Abolition of the House of Lords

[TheRock 155]

21 hours 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.

The AV referendum was a distractive plot by the two main parties to hold onto First Past The Post for as long as possible. It's ironic that all fringe parties have been unanimous for decades that the UK Gerneal FPTP system is impregnable to new parties and is only there to protect Tories and Labour. FPTP used to work well in 3 candidates or less but now is arguably completely outdated.

 

2015 is a great example of this:

UKIP - 3.8m votes, zero seats

Lib Dem - 2.4m votes, only 8 seats

Green - 1.1m votes, only 1 seat.

SNP - 1.4m votes, FIFTY SIX seats

(Tories 11m, Labour 9m).

Under PR as a percentage of the vote, UKIP would have gotten 90 seats, Lib Dems would have gotten roughly 57 seats, Greens 25...

 

 

It's clear why Tories and Labour don't want PR or any other kind of system: look at the landslides Farage won in 2014 and 2019 using PR. Personally I think under a PR General election, if a strong Nationalist candidate got on the ticket whether they are left or right (such as Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage), they would siphon dozens if not hundreds of seats from the two main parties. Whereas under FPTP there is no such risk.

Edited November 21, 2022 by TheRock

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

I think we've commented on HoL before.

It certainly needs reform - no jobs for the boys or girls (or heredity peers)- and the same goes for gongs.

However - not sure it should be elected - I'd much rather have an apolitical HoL expert/review body of those that have special knowledge - science, law, industry, finance, health - infact belonging to any political party would for me almost be a reason to exclude HoL membership (or limited to very few - ex PMs or ministers with > 5 years' service i.e., 'experts'). A HoL of the wise and good not for party shenanigans.

Having an elected upper house has many pitfalls which may actually stop it doing the job we really need.  

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

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.

I think the notion of any moral obligation 'for the sake of democracy' to dispose of the Lords is undermined by Labour's repeated failure on this in spite of stated intent repeatedly in the past.

Bottom line is any one party having carte blanche to change the electoral system is a conflict of interests; Gerry mandering is bad enough.

Any packages of changes should have some cross party consensus. Obviously the Conservatives can be discounted in that because the status quo works well for them, but Labour seeking to dictate terms on how the whole system works without input from other parties when others have been working to build cross party campaigns for reform such as Make Votes Matter is just plain unhealthy when the objective should be to make politics more pluralistic.

Edited November 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think the notion of any moral obligation 'for the sake of democracy' to dispose of the Lords is undermined by Labour's repeated failure on this in spite of stated intent repeatedly in the past.

Bottom line is any one party having carte blanche to change the electoral system is a conflict of interests; Gerry mandering is bad enough.

Any packages of changes should have some cross party consensus. Obviously the Conservatives can be discounted in that because the status quo works well for them, but Labour seeking to dictate terms on how the whole system works without input from other parties when others have been working to build cross party campaigns for reform such as Make Votes Matter is just plain unhealthy when the objective should be to make politics more pluralistic.

How in the hell does abolishing an unelected second chamber and replacing it with one elected by the entire voting public constitute "gerrymandering"? It would be effective gerrymandering if Starmer said he would not abolish the Lords but simply flood it full of his appointees. The current system is precisely one that gives the PM effective "carte blanche" to appoint who he/she likes, as Johnson has so clearly shown. A democratically elected second chamber is about as far from "gerrymandering" as you could possibly get, unless you are making the absurd claim that Starmer would only allow Labour voters to vote in such an election. You clearly understand very little at all about Starmer's motivation if you believe he will not seek the widest possible consensus but instead attempt to somehow "fix" the second chamber for Labour's benefit. I would love to hear your explanation how a second chamber involving the vote of the entire electorate could be fixed to guarantee perpetual Labour bias. Are you seriously claiming that Starmer intends to cause a constitutional crisis by attempting to fix the second chamber to ensure a Labour bias? I'm afraid your claims are utterly absurd.  

Edited November 21, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,287]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think we've commented on HoL before.

It certainly needs reform - no jobs for the boys or girls (or heredity peers)- and the same goes for gongs.

