House of Lords reform/abolition

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/07/do-lords-rebels-have-80-tory-votes-or-100.html

Lords reform facing rebellion


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/House_of_Lords_chamber_-_toward_throne.jpg
The historic House of Lords, our second parliamentary chamber


The newspapers today are, of course, filled with plenty of Lords rebellion stories. The Observer has details of a letter written by 36 cross-party peers, including Norman Lamont and Geoffrey Howe, and...


"...the former Northern Ireland secretary and party chairman Peter Brooke, the former Scottish secretary Michael Forsyth, the former agriculture minister Michael Jopling, the former transport secretary John MacGregor, the former attorney general Patrick Mayhew, the former Scottish secretary Ian Lang and former environment, industry and social security secretary Patrick Jenkin. Another signatory is the former Liberal leader David Steel."

The letter argues that the Lords is "a vast reservoir of talent and experience, which complements the more youthful and vigorous House of Commons without ever being able to threaten it", and reform along Nick Clegg's suggested lines would "remove the unambiguous democratic mandate the House of Commons currently enjoys".

Such attempts at persuading MPs may be necessary: a number of newspapers report the number of Tory rebels to be at 80 - as opposed to 100, the figure given a number of times during the week. The Sunday Telegraph confirms the whips are responsible for the drop in numbers - and says the Prime Minister will telephone rebels to further try and change their minds:


"Sources across Westminster agree that Tuesday’s vote on House of Lords reform is on a “knife edge”. It is understood the number of Conservative rebels has fallen from almost 100 to around 80 in recent days as the whips have set to work shoring up support for the Government. ... This weekend the Prime Minister is to ring rebel Tories directly in an attempt to persuade them to change their minds."

If the Prime Minister can persuade enough of the 80 probable Tory rebels to stay loyal on Tuesday, this rebellion may look a lot less threatening than it did a week ago - if the rebels suffer another loss of 20 MPs, Lords reform - or rather the limiting of debate about Lords reform - will suddenly become possible to get through the House.


I have changed my opinion on this slowly over the past year or so. I was for a fully elected House of Lords, believing that since the 1999 reforms under Labour (which removed most hereditary peers and replaced them with politically chosen ones) the whole thing was best being scrapped and replaced with a second chamber under proportional representation.

But you know, i've changed my mind. A few reasons really but i'll focus on the 'elected' issue. If you think conventionally, elected makes something automatically better right? well clearly it does not. I often rile against the European Commission for being unelected, but my main problem is that they are unelected foreigners. It is not that I have anything against people who are foreign, it's that I have an objection to people who are foreign making our laws - because when a French Commissioner makes laws, will he be thinking of the interests of the United Kingdom of the French Republic? France, of course.

So to use a better example, look at the Monarchy. It's unelected, yet has approval ratings and popularity that politicians (who are elected) can only dream of. It's unelected, yet carries out the supreme job in the country - Head of State, yet would any of us claim that Her Majesty ought to be replaced with an elected politician such as a George W Bush, Barack Obama or Anthony Blair? only a select few with a deep hatred of the Monarchy would claim such a thing.

The other reasons why Lords reform ought to be opposed are numerous,

- The House of Lords being elected would cause a constitutional crisis in that imagine if it voted down the House of Commons - no legislation would be able to pass. The Lords serves as a revising chamber and rarely (if ever) blocks legislation.

- Watch the House of Lords on television and you'll find the quality and depth of the debate miles ahead of the House of Commons. In the Lords they actually discuss policy in an intellectual manner, unlike the Commons.

- The House of Lords is less under the influence of government whips.

- The House of Lords has seats for the Church of England and of people from all walks of life.

- Finally, here's the makeup of the House of Lords below; notice that its composition (although unelected) is actually more representative of the country than the House of Commons is with the numbers of independent peers (we have 40% who don't vote in this country) and two UKIP peers (a party which managed nearly one million votes in the last election but with no seats to show for it).

http://www.iaza.com/work/120709C/iaza17174255520700.bmp

Thoughts? do you agree with me or support the abolition of the House of Lords?

