Abolition of the House of Lords

[Daz Sparks 1,151]

1 minute ago, benchwarmer 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.

 

A lot of the umbrellas have holes in 'em though.

[horsefly 4,287]

Just now, Daz Sparks said:

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

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

Thanks for getting to thread back on subject Daz. In short, I would like it to be constituted by dispersed regional assemblies elected through a system of PR. This would potentially maximise a far greater representation of diverse voices and local issues of relevance to the actual voting public. Those assemblies could then send delegates to a national assembly to represent their responses to government business. Its powers need not differ radically from the present arrangements although I'm sure any reform would consider this issue in extensive detail. There is more than enough evidence from our own experience of the Lords and the functioning of other country's second chambers to think it not beyond our politicians, civil servants, and political thinkers to develop a system that enhances democracy in this country. 

[horsefly 4,287]

8 minutes ago, benchwarmer 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.

 

Ah! You mean all those "noble lords and ladies" who were formerly elected politicians and "retired" to the Lords at the whim of a PM to do his/her bidding along with the bidding of the many lobbyists willing to pay for their "good" work.

Reform of an unelected second chamber does not remotely preclude reform of the corrupt activities of the Commons. As Starmer has indeed pointed out in his comments on MPs' second jobs.

Edited November 20, 2022 by horsefly

[benchwarmer 624]

Replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation would do far more to restore trust in British politics than abolishing the House of Lords.  But Labour don't want it, and neither do they want to challenge the Tory version of Brexit, so Starmer has given us this 'shiny object' to distract us.  Trust, my saggy old a*se.

Edited November 20, 2022 by benchwarmer

[Badger 2,405]

44 minutes ago, benchwarmer 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.

 

It really isn't the elected politicians that got us into this mess, it is the electorate that chose them.

The Brexit vote is a good case in point - just about anybody who knew anything about it said that Brexit was a bad idea but the electorate swallowed the "fed up with expert line." It is the same with elections, people want great services but don't want to pay for them so vote for parties proclaiming "greater efficiency."

Don't blame the politicians for Brexit, infrastructure/ police/ education/ health/ social services decline - blame the electorate that voted for it.

[Badger 2,405]

26 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

Replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation would do far more to restore trust in British politics than abolishing the House of Lords.  But Labour don't want FPTP to change, and neither do they want to challenge the Tory version of Brexit, so Starmer has given us this 'shiny object' to distract us.  Trust, my saggy old a*se.

I am not wedded to FPTP and can see its obvious weaknesses, but it does generally allow the electorate to change a govt. Many systems of PR make this much harder and would probably lead to a permanent conservative majority, propped up by Lib Dems. 

[horsefly 4,287]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

It really isn't the elected politicians that got us into this mess, it is the electorate that chose them.

The Brexit vote is a good case in point - just about anybody who knew anything about it said that Brexit was a bad idea but the electorate swallowed the "fed up with expert line." It is the same with elections, people want great services but don't want to pay for them so vote for parties proclaiming "greater efficiency."

Don't blame the politicians for Brexit, infrastructure/ police/ education/ health/ social services decline - blame the electorate that voted for it.

Frankly I do blame certain politicians and the right-wing press that enabled them. They intentionally exploited the ignorance of a certain section of the voting public, and knowingly filled their heads with egregious lies intended to stoke blame, resentment and prejudice against the EU and EU citizens. The voting public must of course take their share of blame to the extent that they did not question those views. However, democracy and democratic accountability fundamentally depends upon truth-telling from those in positions of political influence and power. Watching Johnson, Farage, Cummings, and co smirk in response to clear evidence exposing their blatant lies was a very sad day for democracy in this country. 

It's also worth noting that now the public has indeed become apprised of the truth about Brexit they would vote very differently (see how Brexit polling has changed radically as the truth about Brexit becomes increasingly established https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/) See also this fun result from a poll conducted by GBeebees News https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/gb-news-viewers-just-voted-on-brexit-and-the-results-left-host-martin-daubney-speechless/ar-AA14ku5T?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=171d844b94624eb590a57b1e499685be

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,287]

1 hour ago, benchwarmer said:

Replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation would do far more to restore trust in British politics than abolishing the House of Lords.  But Labour don't want it, and neither do they want to challenge the Tory version of Brexit, so Starmer has given us this 'shiny object' to distract us.  Trust, my saggy old a*se.