However - not sure it should be elected - I'd much rather have an apolitical HoL expert/review body of those that have special knowledge - science, law, industry, finance, health - infact belonging to any political party would for me almost be a reason to exclude HoL membership (or limited to very few - ex PMs or ministers with > 5 years' service i.e., 'experts'). A HoL of the wise and good not for party shenanigans.

Having an elected upper house has many pitfalls which may actually stop it doing the job we really need.  

The problem with that YF is that you are left with exactly the same democratic deficit that fatally infects the current HOL. Just who decides which individuals constitute the "wise and good"? At the moment the decision makers include Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.

Just what pitfalls do you imagine an elected second chamber would be vulnerable? There would be no reason to change the fundamental role of the second chamber as a "revising chamber", all that would really change is who is doing the revising. I'd personally rather that revision was done by democratically elected representatives garnered from the regions and nations of the UK rather than the likes of Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev, son of a KGB spy, who sits in the Lords as a result of donating considerable amounts of Russian stolen money to the Conservative Party.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

48 minutes ago, horsefly said:

How in the hell does abolishing an unelected second chamber and replacing it with one elected by the entire voting public constitute "gerrymandering"? It would be effective gerrymandering if Starmer said he would not abolish the Lords but simply flood it full of his appointees. The current system is precisely one that gives the PM effective "carte blanche" to appoint who he/she likes, as Johnson has so clearly shown. A democratically elected second chamber is about as far from "gerrymandering" as you could possibly get, unless you are making the absurd claim that Starmer would only allow Labour voters to vote in such an election. You clearly understand very little at all about Starmer's motivation if you believe he will not seek the widest possible consensus but instead attempt to somehow "fix" the second chamber for Labour's benefit. I would love to hear your explanation how a second chamber involving the vote of the entire electorate could be fixed to guarantee perpetual Labour bias. Are you seriously claiming that Starmer intends to cause a constitutional crisis by attempting to fix the second chamber to ensure a Labour bias? I'm afraid your claims are utterly absurd.  

I can never tell if you're deliberately twisting my words or not. I was referring to gerry mandering as an example of how any individual parties can't be trusted with changes to the electoral setup/Constitution on their own; no connection with abolishing the Lords was asserted explicitly or implicitly.

However, this regional plan is itself highly vague, with lots of opportunity for Labour to stack it in its own interest. These plans are exactly why a Labour majority will be bad for British democracy. Let's have a coalition to reform the constitution honestly.

Edited November 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

23 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I can never tell if you're deliberately twisting my words or not. I was referring to gerry mandering as an example of how any individual parties can't be trusted with changes to the electoral setup/Constitution on their own; no connection with abolishing the Lords was asserted explicitly or implicitly.

However, this regional plan is itself highly vague, with lots of opportunity for Labour to stack it in its own interest.

I'm very surprised that you seem unaware that the fundamental basis of our constitution (spread over many documents) is that all individuals and institutions of the UK are subject to the rule of law. That includes the PM and monarch. There is a huge amount of legislation that governs the conduct of parliament, which has exactly the same authority as the laws applicable to all other parts of society. Johnson found this out to his cost when he attempted illegally to prorogue parliament. Any changes Starmer proposed would be subject to all the legal processes covering electoral reform. That would include those laws that make gerrymandering illegal. I suspect you will discover that the former head of the CPS is well aware of the legal requirements that constrain any abuse of prime ministerial power. You might also find reassurance by visiting the website of the Boundary Commision whose sole function is to ensure election integrity with regard to issues affecting voting constituencies and fairness in the electoral process. There simply is no such thing as a "carte blanche" power for a PM or political party to ignore the laws regulating our electoral system.

