Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
horsefly

Abolition of the House of Lords

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/19/keir-starmer-i-will-abolish-house-of-lords-to-restore-trust-in-politics

I know this has been raised on the Labour leader thread, but it is surely such a momentous proposition that it is worthy of independent discussion. In a week in which the Tory Chancellor adopted key aspects of Labour economic policy in order to address and disguise 12-years of calamitous financial mismanagement, this is a brilliant move by Starmer to demonstrate a clear political distinction between his vision for the UK's democracy and that of a stagnant Tory Party mired in corruption.

Frankly, the very idea of democracy demands that our second chamber is elected and not the personal appointment of PMs and ex-PMs. Nothing highlights the corrupt nature of the HOL better than Boris Johnson's abuse of it to appoint his cronies and paymasters as reward for their support. Not only did he appoint the son of a KGB spy to the chamber, he also shamelessly elevated his own brother to the Lords and the cabinet who had months before been kicked out of parliament in a democratic vote by the electorate. 

Undoubtedly there is expertise in the HOL that we would not want to lose. For example, there are expert scientists (Susan Greenfield et al) who contribute significantly to the level and quality of debate in specific areas. However, none of those voices need be lost in a reformed system; experts could stand for election, and experts could still be co-opted onto committees appointed by elected members of the chamber. Indeed, there would be a huge opportunity to exploit expertise from the wider population in a devolved and restructured second chamber based upon genuine participatory democratic processes.

Tradition is absolutely no ground for persevering with an institution that is so obviously orthogonal to the fundamental principles of democratic government. Abolition of the Lords, and its replacement with a chamber centred on the principle of devolving power to the regions and nations of the UK, offers a genuine opportunity to reinvigorate our political culture along the lines of a participatory democracy that engages and encourages citizens to express their voice. We are crying out for this change to once again feel that our votes have actual relevance to the way this country is run.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, horsefly said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/19/keir-starmer-i-will-abolish-house-of-lords-to-restore-trust-in-politics

I know this has been raised on the Labour leader thread, but it is surely such a momentous proposition that it is worthy of independent discussion. In a week in which the Tory Chancellor adopted key aspects of Labour economic policy in order to address and disguise 12-years of calamitous financial mismanagement, this is a brilliant move by Starmer to demonstrate a clear political distinction between his vision for the UK's democracy and that of a stagnant Tory Party mired in corruption.

Frankly, the very idea of democracy demands that our second chamber is elected and not the personal appointment of PMs and ex-PMs. Nothing highlights the corrupt nature of the HOL better than Boris Johnson's abuse of it to appoint his cronies and paymasters as reward for their support. Not only did he appoint the son of a KGB spy to the chamber, he also shamelessly elevated his own brother to the Lords and the cabinet who had months before been kicked out of parliament in a democratic vote by the electorate. 

Undoubtedly there is expertise in the HOL that we would not want to lose. For example, there are expert scientists (Susan Greenfield et al) who contribute significantly to the level and quality of debate in specific areas. However, none of those voices need be lost in a reformed system; experts could stand for election, and experts could still be co-opted onto committees appointed by elected members of the chamber. Indeed, there would be a huge opportunity to exploit expertise from the wider population in a devolved and restructured second chamber based upon genuine participatory democratic processes.

Tradition is absolutely no ground for persevering with an institution that is so obviously orthogonal to the fundamental principles of democratic government. Abolition of the Lords, and its replacement with a chamber centred on the principle of devolving power to the regions and nations of the UK, offers a genuine opportunity to reinvigorate our political culture along the lines of a participatory democracy that engages and encourages citizens to express their voice. We are crying out for this change to once again feel that our votes have actual relevance to the way this country is run.

One party proposing its own changes always worries me, because they'll always tweak it for their own political advantage. It's also notable that there's not a word about a proportional system in the commons in spite of the groundswell of opinion in the Labour party on this.

The charges placed at the Tories' feet in the article regarding filling it with cronies are every bit as applicable to Labour when they've been in government.

Most of the distrust in politics comes from the actions and behaviour of those in the Commons rather than the Lords.

The danger with a second elected house featuring the same parties on the same terms is that it could easily finish up with the country regularly finding itself with political deadlock, as is so often the case in the US and ultimately making our politics as bad as the US in that whoever has the control in either house uses it more and more as a vehicle to attack the other party.

The lesson from Brexit should be that the shortcomings of the status quo mean that the alternatives need to be thought through that much more carefully before simply junking the status quo; with any change it's always possible to finish up with something worse than what you had.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

There are plenty of alternative methods of having a second chamber, we don't have to choose a system 'as bad as the US'.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

 

Sure. We could have a Norway model, or a Canada+ model, or a Singapore model...