What makes you think that? The UK public rejected an alternative voting system when it was consulted in a referendum. Also calling for the abolition of the HOL does not in the slightest prevent people also calling for PR. Indeed, I seriously suspect that a campaign calling for the abolition of the HOL would also ignite a campaign for further electoral reform. I would not at all be surprised to see the abolition of the HOL replaced by a system of election to a second chamber based upon a PR system.

Re your Brexit point: It would be electoral suicide for Starmer to commit Labour to a re-run of the extraordinarily divisive Brexit referendum when there are so many other issues that require urgent attention. It's simply untrue to say he has adopted the "Tory version of Brexit". At this stage Labour will simply do what it can to lessen the dreadful consequences of Brexit with the advantage over the Tories that it does not have a wing of the Party like the ERG who are committed to sabotaging every attempt to make our relationship with the EU cooperative and productive. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

3 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

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.

Well put.

2 hours ago, benchwarmer 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.

 

Absolutely, but horsefly is a loyal laborite pushing the Labour party's attempt at creating a populist campaign against the Lords as an attempt to deflect from internal pressure in the Labour party to reform the commons at the expense of the Labour party and the Conservative Party.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Ah! You mean all those "noble lords and ladies" who were formerly elected politicians and "retired" to the Lords at the whim of a PM to do his/her bidding along with the bidding of the many lobbyists willing to pay for their "good" work.

Reform of an unelected second chamber does not remotely preclude reform of the corrupt activities of the Commons. As Starmer has indeed pointed out in his comments on MPs' second jobs.

That statement sits very oddly with the manner you have ignored my question as to why Labour isn't putting Commons reform on the table alongside this talk about the Lords in spite of it being the expressed will of Labour conference to bring a proportional system to Westminster as a way of restoring trust in politics.

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

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:

Not sure I'd call it a special talent but its a pretty regular modus operandi with LYB when flaws in his arguments are highlighted - we all know he will never make even the slightest concession and yet he seems to feel compelled to reply.

He seems to think that raising a distraction and then after a couple more exchanges accusing the other poster of irrelevance or distraction is a clever way of winning an argument, or perhaps its just his way of telling us he thinks we're too thick to notice 😄

He's tried it on with me several times and it is a rather tedious process but at least when we reach that point I can happily walk away knowing that not only is he wrong but that he knows he is wrong and hasn't got the balls to admit it.

[Herman 9,717]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I am not wedded to FPTP and can see its obvious weaknesses, but it does generally allow the electorate to change a govt. Many systems of PR make this much harder and would probably lead to a permanent conservative majority, propped up by Lib Dems. 

I would hope,after the last time,that the LibDems would not be daft enough to contemplate that.

[Aggy 752]

Did he mention the monarchy going next?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Not sure I'd call it a special talent but its a pretty regular modus operandi with LYB when flaws in his arguments are highlighted - we all know he will never make even the slightest concession and yet he seems to feel compelled to reply.

He seems to think that raising a distraction and then after a couple more exchanges accusing the other poster of irrelevance or distraction is a clever way of winning an argument, or perhaps its just his way of telling us he thinks we're too thick to notice 😄

He's tried it on with me several times and it is a rather tedious process but at least when we reach that point I can happily walk away knowing that not only is he wrong but that he knows he is wrong and hasn't got the balls to admit it.

There's no flaw in it. Also, horsefly is being completely dishonest by suggesting I said anything about Scottish independence when he knows perfectly well that what I did talk about was the creation of Holyrood by the last Labour government and how it has created a nationalist soapbox that has ultimately led us ever closer to Scottish independence.

But then I wouldn't expect you to judge my comments honestly either or resist trying to twist them away from what I meant.

Also, don't flatter yourself: I learnt long ago not to address anything to you unless i'm replying to something you've addressed to me, or a comment you've made about me, which I am doing now.

I've done nothing to bring anything personal into this; you and horsefly seem to want to do that, presumably to avoid the legitimate concerns regarding the Labour leadership's motives that I've tried to bring into the thread based on its past record on constitutional matters, up to and including its 1997 manifesto commitments on electoral reform for Westminster for both the Lords and the Commons, which never materialised over 13 years of Labour majority government.

Edited November 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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.

Do you think that's so likely if we had PR though? I would agree if we remained with FPTP, especially as we're in the end throes of it, really.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Do you think that's so likely if we had PR though? I would agree if we remained with FPTP, especially as we're in the end throes of it, really.