Edited November 21, 2022 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

43 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm very surprised that you seem unaware that the fundamental basis of our constitution (spread over many documents) is that all individuals and institutions of the UK are subject to the rule of law. That includes the PM and monarch. There is a huge amount of legislation that governs the conduct of parliament, which has exactly the same authority as the laws applicable to all other parts of society. Johnson found this out to his cost when he attempted illegally to prorogue parliament. Any changes Starmer proposed would be subject to all the legal processes covering electoral reform. That would include those laws that make gerrymandering illegal. I suspect you will discover that the former head of the CPS is well aware of the legal requirements that constrain any abuse of prime ministerial power. You might also find reassurance by visiting the website of the Boundary Commision whose sole function is to ensure election integrity with regard to issues affecting voting constituencies and fairness in the electoral process. There simply is no such thing as a "carte blanche" power for a PM or political party to ignore the laws regulating our electoral system.

Parliament makes the law. If parliament changes boundaries or manner in which elections are run, that's it. Which is why when one party starts pushes for a mandate for radical change in event of a single party majority on it's own terms that the details of the changes should be scrutinized very closely indeed in much the same way as you should be worried about the CEO of man city setting the rules of football, and if the details aren't there, they should be demanded.

Edited November 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Parliament makes the law. If parliament changes boundaries or manner in which elections are run, that's it. Which is why when one party starts pushes for a mandate for radical change in event of a single party majority on it's own terms that the details of the changes should be scrutinized very closely indeed in much the same way as you should be worried about the CEO of man city setting the rules of football, and if the details aren't there, they should be demanded.

Oh dear! You really are ignorant of the nature of constitutional law. No Party can simply change electoral law in the way you have naively described. Any attempt to do so would immediately be challenged by the laws already in existence which would forbid such an attempt. We don't have a legal route to a political coup in this country. So, alas for Starmer and his malevolent plan to make himself PM for life by abolishing the unelected House of Lords, he will have to entice the armed forces to support his campaign to make the UK a single party dictatorship.

Perhaps you take a few moments to both read up on constitutional law and perhaps even more importantly, simply consider the absurd picture you are trying to paint of Starmer and his motives for wanting reform of the second chamber. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

31 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! You really are ignorant of the nature of constitutional law. No Party can simply change electoral law in the way you have naively described. Any attempt to do so would immediately be challenged by the laws already in existence which would forbid such an attempt. We don't have a legal route to a political coup in this country. So, alas for Starmer and his malevolent plan to make himself PM for life by abolishing the unelected House of Lords, he will have to entice the armed forces to support his campaign to make the UK a single party dictatorship.

Perhaps you take a few moments to both read up on constitutional law and perhaps even more importantly, simply consider the absurd picture you are trying to paint of Starmer and his motives for wanting reform of the second chamber. 

Respectfully, you're talking ****e. Parliament is the law-making body and can also repeal law. If a law presents an obstacle to government, it simply has to change the law to remove the obstacle, and if any laws would make the change unlawful, get rid of them too. The only limit to this is three goes at amendment permitted to the Lords, that could well not be replaced if Labour abolished the Lords.

But there's no obstacle to Labour stacking systems and boundaries in a new layer of government like that proposed for regional representation however it wishes if it commands a parliamentary majority.

But now you've changed your mind and want to widen the debate to introduction of regional parliaments and legitimacy of changes, do you have any argument for why nobody should be suspicious that Labour's interested in getting rid of the Lords and creating regional assemblies (regional assemblies aren't in the thread title either), not to mention tweaking Scotland and Wales,  but totally uninterested in the changes Labour Conference wants to the Commons that would open up more significant representation of smaller parties in the commons and diminish the Labour/Conservative stranglehold there?

Even Polly Toynbee is asking this question.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/30/labour-resisting-members-electoral-reform-pr

Edited November 21, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,287]

16 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Respectfully, you're talking ****e. Parliament is the law-making body and can also repeal law. If a law presents an obstacle to government, it simply has to change the law to remove the obstacle, and if any laws would make the change unlawful, get rid of them too. The only limit to this is three goes at amendment permitted to the Lords, that could well not be replaced if Labour abolished the Lords.

But there's no obstacle to Labour stacking systems and boundaries in a new layer of government like that proposed for regional representation however it wishes if it commands a parliamentary majority.