Best get that sort of thing pinned down before jumping the gun, rather than leaving a majority government a blank cheque to do what they like.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

One party proposing its own changes always worries me, because they'll always tweak it for their own political advantage.

The danger with a second elected house featuring the same parties on the same terms is that it could easily finish up with the country regularly finding itself with political deadlock, as is so often the case in the US and ultimately making our politics as bad as the US in that whoever has the control in either house uses it more and more as a vehicle to attack the other party.

The lesson from Brexit should be that the shortcomings of the status quo mean that the alternatives need to be thought through that much more carefully before simply junking the status quo; with any change it's always possible to finish up with something worse than what you had.

The point is that abolition offers an opportunity to rethink every aspect of what a second chamber should be in order to serve the best interests of the voting public. We have an opportunity to learn from the functioning of a second chamber from the US and indeed every other country in the world. It is hard to think of any option that would be less democratic, more corrupt, and more remote from the voting public than the current House of Lords. 

The idea that Starmer would "tweak it" to his own political advantage is fanciful to say the least. The principles upon which reform is being proposed are very clear; to rid our system of the crushing levels of corruption embodied in the non-elected Lords, and to ensure genuine devolution of power to the regions and nations. Just how would Starmer "tweak" those commitments to serve his own party's political advantage?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sure. We could have a Norway model, or a Canada+ model, or a Singapore model...

Anything would be an improvement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The point is that abolition offers an opportunity to rethink every aspect of what a second chamber should be in order to serve the best interests of the voting public. We have an opportunity to learn from the functioning of a second chamber from the US and indeed every other country in the world. It is hard to think of any option that would be less democratic, more corrupt, and more remote from the voting public than the current House of Lords. 

The idea that Starmer would "tweak it" to his own political advantage is fanciful to say the least. The principles upon which reform is being proposed are very clear; to rid our system of the crushing levels of corruption embodied in the non-elected Lords, and to ensure genuine devolution of power to the regions and nations. Just how would Starmer "tweak" those commitments to serve his own party's political advantage?

 

What's wrong with thinking through every aspect of the alternatives and discussing it openly before abolishing it?

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

No it wouldn't. The US has two elected houses and is worse than UK politics.

OK, to satisfy you, anything but the US way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sure. We could have a Norway model, or a Canada+ model, or a Singapore model...

Best get that sort of thing pinned down before jumping the gun, rather than leaving a majority government a blank cheque to do what they like.

Starmer has not "jumped the gun" at all. He has merely set out the case for change and stated very clearly the principles on which any changes should be made (to address corruption and devolve power to the regions and nations). What that will involve will be subject to much detailed debate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What's wrong with thinking through every aspect of the alternatives and discussing it openly before abolishing it?

I'm sure that will happen. The present way is not fit for purpose, an opportunity exists to enhance our democratic process, we should embrace it.

Edited by Daz Sparks
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

What's wrong with thinking through every aspect of the alternatives and discussing it openly before abolishing it?

Because people like Johnson and Farage lie to get what they want for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

OK, to satisfy you, anything but the US way. 

Thank you, which could be the alternative Labour chose as a majority government, given that they've offered no thoughts on what to replace it with in any detail, other than 'an elected chamber', which includes the possibility of finishing up like the US.

The fact that they're focussing on this while the major groundwell of opinion is for PR in the Commons fills me with distrust given Labour's record on past proposals for electoral reform.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What's wrong with thinking through every aspect of the alternatives and discussing it openly before abolishing it?

Really! The case for abolition is patently obvious. An unelected second chamber is by its very nature intrinsically anti-democratic, so unless you think we should be questioning whether to continue pursuing democratic government the case for change is already made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

And Blair didn't?

No idea I was always a conservative voter, don’t ever make assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Really! The case for abolition is patently obvious. An unelected second chamber is by its very nature intrinsically anti-democratic, so unless you think we should be questioning whether to continue pursuing democratic government the case for change is already made.

Sure. That doesn't mean the model Labour chooses for an elected house can't be stacked in their own favour and leave UK politics worse off than it is.

Labour's last round of electoral meddling in the UK created the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, which have been soapboxes for those wanting the break up of the UK ever since, motivated by Labour's short term perception that they'd be strongholds for Labour whatever was happening in Westminster.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Well b back said:

No idea I was always a conservative voter, don’t ever make assumptions.

I didn't make any assumptions, which is why I asked a question. You have no opinion about Blair?

The subject of constitutional reform is bigger than party politics; it's the structure within which politicians are chosen and have to function. When a single party with aspirations of majority government proposes far-reaching change on the constitution then it should be scrutinised in great depth, like hasn't happened in Russia the last 20 years.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sure. That doesn't mean the model Labour chooses for an elected house can't be stacked in their own favour.

Labour's last round of electoral meddling in the UK created the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, which have been soapboxes for those wanting the break up of the UK ever since.

So you think the devolution of power to the actual people who live in particular nations and regions is wrong do you? If the people of Wales and Scotland wish to elect representatives to their parliaments calling for separation from the UK then that is what genuine democracy allows. That's rather the point of a democratic system. That the democratic consensus doesn't accord with your own particular viewpoint is something you have to suck up if you wish to participate in a democratic system. Seems you want to stack a model of democracy in favour of your particular viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So you think the devolution of power to the actual people who live in particular nations and regions is wrong do you? If the people of Wales and Scotland wish to elect representatives to their parliaments calling for separation from the UK then that is what genuine democracy allows. That's rather the point of a democratic system. That the democratic consensus doesn't accord with your own particular viewpoint is something you have to suck up if you wish to participate in a democratic system. Seems you want to stack a model of democracy in favour of your particular viewpoint.

I think Labour exploited nationalist sentiments for its own political advantage when it pushed the idea, which is reinforced by the fact that it singled out Yorkshire - part of England, but heavily dominated by Labour - for regional representation while not offering the possibility to anywhere in the rest of England.

Labour's meddling has left the UK's political make up a mess and damaged the UK, which they were custodians of.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I didn't make any assumptions, which is why I asked a question. You have no opinion about Blair?

The subject of constitutional reform is bigger than party politics; it's the structure within which politicians are chosen and have to function. When a single party with aspirations of majority government proposes far-reaching change on the constitution then it should be scrutinised in great depth, like hasn't happened in Russia the last 20 years.

I find this bizarre. Constitutional reform is being proposed on fundamental democratic principles to further democratic accountability precisely because the HOL is NOT democratically accountable. Currently it is precisely on "party political" grounds that corrupt politicians like Johnson stacks the Lords in favour of those who fund his party and support his personal politics. Do feel free to conjecture what democratic reforms you conceive Starmer would introduce that could possibly be worse than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I find this bizarre. Constitutional reform is being proposed on vague democratic rhetoric without any specifics on proposed changes for reasons only known to the leadership of the Labour party; the HOL is NOT democratically accountable. Currently it is precisely on "party political" grounds that corrupt politicians like Johnson, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, and others stack the Lords in favour of those who fund their parties and support their personal politics. Do feel free to conjecture what democratic reforms you conceive Starmer would introduce that could possibly be worse than this.

Fixed it for you.

As to the last point, I already have: We could potentially finish up with the sort of deadlock and division created by warring houses in the US. Nothing in Labour's proposal rules out ending up like that; this is a proposal for a blank cheque.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think Labour exploited nationalist sentiments for its own political advantage when it pushed the idea, which is reinforced by the fact that it singled out Yorkshire - part of England, but heavily dominated by Labour - for regional representation while not offering the possibility to anywhere in the rest of England.

Labour's meddling has left the UK's political make up a mess and damaged the UK, which they were custodians of.

Yet again you think your own personal political viewpoint should trump the democratic consensus. If Labour "exploited nationalist sentiments for its own political advantage" then that could only happen if it happened to be the consensus of the actual democratic voting public. In other words, democracy in action. It is built into the very nature of democracy that it can often lead to "messy" results precisely because the variety of opinions it is designed to respect. Non-messy politics is the hallmark of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

Strangely the very dangers you claim to be concerned about are precisely encapsulated in your viewpoint that a political party is meant to be a "custodian" of a particular national political viewpoint (in this case the preservation of the current UK) rather than representatives of the democratic will of its citizens. If the Scots democratically will that they no longer wish to belong to the UK, who are you to tell them their will should be denied.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Yet again you think your own personal political viewpoint should trump the democratic consensus. If Labour "exploited nationalist sentiments for its own political advantage" then that could only happen if it happened to be the consensus of the actual democratic voting public. In other words, democracy in action. It is built into the very nature of democracy that it can often lead to "messy" results precisely because the variety of opinions it is designed to respect. Non-messy politics is the hallmark of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

Strangely the very dangers you claim to be concerned about are precisely encapsulated in your viewpoint that a political party is meant to be a "custodian" of a particular national political viewpoint (in this case the preservation of the current UK) rather than representatives of the democratic will of its citizens. If the Scots democratically will that they no longer wish to belong to the UK, who are you to tell them their will should be denied.

 

Where is the evidence for a democratic consensus on this? I can tell you there's a democratic consensus in the Labour party for reform of the Commons system to a proportional system as expressed at the last Labour conference. Why is Labour not championing that demonstrable appetite amongst its own party members and affiliated unions for reform of the Commons, which is the source of most distrust in UK politics? Why does that not concern you?

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Where is the evidence for a democratic consensus on this? I can tell you there's a democratic consensus in the Labour party for reform of the Commons system to a proportional system as expressed at the last Labour conference. Why is Labour not championing that demonstrable appetite amongst its own party members and affiliated unions for reform of the Commons, which is the source of most distrust in UK politics? Why does that not concern you?

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/

???? I'm referring to the fact that democracy depends on political parties seeking democratic consensus in order to get elected. A political party that seeks (as you put it) to "exploit" the sentiments of voters is simply doing what democracy entails; far from undermining democracy as you suggest. IF the democratic consensus of Scottish people turns out to favour independence that will be an expression of their democratic will not a suppression of democracy. What certainly would be a subversion of democracy would be for any political party to consider itself (as you put it) a "custodian" of one particular intransigent view irrespective of the will of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see how he would swing it without bringing down pressure for PR in the commons or the Crown, but infact it neaty works as placating enough people wanting full electoral reform while he goes to work in the Lords. Shame it prevents labour appointing some of their own lords to add a bit more balance, but clearly the number of them is getting silly

So many things this throws up which is probably why nobody ever got it done. One for example is the Lords doesn't hold any power outside of tinkering with bills as if I remember right if the lords defeat a commons bill the commons can simply force it through. So would a 2nd chamber be able to hold the 1st to account or not? Otherwise what's the point and why have it at all. I for one don't feel like a 2nd chamber is needed whatsoever outside of taking admin duties, duties off MPs and civil servants. Infact I've always liked the fact there's people in there unaffected by needing to pander to the electorate. I'd keep some of that, but in general I'd get rid of the whole thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, horsefly said:

???? I'm referring to the fact that democracy depends on political parties seeking democratic consensus in order to get elected. A political party that seeks (as you put it) to "exploit" the sentiments of voters is simply doing what democracy entails; far from undermining democracy as you suggest. IF the democratic consensus of Scottish people turns out to favour independence that will be an expression of their democratic will not a suppression of democracy. What certainly would be a subversion of democracy would be for any political party to consider itself (as you put it) a "custodian" of one particular intransigent view irrespective of the will of the people.

No answers to my valid questions then, just more vague waffle about democratic principles remarkably in keeping with 'take back control' in its depth and sincerity. Ironically, your answer could make a good defence for the way the Conservative party got us out of the EU having achieved democratic mandates to get us out of the EU in whatever way they wished.

The OP you created is not about Scottish devolution; independence, but reform at Westminster, so maybe stick to that topic rather than taking the reference to Labour's poor record on constitutional issues to disappear off down a rabbit hole.

We've talked about what you're referring to; I'm referring to the democratic will of the Labour party membership and unions to pursue electoral reform for the Commons, which is on record and the leadership of the Labour party is completely ignoring. Doesn't suggest much real interest from Labour in democratic principles, does it when they gloss over the will of their own party members while trying to distract attention away from it by pointing at the Lords? Looks to me more like a party using vague rhetoric about democracy in the same way the leave campaign did: To achieve their own personal ends.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No answers to my valid questions then, just more vague waffle about democratic principles remarkably in keeping with 'take back control' in its depth and sincerity. Ironically, your answer could make a good defence for the way the Conservative party got us out of the EU having achieved democratic mandates to get us out of the EU in whatever way they wished.

The OP you created is not about Scottish devolution; independence, but reform at Westminster, so maybe stick to that topic rather than taking the reference to Labour's poor record on constitutional issues to disappear off down a rabbit hole.

We've talked about what you're referring to; I'm referring to the democratic will of the Labour party membership and unions to pursue electoral reform for the Commons, which is on record and the leadership of the Labour party is completely ignoring. Doesn't suggest much real interest from Labour in democratic principles, does it when they gloss over the will of their own party members while trying to distract attention away from it by pointing at the Lords? Looks to me more like a party using vague rhetoric about democracy in the same way the leave campaign did: To achieve their own personal ends.

Oh dear! Not really any point in responding to this other than to point out it was YOU that interjected irrelevant waffle about Scottish independence. Takes a special talent to accuse someone else of doing something that YOU did yourself and then tell them not to do it: Your words: "Labour's last round of electoral meddling in the UK created the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, which have been soapboxes for those wanting the break up of the UK ever since, motivated by Labour's short term perception that they'd be strongholds for Labour whatever was happening in Westminster." I said nothing at all about Scotland or Independence until I responded to this piece of nonsense. Do get a grip! 

Perhaps you might leave it to others to discuss the patently obvious case for abolishing an unelected second chamber in a country that claims its political system to be the mother of modern democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of reformed Upper House would we want to see?

How would it be elected, what powers would it have?

Edited by Daz Sparks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, horsefly said:

It isn't the noble lords and ladies who got us into this mess, it's elected politicians.  Abolishing the House of Lords to restore trust in politics is like banning umbrellas to stop it raining.

 

Edited by benchwarmer
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...