I definitely don't think it's a problem at all if PR for the Commons is put on the table alongside reforming the Lords, but Labour isn't putting PR for the Commons on the table in this article, in spite of the fact that two months ago the Labour conference specifically endorsed reform of the Commons to PR. In fact, the Labour leadership has said absolutely nothing about Commons reform, which is remarkable given how vocal it has been on other areas of the UK constitution and the question of trust in British politics and politicians.

Horsefly can talk vaguely about democratic principles to justify Labour making this a priority now to 'restore trust in British politics' instead of championing the proposals of Labour's own conference policy regarding PR, but in reality the most the Lords can do is delay and propose amendments to legislation from the Commons; the Commons has the final say and the the responsibility for loss of trust in British politics entirely stems from the Commons, particularly from Blair's war in Iraq.

Edited November 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That statement sits very oddly with the manner you have ignored my question as to why Labour isn't putting Commons reform on the table alongside this talk about the Lords in spite of it being the expressed will of Labour conference to bring a proportional system to Westminster as a way of restoring trust in politics.

 

Take a look at the thread title. This topic is called "Abolition of the House of Lords". If you wish to start another thread to enable you to share your outrage at the "hypocrisy" of internal Labour Party policy making, feel free to do so. In the meantime, can we be allowed to focus on the actual topic under discussion.

(BTW just for the record Labour has been discussing reform of the Commons too, it seems you haven't noticed)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

23 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Take a look at the thread title. This topic is called "Abolition of the House of Lords". If you wish to start another thread to enable you to share your outrage at the "hypocrisy" of internal Labour Party policy making, feel free to do so. In the meantime, can we be allowed to focus on the actual topic under discussion.

(BTW just for the record Labour has been discussing reform of the Commons too, it seems you haven't noticed)

I haven't said anything about hypocrisy; I have simply pointed out that Labour's leadership is making statements on constitutional reform that are ignoring major parts of the expressed views of Labour conference regarding constitutional reform. This article doesn't mention changes to the Commons once, even though it does refer to Gordon Brown's review into more changes regarding devolution, which is kind of ironic given your protests over me raising Labour's record and motives on devolution.

The article justifies the proposed abolition of the Lords on the basis of 'restoring trust in British politics'; abolishing the Lords in isolation simply will not restore trust in British politics, because so much of the loss of trust in British politics originates in the Commons and not the Lords, and also the behaviour and records of both the Labour and Conservative parties in government. When Labour conference has specifically endorsed PR for the Commons, it's legitimate and on-topic to ask why the Labour party is trying to restrict conversation to the Lords and also to look at the party's overall record on constitutional reform.

Finally, the Lords is a part of a complete political system; its role in the system and how the other parts of the system relate to it makes discussion of the whole system entirely on-topic.

Edited November 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

The article justifies the proposed abolition of the Lords on the basis of restoring trust in British politics; abolishing the Lords in isolation simply will not restore trust in British politics, because so much of the loss of trust in British politics originates in the Commons and not the Lords, and also the behaviour and records of both the Labour and Conservative parties in government.

And just who has claimed that abolition of the HOL would on its own restore trust in UK politics? It is being proposed as one major change that could make restoring that trust genuinely possible given the very obvious democratic incongruity of an unelected second chamber stuffed full of individuals at the whim of a PM or ex-PM (Labour or Tory). Reconstructing a second chamber according to transparent democratic principles giving a genuine voice to the regions and Nations of the UK (as proposed by Starmer) would be a massive step forward for democratic accountability in this country. Nothing at all in that proposal prevents further reform of the House of Commons with exactly the same desire to root out the sort of corruption we have seen played out so egregiously in recent times. Indeed, a newly constructed second chamber transparently designed in accord with the best standards of democratic accountability would be a massive force for reform of a less accountable House of Commons.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

5 hours ago, horsefly said:

Thanks for getting to thread back on subject Daz. In short, I would like it to be constituted by dispersed regional assemblies elected through a system of PR. This would potentially maximise a far greater representation of diverse voices and local issues of relevance to the actual voting public. Those assemblies could then send delegates to a national assembly to represent their responses to government business. Its powers need not differ radically from the present arrangements although I'm sure any reform would consider this issue in extensive detail. There is more than enough evidence from our own experience of the Lords and the functioning of other country's second chambers to think it not beyond our politicians, civil servants, and political thinkers to develop a system that enhances democracy in this country. 