But now you've changed your mind and want to widen the debate to introduction of regional parliaments and legitimacy of changes, do you have any argument for why nobody should be suspicious that Labour's interested in getting rid of the Lords and creating regional assemblies (regional assemblies aren't in the thread title either), not to mention tweaking Scotland and Wales,  but totally uninterested in the changes Labour Conference wants to the Commons that would open up more significant representation of smaller parties in the commons and diminish the Labour/Conservative stranglehold there?

Even Polly Toynbee is asking this question.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/30/labour-resisting-members-electoral-reform-pr

Oh dear! respectfully this displays extraordinary ignorance of the workings of our constitution, our legal system, and our parliamentary system. For example, remind me which body it was that overturned Johnson's ILLEGAL attempt to prorogue parliament, despite his 80 seat majority. Also, find me a single expert in any of those areas who agrees with your view. 

The very idea that Starmer or the Labour Party is remotely interested in abolishing the Lords in order to fix a second chamber with the aim to ensure sole political power is beyond ridiculous. For a start the second chamber is a REVISING chamber. Its political powers are miniscule and limited, intentionally reduced to nothing more than the ability to delay legislation temporarily for reconsideration by the Commons in the light of its findings. Any political party seeking to fix parliament would have to be extraordinarily intellectually retarded if it were to think that reform of the second REVISING chamber is the route to fixing all future elections in its favour. And before you mention it, I'm going to assume that you would not be so bat-sh*it crazy as to claim Labour would set up the second chamber as an opposing centre of political legislative power to the Commons. Or do you really think Starmer is determined to foment an actual civil war between two opposing centres of political power in the country?

"But there's no obstacle to Labour stacking systems and boundaries in a new layer of government like that proposed for regional representation however it wishes if it commands a parliamentary majority." Apart from the law, the Boundary Commission, the Electoral Commision, The House of Commons, Royal assent, public outrage, etc, etc, etc.

But now you've changed your mind and want to widen the debate to introduction of regional parliaments and legitimacy of changes, do you have any argument for why nobody should be suspicious that Labour's interested in getting rid of the Lords and creating regional assemblies (regional assemblies aren't in the thread title either), not to mention tweaking Scotland and Wales,  but totally uninterested in the changes Labour Conference wants to the Commons that would open up more significant representation of smaller parties in the commons and diminish the Labour/Conservative stranglehold there?

WTF??? I have not changed my mind nor the subject matter in the slightest. I merely mentioned the possibility that Starmer's principle of re-constructing an elected second chamber focussed on the "regions and nations" of the country, could easily be constituted by dispersing the work of that chamber across regional assemblies. How in the hell does that constitute "changing my mind" or "widening the debate"? Such assemblies would together CONSTITUTE the second chamber, and its function would still remain as a REVISING chamber, NOT an alternative centre to the legislative powers of the HOC.

BTW, thanks for informing me that I am "totally uninterested" in changes Labour conference has proposed with regard to reform of the HOC and PR. I must invent a time-machine so that I can go back and erase the many posts I have made on those subjects (including many that support PR). Silly me! I thought it would be more conducive to intelligent debate to focus on Labour's actual proposal for abolishing the HOL rather than mash it together with other issues that deserve consideration in their own right.

Healthy scepticism is essential to political accountability, peddling utter nonsense that Labour's proposal to replace the unelected House of Lords with an elected alternative is all part of some plot for Labour to permanently seize the powers of government, is simply conspiratorial insanity. I'm afraid your posts on this particular proposal resemble precisely the sort of conspiratorial disinformation that currently grips the Maga mob in the USA.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by horsefly

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

22 hours ago, TheRock said:

The AV referendum was a distractive plot by the two main parties to hold onto First Past The Post for as long as possible. It's ironic that all fringe parties have been unanimous for decades that the UK Gerneal FPTP system is impregnable to new parties and is only there to protect Tories and Labour. FPTP used to work well in 3 candidates or less but now is arguably completely outdated.

 

2015 is a great example of this:

UKIP - 3.8m votes, zero seats

Lib Dem - 2.4m votes, only 8 seats

Green - 1.1m votes, only 1 seat.

