News3 mins ago
The Lords vote, do we live in a Democracy still?
19 Answers
"Call me Dave" seems to have shown yet again what his interpretation of a democracy is: "You had better do what I tell you or else"
Leaving aside the Lords reform (which I actually support) I still cant agree with these tactics of bullying MP's. In our constituencies we vote for the MP and he/she is the one we can see or put out point to. If that person is then bound by a dictator Prime minister then what is the point of us mere mortals lobbying our MP?
Perhaps we should just abolish the lot and have President Dave? Yes I am aware His Tonyness did the same and Bottler was even worse, but seriously is this really the right thing to do, perhaps it is why we need an unelected body to stop the megalomaniacs?
Leaving aside the Lords reform (which I actually support) I still cant agree with these tactics of bullying MP's. In our constituencies we vote for the MP and he/she is the one we can see or put out point to. If that person is then bound by a dictator Prime minister then what is the point of us mere mortals lobbying our MP?
Perhaps we should just abolish the lot and have President Dave? Yes I am aware His Tonyness did the same and Bottler was even worse, but seriously is this really the right thing to do, perhaps it is why we need an unelected body to stop the megalomaniacs?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Quite so, OG, and that's what Party Politics does for you.
As far as the Lords reforms go, there are a number of issues but to mention the most important:
Much is said of the Lords being “lawmakers” and therefore they should be elected. The House of Lords does not make law. It scrutinises, checks and sometimes secures modifications to bills it believes are not in the electorate’s best interests. But ultimately it has no power to either make laws or deny the will of the Commons.
Politicians believe that the Lords should be elected rather than appointed. Under the proposals under discussion they will still be appointed. All that will happen is that the electorate will vote for parties to be represented in the Lords and the parties will select members based on their share of the vote under proportional representation (rejected for the commons in a referndum just over a year ago). So they will still be appointed, they will not be representatives of the electorate but of the parties (back to party politics again). The electorate will have no say as to who is appointed. The end result will be that, as with almost all forums elected under PR, "fringe" parties (i.e. the LibDems) will hold the balance of power in the second chamber in perpetuity).
Party politics has seen the Commons reduced to a rubber stamping exercise to enact the will of the Government. Only occasionally (such as with this issue) do the Commons revolt because they are all scared witless that they will be deselected at the next election or fail to climb the greasy pole to ministerial rank. They should be acting in the best interests of the constituents on each individual issue laid before them. But they don’t and they never will.
As far as the Lords reforms go, there are a number of issues but to mention the most important:
Much is said of the Lords being “lawmakers” and therefore they should be elected. The House of Lords does not make law. It scrutinises, checks and sometimes secures modifications to bills it believes are not in the electorate’s best interests. But ultimately it has no power to either make laws or deny the will of the Commons.
Politicians believe that the Lords should be elected rather than appointed. Under the proposals under discussion they will still be appointed. All that will happen is that the electorate will vote for parties to be represented in the Lords and the parties will select members based on their share of the vote under proportional representation (rejected for the commons in a referndum just over a year ago). So they will still be appointed, they will not be representatives of the electorate but of the parties (back to party politics again). The electorate will have no say as to who is appointed. The end result will be that, as with almost all forums elected under PR, "fringe" parties (i.e. the LibDems) will hold the balance of power in the second chamber in perpetuity).
Party politics has seen the Commons reduced to a rubber stamping exercise to enact the will of the Government. Only occasionally (such as with this issue) do the Commons revolt because they are all scared witless that they will be deselected at the next election or fail to climb the greasy pole to ministerial rank. They should be acting in the best interests of the constituents on each individual issue laid before them. But they don’t and they never will.
Are people really serious about having an elected Upper House ??
Next time you see the sort of people who come out of a tube station, or a football match, or a pub, ask yourself ...
Would I feel safe having THESE people choose the members of BOTH Houses in Parliament?
Sheesh !!!
Nobody is EVER happy with our elected House of Commons ... so why do we think we would be happy if we elected the House of Lords as well?
Is everybody going nuts?