I don't disagree with this, and it's quite interesting, but how does a segué into proposals for regional devolution fit with your policy of denying questions over the Labour Leadership's curious neglect of Commons reform in the face of a Labour membership very interested in the subject?

Edited November 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't disagree with this, and it's quite interesting, but how does a segué into proposals for regional devolution fit with your policy of denying questions over Labour's curious neglect of Commons reform?

You don't seem to have fully read the proposal being made by Starmer. The principles guiding the reform of the HOL being proposed by Starmer include making the second chamber reflect the "regions and nations" of the country. The second chamber need not be located solely at Westminster but can be dispersed across regional assemblies in order to reflect the concerns of local people and engage them in the democratic processes from which they currently feel disenfranchised. That's why mention of regional devolution is being discussed by Starmer as inseparable from reform of the second chamber. 

None of this excludes reform of the House of Commons, and anyone familiar with current discussion in the Labour Party will be well aware that such issues are presently a very important concern. However, there is one startlingly obvious reason why the reform of the HOL is considered a priority. The House of Lords is an UNELECTED chamber, and in being so is completely in conflict with the principle of democratic accountability. Corruption flourishes in institutions where electoral democratic accountability is absent. At least we have an opportunity to vote out those we see as corrupt from the House of Commons (as many MPs have discovered to their chagrin). Nothing Starmer has said remotely excludes him from making future statements about how he wishes to improve the democratic accountability of the Commons. Indeed, he has a proven record on calling for the need to do just that. 

 

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You don't seem to have fully read the proposal being made by Starmer. The principles guiding the reform of the HOL being proposed by Starmer include making the second chamber reflect the "regions and nations" of the country. The second chamber need not be located solely at Westminster but can be dispersed across regional assemblies in order to reflect the concerns of local people and engage them in the democratic processes from which they currently feel disenfranchised. That's why mention of regional devolution is being discussed by Starmer as inseparable from reform of the second chamber. 

None of this excludes reform of the House of Commons, and anyone familiar with current discussion in the Labour Party will be well aware that such issues are presently a very important concern. However, there is one startlingly obvious reason why the reform of the HOL is considered a priority. The House of Lords is an UNELECTED chamber, and in being so is completely in conflict with the principle of democratic accountability. Corruption flourishes in institutions where electoral democratic accountability is absent. At least we have an opportunity to vote out those we see as corrupt from the House of Commons (as many MPs have discovered to their chagrin). Nothing Starmer has said remotely excludes him from making future statements about how he wishes to improve the democratic accountability of the Commons. Indeed, he has a proven record on calling for the need to do just that. 

 

 

 

The way you phrased your answer to Daz gave the impression it was a personal view, but I see that the Labour party is talking about more regional devolution throughout the UK as a whole, which actually further reinforces the legitimacy of my question over why the Commons is being studiously ignored by the Labour Leadership regarding reform in spite of Labour Conference's express wish for proportional representation in the Commons? In fact, replacing the Lords with a system of regional devolution actively makes the regional representation element of First Past the Post in the Commonsredundant.

And yet there has been not one comment from any of the Labour Leadership on Commons reform to PR since the momentous vote backing the movement at Labour Conference in September. It paints a picture that Labour simply doesn't want to reform the Commons because it considers it against the party's interests, even though Commons reformis the single biggest change that can help to restore trust in British politics given that the Commons under both Labour and the Conservatives has done the most to destroy trust in British politics,

Edited November 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The way you phrased your answer to Daz gave the impression it was a personal view, but I see that the Labour party is talking about more regional devolution throughout the UK as a whole, which actually further reinforces the legitimacy of my question over why the Commons is being studiously ignored by the Labour Leadership regarding reform in spite of Labour Conference's express wish for proportional representation in the Commons? In fact, replacing the Lords with a system of regional devolution actively makes the regional representation element of First Past the Post in the Commonsredundant.

And yet there has been not one comment from any of the Labour Leadership on Commons reform to PR since the momentous vote backing the movement at Labour Conference in September. It paints a picture that Labour simply doesn't want to reform the Commons because it considers it against the party's interests, even though Commons reformis the single biggest change that can help to restore trust in British politics given that the Commons under both Labour and the Conservatives has done the most to destroy trust in British politics,

For goodness sake! Abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement with a democratically elected second chamber is a massive change to our political system that can be discussed independently of other changes the Labour Party might seek to make to the elected Commons. Can you not simply focus on that fundamental issue rather than attempt to distract from it by raising concerns about the Labour Party's internal policy making mechanisms. I'm sure we will hear much from them in respect to potential Commons reform in the near future.