SNP - 1.4m votes, FIFTY SIX seats

(Tories 11m, Labour 9m).

Under PR as a percentage of the vote, UKIP would have gotten 90 seats, Lib Dems would have gotten roughly 57 seats, Greens 25...

 

 

It's clear why Tories and Labour don't want PR or any other kind of system: look at the landslides Farage won in 2014 and 2019 using PR. Personally I think under a PR General election, if a strong Nationalist candidate got on the ticket whether they are left or right (such as Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage), they would siphon dozens if not hundreds of seats from the two main parties. Whereas under FPTP there is no such risk.

Exactly. AV and FPTP can be gerrymandered.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Of course all this debate shows that Dictatorship backed up by the Armed Forces is the only system that works as it is intended.

[horsefly 4,287]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Of course all this debate shows that Dictatorship backed up by the Armed Forces is the only system that works as it is intended.

Do you think that LYB is right that this is Starmer's ultimate aim? And will we have to call his military arm "Starmtroopers"???

[TheRock 155]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly. AV and FPTP can be gerrymandered.

Any system can be manipulated. the AV referendum has probably buried that system for good, annoyingly as a result the two main parties have and will continue to cling onto the FPTP system. The problem with the current FPTP system is that if you live in a certain part of the country, your vote effectively counts for nothing as Labour and Tories have their respective "safe seats". Whereas under, PR votes are better represented.

 

This is why I think the idea of a Citizens Assembly would be a decent idea as the working class such as The Nurses, The Teachers, The White Van Men, The Factory Workers, The Uniformed Services etc. would be an extra layer of vetting for a different demographic of people to get their say, as MPs are not common working folk anymore, not even most Labour MPs...

For example, look at the fresh attack on lower & middle class workers that Hunt's budget launched last week, especially the Public Sector PAYEs and the private sector Self-Employed. No one voted for that, not even Tory voters...

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

3 minutes ago, TheRock said:

Any system can be manipulated. the AV referendum has probably buried that system for good, annoyingly as a result the two main parties have and will continue to cling onto the FPTP system. The problem with the current FPTP system is that if you live in a certain part of the country, your vote effectively counts for nothing as Labour and Tories have their respective "safe seats". Whereas under, PR votes are better represented.

 

This is why I think the idea of a Citizens Assembly would be a decent idea as the working class such as The Nurses, The Teachers, The White Van Men, The Factory Workers, The Uniformed Services etc. would be an extra layer of vetting for a different demographic of people to get their say, as MPs are not common working folk anymore, not even most Labour MPs...

For example, look at the fresh attack on lower & middle class workers that Hunt's budget launched last week, especially the Public Sector PAYEs and the private sector Self-Employed. No one voted for that, not even Tory voters...

Of course any system can be manipulated, I'm simply saying that the referendum was just between AV and FPTP, and those are the two that can be manipulated by gerrymandering. PR cuts that method out.

[dsr-burnley 25]

On 20/11/2022 at 12:44, Daz Sparks said:

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

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

If fully elected, I suspect the upper house would be full of people who aren't good enough politicians to be MPs.

 

And if that doesn't sacre you ...  😮

[dsr-burnley 25]

On 21/11/2022 at 10:42, TheRock said:

The AV referendum was a distractive plot by the two main parties to hold onto First Past The Post for as long as possible. It's ironic that all fringe parties have been unanimous for decades that the UK Gerneal FPTP system is impregnable to new parties and is only there to protect Tories and Labour. FPTP used to work well in 3 candidates or less but now is arguably completely outdated.

 

2015 is a great example of this:

UKIP - 3.8m votes, zero seats

Lib Dem - 2.4m votes, only 8 seats

Green - 1.1m votes, only 1 seat.

SNP - 1.4m votes, FIFTY SIX seats

(Tories 11m, Labour 9m).

Under PR as a percentage of the vote, UKIP would have gotten 90 seats, Lib Dems would have gotten roughly 57 seats, Greens 25...