Next time you see the sort of people who come out of a tube station, or a football match, or a pub, ask yourself ...
Would I feel safe having THESE people choose the members of BOTH Houses in Parliament?
Sheesh !!!
Nobody is EVER happy with our elected House of Commons ... so why do we think we would be happy if we elected the House of Lords as well?
Is everybody going nuts?
An elected House of Lords is infinitely preferable to the ramshackle appointments system we have right now - a mixture of inheritance, bishops there by spiritual right, and life peers, selected at the whim of the PM and used to stuff the House of Lords with supporters of that particular government. Thats why we have 800 or more of them.
The idea that simply because a vote has put them there somehow endangers the primacy of the House of Commons is a red herring. The legislation as drafted prevents that.
I would prefer a House more independent of party politics, but even the idea of appointing party nominees on a proportional system is infinitely preferable to the current setup.
Offering a salary rather than essentially unlimited expenses, as at the moment, and reducing the numbers from over 800 to 450 or so should make it more economic and affordable.
There are some very capable peers in the House - and its likely those same individuals would be there whatever system was used. What we do have is a lot of dead wood in the House under the existing system - take a look at some of the freeloaders listed here.
http://
I would like to see a shortened proposed term - 15 years seems too long - and I would also like to see what measures are in place to revoke a lordship if that individual is found guilty of malfeasance, or expenses fiddling, or other shady action, but lets get ourselves a more modern second chamber.
The idea that simply because a vote has put them there somehow endangers the primacy of the House of Commons is a red herring. The legislation as drafted prevents that.
I would prefer a House more independent of party politics, but even the idea of appointing party nominees on a proportional system is infinitely preferable to the current setup.
Offering a salary rather than essentially unlimited expenses, as at the moment, and reducing the numbers from over 800 to 450 or so should make it more economic and affordable.
There are some very capable peers in the House - and its likely those same individuals would be there whatever system was used. What we do have is a lot of dead wood in the House under the existing system - take a look at some of the freeloaders listed here.
http://
I would like to see a shortened proposed term - 15 years seems too long - and I would also like to see what measures are in place to revoke a lordship if that individual is found guilty of malfeasance, or expenses fiddling, or other shady action, but lets get ourselves a more modern second chamber.
As a nation, we have shown ourselves to be incapable of electing a House whose rule we are happy to follow for five years.
The last time that the nation elected a government with whom we were happy was ...
... err, actually it's never happened.
Allowing the masses to pack the Upper House is a formula for anarchy.
It simply wouldn't work.
The last time that the nation elected a government with whom we were happy was ...
... err, actually it's never happened.
Allowing the masses to pack the Upper House is a formula for anarchy.
It simply wouldn't work.
Slightly hyperbolic - " recipe for anarchy"? I think not.
And you havent explained how it "will never work".
As to people being happy with the governments they elect, well, thats human nature and democracy for you. And in that democracy, whilst there might be many unhappy, you will find a significant minority broadly happy with most of the stuff that happens.
And you havent explained how it "will never work".
As to people being happy with the governments they elect, well, thats human nature and democracy for you. And in that democracy, whilst there might be many unhappy, you will find a significant minority broadly happy with most of the stuff that happens.
"you havent explained how it "will never work"
Okay, you're right.
What I should say is ... "The empirical evidence strongly suggests that it will not work."
The nation has never been happy with the Government they have elected themselves.
So ... bright idea of the decade ... let's take a system that has failed in the House of Commons, and apply it to the House of Lords.
Surely if you want to introduce a new model, you should copy a model that has worked ... not copy a model that has consistently failed for over a hundred years.
Okay, you're right.
What I should say is ... "The empirical evidence strongly suggests that it will not work."
The nation has never been happy with the Government they have elected themselves.
So ... bright idea of the decade ... let's take a system that has failed in the House of Commons, and apply it to the House of Lords.
Surely if you want to introduce a new model, you should copy a model that has worked ... not copy a model that has consistently failed for over a hundred years.