By all means start on a thread on reform of the House of Commons, but this is a thread about abolition of the House of Lords. And by all means start a thread on the internal policy making procedures of the Labour Party. Indeed, I would be most interested to hear why you believe that the Labour Party uniquely amongst the major political parties should be bound in their policy making by votes taken at the party conference (but not here on this thread).

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

For goodness sake! Abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement with a democratically elected second chamber is a massive change to our political system that can be discussed independently of other changes the Labour Party might seek to make to the elected Commons. Can you not simply focus on that fundamental issue rather than attempt to distract from it by raising concerns about the Labour Party's internal policy making mechanisms. I'm sure we will hear much from them in respect to potential Commons reform in the near future.

By all means start on a thread on reform of the House of Commons, but this is a thread about abolition of the House of Lords. And by all means start a thread on the internal policy making procedures of the Labour Party. Indeed, I would be most interested to hear why you believe that the Labour Party uniquely amongst the major political parties should be bound in their policy making by votes taken at the party conference (but not here on this thread).

 

The problem is that the fundamental issue with Westminster is dissatisfaction with the Commons. I'm not defending the Lords, I'm not suggesting that introducing regionalisation in England in a way that balances things out with Scotland and Wales is a bad idea, but I am pointing out that Commons reform should be at the top of any list talking about these topics, and not missing from it entirely as it is with all of the releases from the Labour leadership on the subject of constitutional reform. They are all related; it's all part of the same discussion, which is having a complete constitution that is fit for purpose and Labour needs to be called out for not putting this on its agenda when its own conference has explicitly voted to put it on the agenda.

What do you think about the fact that the Labour leadership doesn't want to talk about Commons reform while talking about every other area of the constitution in spite of the views of the membership?

Ultimately, this is the non-football part of the Pinkun forum, not a Labour party forum where Labour's PR machine gets to decide to what extent its policies may or may not be scrutinised and the scope of discussion relating to those policies. If Labour wants to talk about constitutional reform then it had better be ready to talk about the bits it may not want to talk about as well as the bits it does as a prospective future majority government. And I say that as someone who's broadly in favour of Keir Starmer being next PM, although ideally leading a coalition, mostly so we don't get Labour pursuing constitutional reform to suit its own purposes in isolation.

Edited November 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I would like to hear what SKS is intending. He is very clever at saying something without saying why, when or what.

I would imagine there is general agreement that there has to be checks and balances or else an 80 seat majority could be dangerous.

However, before anything else I would like to know how the Lords performs historically  and how much it matters that they are elected or unelected. Government advisers are nit elected but their influence may well be greater than the Upper House.

[Surfer 1,547]

 While we are at it there is nothing and at the same time everything wrong with the way the US elects members to its second chamber. 
 
The good bits - one third are up for re-election every 2 years. This has the effect of maintaining stability. Each region has two members so you can have representation from just one or both parties in that region. Elections are held at the same time as first chamber elections so the turnout is very good. 

The bad bits - massive amounts of undisclosed money are spent which leads to suspicions of fraud and corruption. The size of each region is not controlled and less populated regions get the same representation as larger ones, e.g. regions as big as a major European country have the same representation as regions no bigger than a medium sized City. 

Other downsides are self-inflicted. Under internal “rules” no legislation can pass without an almost 2/3 majority (except finance bills) which means that nothing except finance bills can pass - other than naming Post Offices. 😉 

[horsefly 4,287]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The problem is that the fundamental issue with Westminster is dissatisfaction with the Commons. I'm not defending the Lords, I'm not suggesting that introducing regionalisation in England in a way that balances things out with Scotland and Wales is a bad idea, but I am pointing out that Commons reform should be at the top of any list talking about these topics, and not missing from it entirely as it is with all of the releases from the Labour leadership on the subject of constitutional reform. They are all related; it's all part of the same discussion, which is having a complete constitution that is fit for purpose and Labour needs to be called out for not putting this on its agenda when its own conference has explicitly voted to put it on the agenda.