On the other hand, it means that local representation ceases to exist, and the gift of becoming an MP is in the leaders' hands.  The Tories may get 200 seats, for example, but they will be the first 200 favoured candidates on the official list.  There will be no opportunity for local voters to vote out unpopular MPs.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

31 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

On the other hand, it means that local representation ceases to exist, and the gift of becoming an MP is in the leaders' hands.  The Tories may get 200 seats, for example, but they will be the first 200 favoured candidates on the official list.  There will be no opportunity for local voters to vote out unpopular MPs.

Not necessarily. Germany and New Zealand have a PR model based on MMP. In other words, you get two votes. One local, one for a party.

[Barbe bleu 814]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! respectfully this displays extraordinary ignorance of the workings of our constitution, our legal system, and our parliamentary system. For example, remind me which body it was that overturned Johnson's ILLEGAL attempt to prorogue parliament, despite his 80 seat majority. Also, find me a single expert in any of those areas who agrees with your view. 

 

You two are talking at cross purposes again.

LYB is making the very valid point that parliament (ie all the members)  is supreme, it can legislate as it pleases. If there is a rule, or law, or principle that gets in the way if that legislation they can choose to revoke it. If any party has a majority they can in effect do anything they want. 

You are making the different point that executive power comes with limitations in law. That's true,  but if the executive finds a blockage and commands a majority in parliament then they have a means of removing that blockage. And if that isn't the point you are making then you are wrong.

Personally I think the HoL in its current form is a bit silly but given its very limited powers I'm not that fussed either way about its impending doom.   

YFs idea is probably closest to what I would want to see as a replacement.  Not ideal, but ideal doesn't exist.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not necessarily. Germany and New Zealand have a PR model based on MMP. In other words, you get two votes. One local, one for a party.

NZers not really happy with their system as Labour, with Jacinda Ardern, a left leaning leader, had to form a partnership with NZ First, a nationalist party, they are diametrically opposite to.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

37 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You two are talking at cross purposes again.

LYB is making the very valid point that parliament (ie all the members)  is supreme, it can legislate as it pleases. If there is a rule, or law, or principle that gets in the way if that legislation they can choose to revoke it. If any party has a majority they can in effect do anything they want. 

You are making the different point that executive power comes with limitations in law. That's true,  but if the executive finds a blockage and commands a majority in parliament then they have a means of removing that blockage. And if that isn't the point you are making then you are wrong.

Personally I think the HoL in its current form is a bit silly but given its very limited powers I'm not that fussed either way about its impending doom.   

YFs idea is probably closest to what I would want to see as a replacement.  Not ideal, but ideal doesn't exist.

 

More to the point BB-  If we have an elected HoL - Do we have elections at the same time for the HoL at the same time as for the Commons in which case HoL would simply reflect the Commons (politically) and cease to be a 'foil' or revising chamber for whatever hare-brained scheme the Commons comes up with - or do we have them offset - in which case as per the US we have quasi-continual electioneering.

Frankly - I'd rather have a revising chamber that isn't beholden to any political fad, fashion or ideology but independently and pragmatically minded.  

Wasn't it said during the Corbyn era that the HoL became the real opposition to the Tories (despite it's current Tory bias)?

[horsefly 4,287]

10 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You two are talking at cross purposes again.

LYB is making the very valid point that parliament (ie all the members)  is supreme, it can legislate as it pleases. If there is a rule, or law, or principle that gets in the way if that legislation they can choose to revoke it. If any party has a majority they can in effect do anything they want.

You are making the different point that executive power comes with limitations in law. That's true,  but if the executive finds a blockage and commands a majority in parliament then they have a means of removing that blockage. And if that isn't the point you are making then you are wrong.

Personally I think the HoL in its current form is a bit silly but given its very limited powers I'm not that fussed either way about its impending doom.   

YFs idea is probably closest to what I would want to see as a replacement.  Not ideal, but ideal doesn't exist.

 

Sadly, the debate descended into absurdity because of the claim that labour/Starmer announced the intention to replace an unelected revising chamber with an elected one as some kind of Machiavellian plot to fix future elections to ensure perpetual Labour victories. That the second chamber has no role in legislation and could offer no route to power seems to have passed LYB by.