I wonder why these thoroughly wretched Tory backbenchers have "rebelled". Could it be by any chance that they will seize any chance to undermine the Lib Dems, given that, by their smallish world-view, it is the latter who are "holding back" the true blue Conservative government from giving the electorate, who voted for it in such overwhelming numbers, the right(eous) government it so earnestly seeks?
Democracy in action indeed - very much lol
Democracy in action indeed - very much lol
@Jayne - What I should say is ... "The empirical evidence strongly suggests that it will not work." - OK - what empirical evidence?
@Jayne - "So ... bright idea of the decade ... let's take a system that has failed in the House of Commons, and apply it to the House of Lords." What system, and how has it failed? Its never been implemented, so you can hardly claim failure.
Further, where does this come from? -
"Surely if you want to introduce a new model, you should copy a model that has worked ... not copy a model that has consistently failed for over a hundred years."
Each party voted for house of lords reform - each party broadly supports an elected house.And yes, there might very well be a minority happy with the current situation - but thats the point I was making! With democracy you get some winners, and some losers.
The existing system does not work well -- too many freeloaders, far too many of them, an anachronistic mix of induction, far too much influence of political patronage - All this needs to be brought up to date.
I want a more modern house, with fewer members who work harder, one thats more cost effective, and one that has a far more transparent method of selection. I also want members who are accountable, and whom we can remove where appropriate. Allowing the status quo to progress brings us none of this.
@JNO -" How do we know that? What system ensures that only (or indeed, any of) the worthy are elected?" What system ensures such people are inducted into the Lords now?
@Jayne - "So ... bright idea of the decade ... let's take a system that has failed in the House of Commons, and apply it to the House of Lords." What system, and how has it failed? Its never been implemented, so you can hardly claim failure.
Further, where does this come from? -
"Surely if you want to introduce a new model, you should copy a model that has worked ... not copy a model that has consistently failed for over a hundred years."
Each party voted for house of lords reform - each party broadly supports an elected house.And yes, there might very well be a minority happy with the current situation - but thats the point I was making! With democracy you get some winners, and some losers.
The existing system does not work well -- too many freeloaders, far too many of them, an anachronistic mix of induction, far too much influence of political patronage - All this needs to be brought up to date.
I want a more modern house, with fewer members who work harder, one thats more cost effective, and one that has a far more transparent method of selection. I also want members who are accountable, and whom we can remove where appropriate. Allowing the status quo to progress brings us none of this.
@JNO -" How do we know that? What system ensures that only (or indeed, any of) the worthy are elected?" What system ensures such people are inducted into the Lords now?
Derailing the thread to talk about reform :-) An elected second chamber works ok elsewhere in the world, I see no reason why it should have special problems here.
Whilst the point regarding the ability if the general public is well made, we allow them to vote in the commons and I don't hear a lot of call for that to stop.
Put the system together well and most concerns can be alleviated, and besides unless you give the people the chance to mess up they're not going to learn by their mistakes and mature as a group.
Personally I'd like to see a fully elected second chamber, but not for a change where someone is going to force a 20% rump of unelected members to remain. We need to wait for the 'real deal' rather than get stuck with a 'half house change'.
But back to the original question, the existing system is party related and has the top individuals force the rest to toe the party line or else accept their actions are rather career limiting. It's not a particularly good system but until we manage to ban parties and elect true representatives it's all we have.
Actively encouraging it, strengthening it, by having just the one dictator and abolishing all else is a retrograde step.
Whilst the point regarding the ability if the general public is well made, we allow them to vote in the commons and I don't hear a lot of call for that to stop.
Put the system together well and most concerns can be alleviated, and besides unless you give the people the chance to mess up they're not going to learn by their mistakes and mature as a group.
Personally I'd like to see a fully elected second chamber, but not for a change where someone is going to force a 20% rump of unelected members to remain. We need to wait for the 'real deal' rather than get stuck with a 'half house change'.
But back to the original question, the existing system is party related and has the top individuals force the rest to toe the party line or else accept their actions are rather career limiting. It's not a particularly good system but until we manage to ban parties and elect true representatives it's all we have.