What do you think about the fact that the Labour leadership doesn't want to talk about Commons reform while talking about every other area of the constitution in spite of the views of the membership?

Ultimately, this is the non-football part of the Pinkun forum, not a Labour party forum where Labour's PR machine gets to decide to what extent its policies may or may not be scrutinised and the scope of discussion relating to those policies. If Labour wants to talk about constitutional reform then it had better be ready to talk about the bits it may not want to talk about as well as the bits it does as a prospective future majority government. And I say that as someone who's broadly in favour of Keir Starmer being next PM, although ideally leading a coalition, mostly so we don't get Labour pursuing constitutional reform to suit its own purposes in isolation.

Seems pointless repeating two obvious facts: firstly, that Labour has been discussing Commons reform (MPs' second jobs etc) and will no doubt have much to say in the future, secondly, that abolishing a second chamber that is UNELECTED is a very obvious priority for any country that wishes to maintain the notion that it is a genuine democracy.

You have now made your point several times that you think Labour should be discussing Commons reform as a priority. We have all noted your opinion and I seriously suggest you start a thread on Commons reform where you can unleash your criticisms of Labour at will. I doubt there is a single person in the country who doesn't agree that Commons reform is necessary in the pursuit of greater democratic accountability.

However, it remains a fact that the Commons is an elected chamber and the Lords isn't, and this thread was very obviously started to discuss the massively important commitment that Starmer has made to abolish the House of Lords. The change being proposed would be the biggest change to our parliamentary system for many centuries, so don't you think it might be possible and advantageous to keep the conversation focussed on what would be a change of the most momentous consequence? I really would like to see what others think about how a reformed second chamber should be constituted and function.

Edited November 21, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,287]

4 hours ago, Surfer said:

 While we are at it there is nothing and at the same time everything wrong with the way the US elects members to its second chamber. 
 
The good bits - one third are up for re-election every 2 years. This has the effect of maintaining stability. Each region has two members so you can have representation from just one or both parties in that region. Elections are held at the same time as first chamber elections so the turnout is very good. 

The bad bits - massive amounts of undisclosed money are spent which leads to suspicions of fraud and corruption. The size of each region is not controlled and less populated regions get the same representation as larger ones, e.g. regions as big as a major European country have the same representation as regions no bigger than a medium sized City. 

Other downsides are self-inflicted. Under internal “rules” no legislation can pass without an almost 2/3 majority (except finance bills) which means that nothing except finance bills can pass - other than naming Post Offices. 😉 

Indeed! There is a wealth of evidence from around the world about how second chambers work in ways that either enhance democratic accountability or hinders it. This is what makes Starmer's proposal such an exciting prospect. It presents a genuine opportunity to reinvigorate our dispirited political culture by creating a second chamber that actually engages ordinary people in the democratic process. 

[TheRock 162]

There was talk from some of the fringe parties of Establishing a "Citizens Assembly". This would involve UK citizens on the Electoral Register getting "called up" for a fixed term of paid service (like Jury Duty) to for opinions and vetting of certain legistation and white papers.

 

 

Its not a perfect solution but it would go some distance in actually restoring a bit of faith in politics by gauging the working class public opinion on large issues, such as HS2, Free School Meals and basic food prices in general, Net Zero and moderation of fuel prices, the NHS etc.

At the moment we have a front bench making decisions of whom are all likely in the top 0.1% of wealth of this country, and are painfully out of touch with the working average Man/Woman.

Edited November 21, 2022 by TheRock

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 hours ago, Surfer said:

 While we are at it there is nothing and at the same time everything wrong with the way the US elects members to its second chamber. 
 
The good bits - one third are up for re-election every 2 years. This has the effect of maintaining stability. Each region has two members so you can have representation from just one or both parties in that region. Elections are held at the same time as first chamber elections so the turnout is very good. 

The bad bits - massive amounts of undisclosed money are spent which leads to suspicions of fraud and corruption. The size of each region is not controlled and less populated regions get the same representation as larger ones, e.g. regions as big as a major European country have the same representation as regions no bigger than a medium sized City. 

Other downsides are self-inflicted. Under internal “rules” no legislation can pass without an almost 2/3 majority (except finance bills) which means that nothing except finance bills can pass - other than naming Post Offices. 😉 

Their redemption is that they do have some state legislature as well which is possible more demographic. In the UK, our Councils are pretty powerless.

Edited November 21, 2022 by keelansgrandad