Obviously, parliament (strictly speaking the "King in Parliament") is the supreme lawmaker and formally has the power to introduce whatever legislation it wishes; indeed, a presiding government could introduce a law tomorrow proposing a "year-zero" option to abolish every single law on the statute books and make itself ruler for eternity. Would that happen, obviously not because the concept and practice of the constitutional principles built up over centuries and upon which our political system rests would be thrown into crisis. Such an act would not be seen as the legitimate right of a government to exercise its formally granted legal powers but rather an act that breaches the fundamental principles of our established constitutional settlement. Our constitution rests not purely on formal principles but acknowledgement that certain behaviour is politically "impossible". This is demonstrated very clearly in the acknowledgement that the monarch does not interfere in the legislative affairs of parliament (which is an agreement in constitutional practice and not a formal requirement). Any government that proposed a "year-zero" option would have clearly ripped up the constitution that has been embodied in centuries of political practice. Constitutional crisis would ensue and civil war inevitable. The absurdity in suggesting that Starmer's proposal to abolish the House of Lords would in any way provoke or approach any kind of constitutional challenge in this manner should be obvious.

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Sadly, the debate descended into absurdity because of the claim that labour/Starmer announced the intention to replace an unelected revising chamber with an elected one as some kind of Machiavellian plot to fix future elections to ensure perpetual Labour victories.

I agree with that- SKS isn't intent on stuffing or gerrymandering the system for the benefit of Labour. That's absurd.

It's rather more likely that the Tories prefer it as its for their own reasons.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

26 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

NZers not really happy with their system as Labour, with Jacinda Ardern, a left leaning leader, had to form a partnership with NZ First, a nationalist party, they are diametrically opposite to.

Is that a case of unhappiness with their electoral model, or more unhappiness with the voting result? That sounds like the latter to me.

[horsefly 4,287]

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

If fully elected, I suspect the upper house would be full of people who aren't good enough politicians to be MPs.

 

And if that doesn't sacre you ...  😮

Most of the people elected to the Commons aren't good enough politicians to be elected as MPs. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

46 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Is that a case of unhappiness with their electoral model, or more unhappiness with the voting result? That sounds like the latter to me.

No. In 2017, the National Party recorded 47% of the vote. Not enough to get the 61 seats. No other party wanted an alliance but all agreed to an alliance with Labour who only had 25% of the vote.

To me, and nearly half the voting population of NZ, it seemed too extreme. Of course, with her, at the time, admired Covid policy, Ardern romped home in 2020.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

8 hours ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! respectfully this displays extraordinary ignorance of the workings of our constitution, our legal system, and our parliamentary system. For example, remind me which body it was that overturned Johnson's ILLEGAL attempt to prorogue parliament, despite his 80 seat majority. Also, find me a single expert in any of those areas who agrees with your view. 

The very idea that Starmer or the Labour Party is remotely interested in abolishing the Lords in order to fix a second chamber with the aim to ensure sole political power is beyond ridiculous. For a start the second chamber is a REVISING chamber. Its political powers are miniscule and limited, intentionally reduced to nothing more than the ability to delay legislation temporarily for reconsideration by the Commons in the light of its findings. Any political party seeking to fix parliament would have to be extraordinarily intellectually retarded if it were to think that reform of the second REVISING chamber is the route to fixing all future elections in its favour. And before you mention it, I'm going to assume that you would not be so bat-sh*it crazy as to claim Labour would set up the second chamber as an opposing centre of political legislative power to the Commons. Or do you really think Starmer is determined to foment an actual civil war between two opposing centres of political power in the country?

"But there's no obstacle to Labour stacking systems and boundaries in a new layer of government like that proposed for regional representation however it wishes if it commands a parliamentary majority." Apart from the law, the Boundary Commission, the Electoral Commision, The House of Commons, Royal assent, public outrage, etc, etc, etc.

