be as many "cross bench" lords a possible.

d) Transparency - related to the above, but lords need to be above reproach when it comes to personal interests (business and lobbying interests in particular).  Scrutiny of past and present connections would be vital.



The current system doesn't really fulfill any of the above.  It is highly political and very subject to cronyism and "packing".



So I propose



A fixed number of lords (say 450)

A fixed term for lords (say 3 parliamentary terms i.e. 15 years)

A portion (1/3 or 150 in the above case) of lords will be up for reappointment every parliament

The replacement lords would be appointed by the parties post a GE

The seats allocated to each party would be decided by the popular votes in each election

The appointees from each party would be drawn from a "long list" of candidates each party published before each election (maybe as part of the manifesto)



Lords would be salaried in line with MPs and have to declare interest and cease lobbying etc.



If a Lord has to  retire (15 years is  long time) the seat would go to the original party and a candidate from the most recent list could "sub" for the reminder of the term.



The seat allocation combined with the rolling changes means the party make up of the lords will be more like a "moving average" of the past 3 elections thus evening out any swings but also changing over time to reflect the electorate.  Say the LibDems start to become the main opposition that would eventually be reflected in the HoL but if they only have one good election, their influence would be less. It would also provide some representation for parties with reasonable vote shares but no MPs (if FPTP or similar is kept)



The requirement for a published "list" means that the candidates backgrounds plus the reasons for their proposal can be scrutinized before hand.  "Why is this person who also happens to be a massive donor to your party here?" etc.  It would allow for non-political figures (eg Dame Lawrence or Lord Winston) with insights outside the usual political sphere to be proposed.  It is conceivable there my be candidates listed in multiple party lists.



The popularity or otherwise of the candidate lists could then feed into the voter's decisons



This also prevents "packing" and will also discourage "useless" lords from being appointed.

Happy new year beelbeeb.



Nae offence pal , i appreciate the time you take to write in depth posts on the subject of uk political reform , but again its no gonnae happen .



You are simply sweeping out the utility room while the house burns.



The HOL wont reform within your lifetime or anyone on this forum , and probably the closest you will get is if the jock and paddy lords get booted out upon scottish/northern irish indy.



Aside from that its business as usual.



Second biggest legislature in the entire world for  a state that makes up part of a  wee group of islands off the coast of europe and only has a tiny population of 65 million souls is some record.



I think the HOL will be reformed only just after the monarchy loses its position and is abolished and not before.

[BeElBeeBub]

Happy New Year to all!



The House of Lords is a vital part of parliament and is currently not very democratic.



There are multiple proposals ranging from an elected house to abolishing it outright



Here's my starter for 10....



First, I think that a 2nd house to counterbalance the house of commons is very necessary.



Our constitution gives unlimited power to Parliament and having zero check on that seems a bad idea.



So that rules out abolition.



The second possibility is an elected upper house.  The problem with that is that it (almost by definition) will result in it being packed with politicians.  The electoral cycle (and the need to get re-elected) will result in party politics becoming ever more important.



What I believe the HoL should be is a "counter weight" or "damper" on the House of Commons.  By design it should always be a little "behind the times" and "old fashioned".  It's job is to be a check on populist tendencies.



The (as I see it) important ingredients to achieve this are



a) Tenure - the freedom from having to be popular allowing them to sometimes say unpopular things.

b) Expertise - the Lords need to have some sort of expertise in a given field (which could be politics or civil service) which they can bring to bear on debates.

c) Impartiality - obviously there will always be some bias towards one party or another but once "appointed" the lords should be as free from the institutional influence of parties as possible. Ideally there should be as many "cross bench" lords a possible.

d) Transparency - related to the above, but lords need to be above reproach when it comes to personal interests (business and lobbying interests in particular).  Scrutiny of past and present connections would be vital.



The current system doesn't really fulfill any of the above.  It is highly political and very subject to cronyism and "packing".



So I propose



A fixed number of lords (say 450)

A fixed term for lords (say 3 parliamentary terms i.e. 15 years)

A portion (1/3 or 150 in the above case) of lords will be up for reappointment every parliament

The replacement lords would be appointed by the parties post a GE

The seats allocated to each party would be decided by the popular votes in each election

The appointees from each party would be drawn from a "long list" of candidates each party published before each election (maybe as part of the manifesto)



Lords would be salaried in line with MPs and have to declare interest and cease lobbying etc.



If a Lord has to  retire (15 years is  long time) the seat would go to the original party and a candidate from the most recent list could "sub" for the reminder of the term.



The seat allocation combined with the rolling changes means the party make up of the lords will be more like a "moving average" of the past 3 elections thus evening out any swings but also changing over time to reflect the electorate.  Say the LibDems start to become the main opposition that would eventually be reflected in the HoL but if they only have one good election, their influence would be less. It would also provide some representation for parties with reasonable vote shares but no MPs (if FPTP or similar is kept)



The requirement for a published "list" means that the candidates backgrounds plus the reasons for their proposal can be scrutinized before hand.  "Why is this person who also happens to be a massive donor to your party here?" etc.  It would allow for non-political figures (eg Dame Lawrence or Lord Winston) with insights outside the usual political sphere to be proposed.  It is conceivable there my be candidates listed in multiple party lists.



The popularity or otherwise of the candidate lists could then feed into the voter's decisons



This also prevents "packing" and will also discourage "useless" lords from being appointed.