[dbgtz]

No but I think the way that people are appointed needs to change so that everyone in there has some significance and isn't just a failed politician. I'd also say that the "Lord Spirituals" should be removed from the house.

[Sarah]

No but I think the way that people are appointed needs to change so that everyone in there has some significance and isn't just a failed politician. I'd also say that the "Lord Spirituals" should be removed from the house.

I agree with this, the Church of England isnt a major influence in Today's society as it used to be; it is also unfair to other religions. Sure you can have other people from different religions in the House of Lords but they are not "Lord Spirtual".

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree with this, the Church of England isnt a major influence in Today's society as it used to be; it is also unfair to other religions. Sure you can have other people from different religions in the House of Lords but they are not "Lord Spirtual".

We're a Christian country, all of our customs and laws derive from Christianity - 70% of people consider themselves Christian in the United Kingdom.

[Sarah]

We're a Christian country, all of our customs and laws derive from Christianity - 70% of people consider themselves Christian in the United Kingdom.

Thats still 30% of religious people not being represented fairly in the house of lords? I dont see the harm in letting other religions be Lord spirituals as well even if it is a lower amount.

[dbgtz]

We're a Christian country, all of our customs and laws derive from Christianity - 70% of people consider themselves Christian in the United Kingdom.

By that logic 70% of the HoL are also Christian (ignoring the Bishops) so the representation would already be accurate and allowing Bishops involvement just gives an unfair balance. Besides, just because they consider themselves Christian does not mean they follow any of their ways, rules etc.

[GommeInc]

Change for the sake of change, no thought has been put into it at all. Apparently having an elected chamber automatically makes something better - yet the Conservatives, labour and the Lib Dems were all elected and yet we're already fed up with their indecisiveness and pointless tinkering - this House of Lords reforms being one example of pointless tinkering and indecisiveness.

[-:Undertaker:-]

By that logic 70% of the HoL are also Christian (ignoring the Bishops) so the representation would already be accurate and allowing Bishops involvement just gives an unfair balance. Besides, just because they consider themselves Christian does not mean they follow any of their ways, rules etc.

The Bishops only vote (to my knowledge) on religious issues, they are there as an 'expert' bunch - they make hardly any difference so I really don't see the athiest-mania towards removing the Bishops and replacing them with politcians when they have performed quite well for the past few hundred years. I daresay the Bishops do a better job listening and representing people they meet rather than the politicians, the same goes for Her Majesty. The Queen is after all is unelected, is a religious figure and she's head of our state religion - yet she has popularity ratings that politicians could only dream of.

The constitutional tinkering should be halted, and the Lords returned to a mainly hereditary state.

[dbgtz]

The Bishops only vote (to my knowledge) on religious issues, they are there as an 'expert' bunch - they make hardly any difference so I really don't see the athiest-mania towards removing the Bishops and replacing them with politcians when they have performed quite well for the past few hundred years. I daresay the Bishops do a better job listening and representing people they meet rather than the politicians, the same goes for Her Majesty. The Queen is after all is unelected, is a religious figure and she's head of our state religion - yet she has popularity ratings that politicians could only dream of.

The constitutional tinkering should be halted, and the Lords returned to a mainly hereditary state.

Never did I say replace them with politicians, if anything I was saying get rid of any ex-politician in the Lords. Why the hell would you want hereditary peers aswell?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Never did I say replace them with politicians, if anything I was saying get rid of any ex-politician in the Lords. Why the hell would you want hereditary peers aswell?

Because it was before the 1999 reforms in which the House of Lords worked so well, with hereditary peers who were independent and above party politics.

Indeed, it's only because them 'reforms' that we're talking about more 'reform' right now - it worked perfectly fine beforehand, serving its purpose as a revising chamber.