If we ignore House of Lords Reform will we lose our democracy?

[Johnysid]

"The worst problem with the suggested changes is that members are elected for 15 years. Our current democracy works in a negative fashion, we turf out parties that offend us every 5 years. An elected House of Lords takes away this possibility and will allow the senior party Moguls to sit smugly in the Lords doing whatever they want with the country and we will be unable to stop them." See http://pol-check.blog...-of-lords-reform.html

[d9f1c7]

I suggest you read up on the functions and powers of the house of lords mate.

[Johnysid]

I know the current powers of the House of Lords, perhaps you should read the linked article from which the quote was taken. You seem to want to ignore the proposed changes. Here is another quote, this time from the committee on reform itself: "Election of 80% of a reformed House will make the House more assertive and affect the balance of power between the Houses in favour of the House of Lords."

[LazyGun]

The House of Lords is a political animal already. With each new government we see the appointment of life peers, in an attempt to "balance" the poiitical bias of the House. This is why we now have 750 odd lords at the moment, with no ceiling on how many there can be.

The proposed new reforms would cap the total number of lords to 450 odd, more than adequate for legislative scrutiny and expert witness etc. Having the majority being elected would give you a stronger house of lords, but one still subordinate to the commons. Its role is not due to change.

Not sure about a 15 year term myself, but 5 years is probably too short.Since these will become elected individuals, drawing from the public purse, I would like to see a recall mechanism built into the arrangements - such an arrangement should be there for MPs too, in my estimation.

[Johnysid]

What happens if the Lords and Commons come into conflict? Would we need an executive with powers similar to the US presidential system? The proposed changes have a huge amount of constitutional consequences. Why not just keep the Lords as an institution that vets legislation?

[beegeebee]

Of course if the House of Lords was elected at the same time and for the same period as the House of Commons, then could it be assumed people would vote for one party for the commons and the opposition for the Lords and guarantee nothing could be changed?? Cynical??

[Johnysid]

Well Beegee, the proposal is for 15 year terms in the House of Lords so the Commons could be Labour and the Lords Tory. It amazes me that such a significant constitutional change could be treated so lightly by the electorate and media.

[DaisyNonna]

Already lost it.

[Jeza]

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

[jake-the-peg]

The argument here - and personally I think it's a good one is that peers that don't have to be re-elected get a lot of power to ignore party politics and act for the good of the country.

It's surprising how many peers will ignore their party whip if they think somethings wrong - if they have to worry about getting re-elected they have to worry about being dropped by their party.

Don't kid yourself - your MP knows if he loses your support he might get booted out - if he doesn't get selected to stand by his party he definately will be!

The key thing to remember is the Parliament act - that the commons have the final say over the Lords.

That is what gives us true Democracy in this country more than anything else how that act passed and through the Lords is a hell of a tale - I'd recommend it

http://www.totalpolit...-parliament-act.thtml

[FredPuli43]

Why do we need any upper house? It's historical accident that we have one.If so minded, and time permitting, the House of Commons can force a bill through whether the House of Lords likes it or not. Further, the House of Lords cannot reject any finance bill at all.

Any bill which passes through the House of Commons ought, in that process, have had all difficulties and ambiguities removed. What improvement can the House of Lords, elected or not, provide?

The reason why we do not have the impasses that occur in the US, when the elected lower house is controlled by one party and elected upper one by the other, is that the House of Lords can be overruled by the Commons and on bills which are considered important enough, will be.

[Johnysid]

Jake-the-peg's link is worth reading (thanks jtp). From jake-the-peg's link:

"The Parliament Act crisis provides a clear warning to a government seeking further reform of the Lords, that it is stepping into a political and constitutional minefield." I hope the media wake the people up to this.

[Johnysid]

FredPuli, in theory legislation should be complete and carefully constructed by people of goodwill but in practice it is often rushed, botched and partisan. This is why we need a powerful body to vet legislation and return it to the Commons. Here are a couple of recent bills that have been returned or amended and returned in the Lords:

The health and social care bill - even the government admitted Lansley's bill had problems.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill - the Lord's amended it so that babies who suffered brain injury at birth were not excluded from legal aid and returned it to the Commons.

A second House is definitely needed but a House that can compete with the Commons is not.

[FredPuli43]

Yes, Johnysid, even now some omissions ill consequences, or defects in draughtsmanship, go unnoticed by the Commons. Some are unnoticed by anybody until they reach a court; I once found that exactly the same thing had been described in different terms in the same Act, with the consequence that the Court of Appeal was obliged, contrary to what Parliament had clearly intended, to treat 'it' differently in two different sections.

But since the Commons can still force through bills, Lords' detected errors or not, revulsion or not, the good function of the Lords should be only as a reviewing committee. It's commonly the Lords with long experience of law who spot errors such as the one I've given. Other Lords spot practical errors of consequence in implementing the bill. We don't need a full House to perform this task. We could have a committee, drawn from those of practical and legal experience in the relevant field, to refine a bill. Their recommendations could be quite fast in the making, to be debated and accepted or rejected by the Commons. The Commons' decision would be final. The present system is cumbersome, slow, the more slow if the Parliament Act is invoked, and susceptible to political, ideological, denial of the wishes of the lower house.

[bazwillrun]

I'd be more worried about the EUSSR than the house of Lords

[Johnysid]

FredPuli: "We could have a committee, drawn from those of practical and legal experience in the relevant field, to refine a bill. Their recommendations could be quite fast in the making, to be debated and accepted or rejected by the Commons. "

This could easily be nobbled by the majority party in the Commons. If you think how you could stop such nobbling you end up proposing a committee that has members who are appointed on a non-party political basis and who sit for more than the lifetime of a couple of governments. You might even give the committee the teeth to insist that legislation is changed, at least for the lifetime of the current government so that the electorate can decide whether the legislation should be accepted at an election. You could call the committe "The House of Lords".

[atalanta]

As the House of Lords is now, the Commons and the prime Minister can ignore them, claiming that they are not democratically legitimate. If you then make them democratically legitimate, the problem will be that you have to take notice of them.
My preferred solution : get rid of the bishops first. No other governing body in any other country in the world includes unelected ChurchMEN just because they are the officials of religion. Then get each of this country's Professional Bodies to elect one member and send him/her to the Upper Chamber. One architect, one accountant, one doctor, one civil engineer, one teacher, one surveyor, one weather-forecaster, one university lecturer, one police officer, one museum curator, one dentist, one computer scientist - you get the idea - - up to a total of about a hundred. The new Upper House would have plenty of expertise, and nobody would be able to claim they had the same legitimacy as the Commons. They would have to advise and inform, but not compete.