Actively encouraging it, strengthening it, by having just the one dictator and abolishing all else is a retrograde step.
I don't know about '' The Lords'', I still cannot get my head round our ''normal'' voting system. Take a simple theoretical example,
1 thousand people cast their vote, 450 vote Tory,300 vote Socialist, 200 vote Lib Dem & 50 vote for other parties, as you can see this adds up to 1 thousand voters & the tories would win with 450, but the majority of people ( 550) voted against them so how can this possibly be a democratic decision ?
W Ron.
1 thousand people cast their vote, 450 vote Tory,300 vote Socialist, 200 vote Lib Dem & 50 vote for other parties, as you can see this adds up to 1 thousand voters & the tories would win with 450, but the majority of people ( 550) voted against them so how can this possibly be a democratic decision ?
W Ron.
# so how can this possibly be a democratic decision ? #
Because there is no common definition of democracy ! Look at all the countries that have the word democracy in their title . It is the favourite word of dictators and communist countries.
You could also argue that every election that has less than than a 50 % turn out is not democratic anyway.
Possibly the best description of a democracy is the party/person who has the greatest number , 450, of like minded persons voting for them . Whilst in your example 550 persons all wanted something different which is certainly not a way of running a country . They would never agree.
Because there is no common definition of democracy ! Look at all the countries that have the word democracy in their title . It is the favourite word of dictators and communist countries.
You could also argue that every election that has less than than a 50 % turn out is not democratic anyway.
Possibly the best description of a democracy is the party/person who has the greatest number , 450, of like minded persons voting for them . Whilst in your example 550 persons all wanted something different which is certainly not a way of running a country . They would never agree.
Don't really see the point of an upper house anyway.Ours is pretty much irrelevant. By convention, it can't interfere with bills concerned with finance or which were the subject of the governing party's manifesto promises and it can be overridden anyway by the provisions of the Parliament Act. If we had any sense, we'd make that swifter and more immediately effective.
The US is sometimes cited as a good two house system. They have one, I suspect, because the founders modelled their system on ours. They copied other elements of ours too, such as having the Presidential veto to bills as we have the monarch's veto (they apparently didn't notice that ours hadn't been used for some 70 years and was rarely used before that), and indeed having a President/monarch with separate powers to the two lower houses, as a separate entity.We certainly don't need anything like that.
You either have a reviewing body, with no great powers, as we now have, or you have something like the US, where the separately elected house may be in total conflict with the elected lower house, potentially resulting in deadlock. The Cameron/Clegg idea seems to be a reviewing body the members of which are chosen by the parties, but on some proportional representation basis. That sounds great to the Lib Dems. They have quite enough influence as it is, considering how insignificant their numbers are in Parliament, compared to the main parties.As it is, the vast majority of peers involved are chosen by the parties, but the Lib Dem choices are few.
Nothing new in a PM saying 'Do as I say'. They all do it, and have Whips to enforce that. They only stop when their own party is substantially against them, a fate which is usually avoided by their knowing that before anything reaches a vote.
The US is sometimes cited as a good two house system. They have one, I suspect, because the founders modelled their system on ours. They copied other elements of ours too, such as having the Presidential veto to bills as we have the monarch's veto (they apparently didn't notice that ours hadn't been used for some 70 years and was rarely used before that), and indeed having a President/monarch with separate powers to the two lower houses, as a separate entity.We certainly don't need anything like that.
You either have a reviewing body, with no great powers, as we now have, or you have something like the US, where the separately elected house may be in total conflict with the elected lower house, potentially resulting in deadlock. The Cameron/Clegg idea seems to be a reviewing body the members of which are chosen by the parties, but on some proportional representation basis. That sounds great to the Lib Dems. They have quite enough influence as it is, considering how insignificant their numbers are in Parliament, compared to the main parties.As it is, the vast majority of peers involved are chosen by the parties, but the Lib Dem choices are few.
Nothing new in a PM saying 'Do as I say'. They all do it, and have Whips to enforce that. They only stop when their own party is substantially against them, a fate which is usually avoided by their knowing that before anything reaches a vote.
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.