But now you've changed your mind and want to widen the debate to introduction of regional parliaments and legitimacy of changes, do you have any argument for why nobody should be suspicious that Labour's interested in getting rid of the Lords and creating regional assemblies (regional assemblies aren't in the thread title either), not to mention tweaking Scotland and Wales,  but totally uninterested in the changes Labour Conference wants to the Commons that would open up more significant representation of smaller parties in the commons and diminish the Labour/Conservative stranglehold there?

WTF??? I have not changed my mind nor the subject matter in the slightest. I merely mentioned the possibility that Starmer's principle of re-constructing an elected second chamber focussed on the "regions and nations" of the country, could easily be constituted by dispersing the work of that chamber across regional assemblies. How in the hell does that constitute "changing my mind" or "widening the debate"? Such assemblies would together CONSTITUTE the second chamber, and its function would still remain as a REVISING chamber, NOT an alternative centre to the legislative powers of the HOC.

BTW, thanks for informing me that I am "totally uninterested" in changes Labour conference has proposed with regard to reform of the HOC and PR. I must invent a time-machine so that I can go back and erase the many posts I have made on those subjects (including many that support PR). Silly me! I thought it would be more conducive to intelligent debate to focus on Labour's actual proposal for abolishing the HOL rather than mash it together with other issues that deserve consideration in their own right.

Healthy scepticism is essential to political accountability, peddling utter nonsense that Labour's proposal to replace the unelected House of Lords with an elected alternative is all part of some plot for Labour to permanently seize the powers of government, is simply conspiratorial insanity. I'm afraid your posts on this particular proposal resemble precisely the sort of conspiratorial disinformation that currently grips the Maga mob in the USA.

 

It's no plot. Labour has form on doing exactly this with the Welsh and Scottish parliaments to create Labour political strongholds. They've hung onto control of Wales, but it's a source of grim amusement that they've lost control of their erstwhile Scottish stronghold in the face of the growth of Scottish nationalism that resulted from Labour being stupid enough to give the SNP such a fantastic platform to work from as Holyrood.

In the meantime, your wordy waffle contradicting the absolute supremacy of parliament regarding the terms of how governments are elected is just stupid beyond words? Like, seriously, processes for elections are continued in acts of parliament passed and repealed by parliament. You would have to be a complete moron not to see how that means parliament really does have the final say on how we elect parliament and all other elected bodies in the UK.

Story on exactly the concern illustrating how I'm right here, how a government can massively doctor processes in its favour through changes in acts of parliament from the most lefty source imaginable: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2021/10/21/the-tories-are-gerrymandering-democracy-to-turn-england-blue/

Anyway, I've made my point, and most people will recognise that Labour can't be trusted regarding what they propose on meddling in the constitution or delivering on promises, as demonstrated in 1997. At the end of the day, abolition of the Lords is purely a bit of catnip for people who want the Lords abolished, like John Prescott used to before he took a seat in the Lords, to name but one senior Labour hypocrite.

Edited November 22, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Daz Sparks 1,150]

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

If fully elected, I suspect the upper house would be full of people who aren't good enough politicians to be MPs.

 

And if that doesn't sacre you ...  😮

You tend not be easily scared when many of the present occupants of the upper house would probably fail to get a job in a nursery due to an enhanced DBS check.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I agree with that- SKS isn't intent on stuffing or gerrymandering the system for the benefit of Labour. That's absurd.

It's rather more likely that the Tories prefer it as its for their own reasons.

Come off it. The fact they're pretending Labour conference didn't vote for the party to support PR in the Commons while talking about every other part of the constitution underlines that Labour will not do anything on the constitution unless it sees it as in the party's interests.

And again, 1997-2010 underlines that Labour plays politics with the constitution for its own interests, not in the interests of a fair and representative democracy; for fair proposals with honest intent, you need to look at groups like Make Votes Matter, supported by the Lib Dems, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Labour for PR, just not the Labour leadership, who prefer to engage in misdirection like this to hope Make Votes Matter and the Labour Conference just go away.

Keir Starmer's a nice bloke, but he's Labour leader and will put the interests of the Labour party at the ballot box before truly addressing trust in democracy, unless he's in a minority government with other parties keeping the Labour party honest.

Edited November 22, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie