Abolition of the House of Lords

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

5 hours 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. 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.

You don't have to have your OTT 'year zero' option to systematically erode rights, liberties, and doctor the electoral system in your favour; so long as parliament doesn't face really massive public objection to the extent that royal intervention becomes supportable they can do what they like, as illustrated by the Conservatives proposed reduction of seats in parliament to work in its favour.

Your idea that Labour is any better regarding abusing power in its own interest and any more fit to be let loose on its own on constitutional arrangements without other parties is exposed for the fallacy that it is by the most cursory glance at the record of the last Labour government.

Edited November 22, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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.

Christ you really are ignorant sometimes. Your very first paragraph is laughably contradictory. You claim the Labour Party has "form" for fixing the electoral system in Scotland to create a Labour stronghold, only then to immediately point out that it is the SNP that completely dominates that parliament. And you have the audacity to describe me as a moron. FFS do you not bother to read your own words? 

Of course, you continue to completely ignore the FACT that the (REVISING) second chamber has no powers to legislate whatsoever, thus any proposed change to make the members of that chamber democratically accountable through the electoral process could have NO consequence for the actual power to legislate law. What sort of moron would think that the way a party might seize permanent power in the country is by "fixing" a chamber that can exert no such power. Unless, of course, you really are making the utterly ludicrous claim that Starmer intends to set up the second chamber as a rival political legislator and thereby precipitate a new civil war.

Unsurprisingly you seem incapable of understanding the complexity of the constitutional settlement that is the result of centuries of law and actual government practice. Our constitution is standardly described as an "unwritten constitution" precisely because it is not exhausted by a single legal document, nor for that matter any simple set of purely legal documents. I have already said that formally parliament has supreme authority (formally the "King in parliament") but pointed out the very obvious fact that our constitutional settlement does not rest on this alone. I even gave you the simple to understand example of the power of the "King" in parliament in that arrangement. Charles has the formal legal power to appoint a new PM at will but knows full well that political interference from the monarchy is made "impossible" by the constitutional agreement (not law) originally forged between parliament and his predecessors (William and Mary) in 1689. Subsequent monarchs have all recognised that their constitutional responsibilities must be guided by agreements in constitutional practice that exceed those stated in the law alone. To breach that non-legally enforceable agreement would constitute a constitutional crisis, which ought to be enough for any rational individual to recognise that our constitutional settlement involves complexity far beyond formal legal statutes.

You also ignore the point stated in the very first paragraph on the UK Parliament website that, "no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change". That captures precisely my point that there is no legislative route to a dictatorship, irrespective of parliament's status as the "supreme authority". Thus, the UK parliament explicitly recognises that "supreme authority" involves at least one condition on the exercise of that supreme authority.

The very idea that Starmer, a legal expert, thinks and intends reform of the second (REVISING) chamber to be a way to fix Labour political power in perpetuity is beyond stupid. Thus, I really can't be bothered to entertain your utterly absurd conspiracy tripe any further. I'm confident that the vast majority of rational individuals will recognise Starmer's proposal for precisely what it is; an attempt to make the second chamber democratically accountable, and a voice for people from the regions and nations of the UK. It would have been nice to have had an intelligent conversation about what that might involve and how it could be achieved in order to enhance democracy and root out the corruption and cronyism that is all too rife. 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

1. Christ you really are ignorant sometimes. Your very first paragraph is laughably contradictory. You claim the Labour Party has "form" for fixing the electoral system in Scotland to create a Labour stronghold, only then to immediately point out that it is the SNP that completely dominates that parliament. And you have the audacity to describe me as a moron. FFS do you not bother to read your own words? 

Of course, you continue to completely ignore the FACT that the (REVISING) second chamber has no powers to legislate whatsoever, thus any proposed change to make the members of that chamber democratically accountable through the electoral process could have NO consequence for the actual power to legislate law. What sort of moron would think that the way a party might seize permanent power in the country is by "fixing" a chamber that can exert no such power. Unless, of course, you really are making the utterly ludicrous claim that Starmer intends to set up the second chamber as a rival political legislator and thereby precipitate a new civil war.

Unsurprisingly you seem incapable of understanding the complexity of the constitutional settlement that is the result of centuries of law and actual government practice. Our constitution is standardly described as an "unwritten constitution" precisely because it is not exhausted by a single legal document, nor for that matter any simple set of purely legal documents. I have already said that formally parliament has supreme authority (formally the "King in parliament") but pointed out the very obvious fact that our constitutional settlement does not rest on this alone. I even gave you the simple to understand example of the power of the "King" in parliament in that arrangement. Charles has the formal legal power to appoint a new PM at will but knows full well that political interference from the monarchy is made "impossible" by the constitutional agreement (not law) originally forged between parliament and his predecessors (William and Mary) in 1689. Subsequent monarchs have all recognised that their constitutional responsibilities must be guided by agreements in constitutional practice that exceed those stated in the law alone. To breach that non-legally enforceable agreement would constitute a constitutional crisis, which ought to be enough for any rational individual to recognise that our constitutional settlement involves complexity far beyond formal legal statutes.

2. You also ignore the point stated in the very first paragraph on the UK Parliament website that, "no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change". That captures precisely my point that there is no legislative route to a dictatorship, irrespective of parliament's status as the "supreme authority". Thus, the UK parliament explicitly recognises that "supreme authority" involves at least one condition on the exercise of that supreme authority.

3. The very idea that Starmer, a legal expert, thinks and intends reform of the second (REVISING) chamber to be a way to fix Labour political power in perpetuity is beyond stupid. Thus, I really can't be bothered to entertain your utterly absurd conspiracy tripe any further. I'm confident that the vast majority of rational individuals will recognise Starmer's proposal for precisely what it is; an attempt to make the second chamber democratically accountable, and a voice for people from the regions and nations of the UK. It would have been nice to have had an intelligent conversation about what that might involve and how it could be achieved in order to enhance democracy and root out the corruption and cronyism that is all too rife. 

 

 

 

 

On point 1, it's not contradictory; Labour was simply short-sighed and complacent in its own assessment of its supremacy in Scotland. They clearly did not foresee that they could lose control in Scotland to nationalist influences the way they have; if they had foreseen it, there's no way in hell they'd have gone down the road of creating Holyrood in the first place, and Holyrood was created because Labour voluntarily asked the question of Scotland about a parliament there.

On point 2, your interpretation is bizarre; the very fact that no government may bind its successors is exactly why there are ultimately no safeguards against a government changing legislation to make it very difficult for competing parties to replace them. Granted, the monarchy remains an obstacle to an extent, but removal of the monarchy is mentioned more and more frequently in general discourse, so that's not something to count on.

On point 3. A slight correction to the thrust of this: it's more directed at Labour as an institution than Keir Starmer personally and there's nothing stupid about my concerns and suggesting that majority governments can't and won't abuse their power seems naive in the extreme. Also, legal does not automatically correlate with fair or ethical as you seem to imply.

I'll keep repeating it, beause the bottom line is this: Labour betrayed many of its commitments on electoral reform at Westminster after 1997, including PR and substantial Lords reform. Given its record, these announcements on Lords reform are at best worthless, and at worst an insult to Labour conference in their determined ignorance of the wishes of this year's Labour conference regarding the introduction of PR in the Commons.

As for rooting out corruption and cronyism, that's easy: Introduce a proportional electoral system that reduces the chances of majority governments, forcing parties to work together to govern while keeping an eye on each other to ensure no foul play. But that's not on the agenda with Labour, sadly.

But don't worry: Labour won't get any stick from the Conservatives over its disinterest in electoral reform, because keeping the Commons as is suits them just fine, which leaves the question why anybody against the dominance of the Conservatives in UK politics would be so keen to let Labour off the hook for essentially siding with the Conservatives on this instead of with Labour conference, the bulk of trade unions, the other progressive parties that want a more representative electoral system for the Commons to restore trust in UK politics.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

11 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

On point 1, it's not contradictory; Labour was simply short-sighed and complacent in its own assessment of its supremacy in Scotland. They clearly did not foresee that they could lose control in Scotland to nationalist influences the way they have; if they had foreseen it, there's no way in hell they'd have gone down the road of creating Holyrood in the first place, and Holyrood was created because Labour voluntarily asked the question of Scotland about a parliament there.

On point 2, your interpretation is bizarre; the very fact that no government may bind its successors is exactly why there are ultimately no safeguards against a government changing legislation to make it very difficult for competing parties to replace them. Granted, the monarchy remains an obstacle to an extent, but removal of the monarchy is mentioned more and more frequently in general discourse, so that's not something to count on.

On point 3. A slight correction to the thrust of this: it's more directed at Labour as an institution than Keir Starmer personally and there's nothing stupid about my concerns and suggesting that majority governments can't and won't abuse their power seems naive in the extreme. Also, legal does not automatically correlate with fair or ethical as you seem to imply.

I'll keep repeating it, beause the bottom line is this: Labour betrayed many of its commitments on electoral reform at Westminster after 1997, including PR and substantial Lords reform. Given its record, these announcements on Lords reform are at best worthless, and at worst an insult to Labour conference in their determined ignorance of the wishes of this year's Labour conference regarding the introduction of PR in the Commons.

As for rooting out corruption and cronyism, that's easy: Introduce a proportional electoral system that reduces the chances of majority governments, forcing parties to work together to govern while keeping an eye on each other to ensure no foul play. But that's not on the agenda with Labour, sadly.

But don't worry: Labour won't get any stick from the Conservatives over its disinterest in electoral reform, because keeping the Commons as is suits them just fine, which leaves the question why anybody against the dominance of the Conservatives in UK politics would be so keen to let Labour off the hook for essentially siding with the Conservatives on this instead of with Labour conference, the bulk of trade unions, the other progressive parties that want a more representative electoral system for the Commons to restore trust in UK politics.

 

 

 

Alas, I can't resist one final response to point out what an utter pile of bilge you have just posted.

Point 1: When Labour set up the Scottish parliament it did so creating a voting system, the Alternative Members System, precisely to ensure that the diverse voices of Scottish people were properly represented. The Alternative Members System is the most proportional system of government in any nation of the UK. Labour knew full well that this made it inevitable that nationalist sentiment would be strongly represented (by the SNP) in the Scottish parliament. Your ridiculous claim that Labour made a mistake about this is truly laughable (not everyone shares your level of misunderstanding). Had Labour wished to fix the vote in Scotland in their favour they would have gone nowhere near a Scottish parliament, and certainly not one based on the AMS.

Point 2: You demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of how constitutional issues play out in actual political practice. You seem incapable of understanding the interplay between formal constitutional laws and established constitutional practices. Perhaps this article might help you out:  https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/written-constitution/  

There are many things a government would have a legal entitlement to enact (as supreme authority) that nonetheless would precipitate a constitutional crisis. The sort of interference with the fairness of the electoral system that you suggest could be behind Starmer's proposal to abolish the Lords would be precisely one such thing (I'm suspending here the obvious absurdity in suggesting you can unfairly fix parliamentary power in your party's favour by reforming a chamber that has no legislative power). Likewise, if the government were to abolish the independent powers of the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission and refuse to replace them with alternatives to ensure electoral fairness. Likewise, if the King were to ignore the agreement not to interfere in the parliamentary process. The political reality is that constitutional checks and balances mitigating against abuse of the government's possession of "supreme authority" takes many forms that extend beyond formal law alone. One of those checks and balances, that is extremely important and should not be underestimated, is the simple perception of what goes beyond the pale of what is acceptable use of parliamentary power in a country founded on democratic principles. Johnson made a colossal mistake in breaching this perception when he sought to exploit his 80-seat majority and use his "supreme authority" to get his mate Owen Paterson off the hook after he was found guilty of corrupt behaviour in office. He was soon made aware that "supreme authority" did not trump the perception of the "requirements" of constitutional custom and practice. 

Point 3. Please feel free to point out where I am so "naive in the extreme" as to suggest that "majority governments can't and won't abuse their power". That is a pathetic and disingenuous accusation irrefutably proven false by my record of posts on this site. I have persistently called out such abuses of power as you know full well.

As for your claim, "As for rooting out corruption and cronyism, that's easy: Introduce a proportional electoral system that reduces the chances of majority governments, forcing parties to work together to govern while keeping an eye on each other to ensure no foul play." Now that truly is naive in the extreme. I can only assume you haven't paid much heed to European politics in recent history. Try reading this article about the PR elected government of Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Austria. If you want further examples from other PR elected governments, feel free to google or ask for further links. Also, the idea that political coalitions necessarily reduce foul play is somewhat destroyed by our own recent experience of the Con/Lib coalition. Try asking all those students who voted for the Lib Dems based on their cast-iron manifesto promise to abolish student fees, whether they think coalitions reduce foul play.

I absolutely support the introduction of PR on grounds of fair representation. I am not, however, so naive as to think that PR is some kind of "easy" way to root out corruption and cronyism. It guarantees nothing of the sort. Transparency in political practice is the solution to that task.

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

They're talking about this on radio 4 with Keir Starmer now, so good opportunity to put the question on Twitter as to why they're proposing everything under the sun other than what the Labour membership has explicitly asked for, namely a PR system in the Commons.

[horsefly 4,301]

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

They're talking about this on radio 4 with Keir Starmer now, so good opportunity to put the question on Twitter as to why they're proposing everything under the sun other than what the Labour membership has explicitly asked for, namely a PR system in the Commons.

This is a thread about abolishing the House of Lords. How often does this need to be repeated? By all means start a thread on PR and discuss your obsession there. And stop being ridiculous by claiming Labour are "proposing everything under the sun"; they are doing nothing of the sort. But do feel free to remind us which of the major parties is committed to instituting policies that the "membership has explicitly asked for" or is it only Labour that is obliged to do this?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

They're talking about this on radio 4 with Keir Starmer now, so good opportunity to put the question on Twitter as to why they're proposing everything under the sun other than what the Labour membership has explicitly asked for, namely a PR system in the Commons.

To be honest, with the likelihood of a Labour win at the next election under FPTP, he is unlikely to bring it up.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

To be honest, with the likelihood of a Labour win at the next election under FPTP, he is unlikely to bring it up.

 

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

They're talking about this on radio 4 with Keir Starmer now, so good opportunity to put the question on Twitter as to why they're proposing everything under the sun other than what the Labour membership has explicitly asked for, namely a PR system in the Commons.

To be fair I think what we are talking about is Labour's manifesto for the NEXT election - not the one after that when PR and indeed SM membership may indeed be on the ballot.

HoL reform is popular - we can all argue about our preferences, but I don't see the current system of privilege and abuses even garnering much support by the likes of the average Daily Mail or Express reader - unless they are of course happy to know their place in society as peasants and tug their forelocks.

SKS doesn't need give away any hostages to fortune - be that PR or indeed Brexit at this stage. HoL reform is radical whilst also being electorally safe - and wrong footing the Tories trying to defend the indefensible. It's smart politics.

 

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

To be fair I think what we are talking about is Labour's manifesto for the NEXT election - not the one after that when PR and indeed SM membership may indeed be on the ballot.

HoL reform is popular - we can all argue about our preferences, but I don't see the current system of privilege and abuses even garnering much support by the likes of the average Daily Mail or Express reader - unless they are of course happy to know their place in society as peasants and tug their forelocks.

SKS doesn't need give away any hostages to fortune - be that PR or indeed Brexit at this stage. HoL reform is radical whilst also being electorally safe - and wrong footing the Tories trying to defend the indefensible. It's smart politics.

 

Spot on!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

To be fair I think what we are talking about is Labour's manifesto for the NEXT election - not the one after that when PR and indeed SM membership may indeed be on the ballot.

HoL reform is popular - we can all argue about our preferences, but I don't see the current system of privilege and abuses even garnering much support by the likes of the average Daily Mail or Express reader - unless they are of course happy to know their place in society as peasants and tug their forelocks.

SKS doesn't need give away any hostages to fortune - be that PR or indeed Brexit at this stage. HoL reform is radical whilst also being electorally safe - and wrong footing the Tories trying to defend the indefensible. It's smart politics.

 

HoL reform is a crowd pleaser for Labour's core vote, I'll give you that, but given that the HoL is ultimately subservient to the Commons, given the Commons right to overrule the Lords, I'd argue it's superficial rather than radical.

Fundamentally, the Labour leadership is effectively saying that it supports the status quo of alternating outright control between Labour and the Conservatives, while shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic to deflect from that

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

29 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

HoL reform is a crowd pleaser for Labour's core vote, I'll give you that, but given that the HoL is ultimately subservient to the Commons, given the Commons right to overrule the Lords, I'd argue it's superficial rather than radical.

Fundamentally, the Labour leadership is effectively saying that it supports the status quo of alternating outright control between Labour and the Conservatives, while shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic to deflect from that

And with the devolution topics, they are also trying to woo people in Scotland away from SNP at a GE.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

23 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And with the devolution topics, they are also trying to woo people in Scotland away from SNP at a GE.

We were told that the creation of the Welsh senate and Holyrood in the late 90s was to salve nationalist sentiment. Now here we are with nationalism bigger and stronger than ever. Seems to me that we're in a situation where they're doing the same thing and expecting different results.

The root problem is the Commons. Unless that's tackled then Labour may as well just offer Scotland independence outright .

[Aggy 755]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

HoL reform is popular - we can all argue about our preferences, but I don't see the current system of privilege and abuses even garnering much support by the likes of the average Daily Mail or Express reader - unless they are of course happy to know their place in society as peasants and tug their forelocks.

 

 

Strange then that abolition of the monarchy isn’t more popular. Reform the HOL all anybody wants, but while the person who is literally head of the whole state has that job solely by virtue of being born into a ‘better’ family than anyone else, we’re all just inferior peasants aren’t we?

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

5 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Strange then that abolition of the monarchy isn’t more popular. Reform the HOL all anybody wants, but while the person who is literally head of the whole state has that job solely by virtue of being born into a ‘better’ family than anyone else, we’re all just inferior peasants aren’t we?

You said it 🙂

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

20 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Strange then that abolition of the monarchy isn’t more popular. Reform the HOL all anybody wants, but while the person who is literally head of the whole state has that job solely by virtue of being born into a ‘better’ family than anyone else, we’re all just inferior peasants aren’t we?

It's not purely on hereditary though. Edward VIII abdicated due to public disapproval regarding his personal choices, so there's an element of consent to our monarchy, backed up by the overwhelming public approval experienced by Queen Elizabeth II. King Charles III has 63% personal approval as of late September.

We became a republic under Cromwell, but we reinstated the monarchy 11 years later, even with the support of some of Cromwell's supporters.

Edited December 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not purely on hereditary though. Edward VIII abdicated due to public disapproval regarding his personal choices, so there's an element of consent to our monarchy, backed up by the overwhelming public approval experienced by Queen Elizabeth II. King Charles III has 63% personal approval as of late September.

We became a republic under Cromwell, but we reinstated the monarchy 11 years later, even with the support of some of Cromwell's supporters.

Well it is clearly hereditary - you can’t become head of state unless you inherit the title.

The wider point you make though is an interesting one. Charles i’s execution was of course illegal. Edward viii’s abdication was to avoid a constitutional crisis because there was no way to legally get rid of a monarch you don’t want and it was easier for everyone if he stepped aside. In both cases, they only happened because there is no legitimate way to legally remove the monarch. 

Strange to think in the 21st century, in a developed western country that makes a big deal about democracy and equality, you can’t get rid of the person who is head of the country (without, apparently, a bloody civil war or a constitutional crisis).

 

[horsefly 4,301]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

HoL reform is a crowd pleaser for Labour's core vote, I'll give you that, but given that the HoL is ultimately subservient to the Commons, given the Commons right to overrule the Lords, I'd argue it's superficial rather than radical.

Fundamentally, the Labour leadership is effectively saying that it supports the status quo of alternating outright control between Labour and the Conservatives, while shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic to deflect from that

You clearly have a very short memory. Care to remind us what was the result of the 2010 election.

[horsefly 4,301]

11 hours ago, Aggy said:

Strange then that abolition of the monarchy isn’t more popular. Reform the HOL all anybody wants, but while the person who is literally head of the whole state has that job solely by virtue of being born into a ‘better’ family than anyone else, we’re all just inferior peasants aren’t we?

I get the gist of your point but think there are clear reasons why people see the two issues differently. Be one a republican or monarchist I think we can all agree that it is well established constitutional practice that the monarch does not interfere in political matters. In contrast, members of the Lords can and do. Within weeks of failing to be democratically elected, Boris Johnson's brother was appointed a lord and elevated into a ministerial position. One might find the hereditary principle of the monarchy somewhat anachronistic in an age of democracy, but it is pretty much free of vulnerability to the sort of rampant corruption that seems rife in the Lords. Baroness Mone's case is yet another dreadful example of how individual members seek to exploit their privileged position. Indeed, there have been enough Lords and Ladies who have served time at HM's pleasure to provide ample evidence of the extent to which members are able to exploit the position for nefarious purposes. The PM of the day does not appoint the monarch but can reward his/her friends and paymasters with a seat in the Lords at his/her whim. Johnson displayed shameless audacity in the degree to which he brazenly rewarded those who did him favours.

No doubt there are many reforms that could be introduced to clean up politics across our political system. However, the case for prioritizing reform of the second chamber is patently obvious. It is an absurdity and a contradiction to the very principle of democracy that our second chamber is unelected. That alone is enough to make the case for abolishing the Lords. At least with the Commons we get a regular opportunity to vote out those we consider corrupt or inept; we have no such power over members of the Lords. Starmer is quite rightly enthusiastic about grasping the opportunity to re-energise our democratic system by developing a second chamber that is truly representative of the regions and nations of the UK.  

[Barbe bleu 827]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

 At least with the Commons we get a regular opportunity to vote out those we consider corrupt or inept; we have no such power over members of the Lords.  

You'll not be supporting PR as the means of voting for a second chamber then?   

I'm struggling to get excited about Lords reform to be honest.  Probably happy to get rid of it for all be ceremonial activity and replace its job with extra powers of scrutiny elsewhere.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

12 hours ago, Aggy said:

Well it is clearly hereditary - you can’t become head of state unless you inherit the title.

The wider point you make though is an interesting one. Charles i’s execution was of course illegal. Edward viii’s abdication was to avoid a constitutional crisis because there was no way to legally get rid of a monarch you don’t want and it was easier for everyone if he stepped aside. In both cases, they only happened because there is no legitimate way to legally remove the monarch. 

Strange to think in the 21st century, in a developed western country that makes a big deal about democracy and equality, you can’t get rid of the person who is head of the country (without, apparently, a bloody civil war or a constitutional crisis).

 

Any system of government, however democratic, is legitimate if it enjoys the consent of the governed; the monarchy consistently enjoys support of a majority of the governed, which means it needs no other justification in any terms at this time. However, in practical terms, we do have a sufficiently attractive democratic system that many people will happily risk their lives to enjoy the privileges we do.

But also, exercises in direct democracy such as the EU referendum underline the dangers of being too purist and ideological, when the ultimate aim of the game is to build states and systems of government that can keep the engagement and trust of the people. The monarchy does better on this score than the House of Commons.

In conclusion, it's maybe a little inconsistent to be a democracy with some elements that are undemocratic in a purist sense, although you'll struggle to find any nation that could be called a 'perfect' democracy. What I find stranger, though, is people obsessing over fixing things that aren't broken and enjoy majority support from the population, while glossing over things that actually do need fixing, like trust in the House of Commons itself, that neither the Conservatives or Labour want to tackle in pursuing their party interests over those of the country.

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

55 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You'll not be supporting PR as the means of voting for a second chamber then?   

I'm struggling to get excited about Lords reform to be honest.  Probably happy to get rid of it for all be ceremonial activity and replace its job with extra powers of scrutiny elsewhere.

Would be more than happy to see PR for the second chamber (indeed, I hope that happens). But of course, that has nothing to do with the case for PR in the Commons (although successful introduction of PR in the second chamber might just provide an overwhelming case for PR in the Commons at a later point in time).

Some reasons to get excited about abolition of the Lords:

1. It gets rid of an unelected chamber (pretty essential to democracy)

2. It gets rid of a chamber riddled with corruption

3. It gets rid of the PM's right to appoint his/her mates and paymasters

4. It enables the electorate to vote out lazy/ inept/ corrupt members who treat the chamber as a lunch club and expenses jamboree, and an opportunity to fill their pockets with lobbyist's money

5. It enables the second chamber to be dispersed across the regions and nations of the UK thereby being a true voice of the entire country.

6. It has the potential to energise a model of participatory democratic government by replacing a house based on privilege and appointment with one accountable to local populations

I could go on...

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The latest shenanigans with the Invisible Mone highlights the need for reform of the HoL.

She is taking leave of absence as the PPE scandal erupts despite not actually attending the HoL since April and not taking part in a debate for over 2 years.

We cannot vote her out.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What I find stranger, though, is people obsessing over fixing things that aren't broken and enjoy majority support from the population, while glossing over things that actually do need fixing, like trust in the House of Commons itself, that neither the Conservatives or Labour want to tackle in pursuing their party interests over those of the country.

Lack of trust in the Commons has nothing to do with the issue of PR and FPTP as you have continually claimed on this thread. What causes mistrust is the behaviour of MPs who exploit the privileges of power and the opaque and all too often ineffective rules of the Commons, in order to further their own personal interests. You only need to examine the scandals that have beset any number of European countries who elect according to PR (e.g., Austria) to see that PR is not relevant to rooting out corruption. I prefer PR on grounds of democratic principle, but recognise it has no intrinsic relation to the issue of unethical behaviour.  It is the rules governing MPs' conduct and the procedures enforcing those rules that determine the level of trust the public should afford their MPs. Labour has persistently called for a tightening up of those rules and the need for much greater transparency, whilst the Tory Party (especially under Johnson) has called for the relaxation of ethical rules and punishments (e.g., Patel's bullying, Paterson's lobbying etc, etc.). 

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

27 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The latest shenanigans with the Invisible Mone highlights the need for reform of the HoL.

She is taking leave of absence as the PPE scandal erupts despite not actually attending the HoL since April and not taking part in a debate for over 2 years.

We cannot vote her out.

Yes - 

It's very clear with that with this Tory government and PPE it wasn't what you know but who you know.

 

 

[horsefly 4,301]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - 

It's very clear with that with this Tory government and PPE it wasn't what you know but who you know.

 

 

I'm sure there is no truth to the rumour that the chums of Tory ministers and MPs who filled their pockets during covid thought that PPE stood for, "Please Post Envelope (full of cash to...)". All they had to do was fill in their address.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - 

It's very clear with that with this Tory government and PPE it wasn't what you know but who you know.

 

 

 

Just now, horsefly said:

I'm sure there is no truth to the rumour that the chums of Tory ministers and MPs who filled their pockets during covid thought that PPE stood for, "Please Post Envelope (full of cash to...)". All they had to do was fill in their address.

I actually hope that many are jailed in due course - & bankrupted paying back their ill-gotten gains. That's not targeted at those that did indeed have some track record and did try to fulfil orders that may then have got snarled up - just the 'wide' boys and girls.

As an aside - I saw comment on corruption in other countries. From my experience all countries have corruption (and we are no better) but it is just accepted /shows itself in different ways - 

In the USA for instance, it's pork barrel politics and lobbying - zillions of dollars. Accepted way to do business.

Elsewhere it may just be taking lowly paid people out for a posh meal to celebrate the signing (you need their 'stamp' on it sooner & not languishing for 6 months) on a multi-million contract.

How many tradesmen here will knock VAT off for cash?

Which one is worse?

Answers with donation on a postcard - payable to Yellow Fever 😉

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think this sums up much of what we mean

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[Barbe bleu 827]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Would be more than happy to see PR for the second chamber (indeed, I hope that happens). But of course, that has nothing to do with the case for PR in the Commons (although successful introduction of PR in the second chamber might just provide an overwhelming case for PR in the Commons at a later point in time).

Some reasons to get excited about abolition of the Lords:

1. It gets rid of an unelected chamber (pretty essential to democracy)

2. It gets rid of a chamber riddled with corruption

3. It gets rid of the PM's right to appoint his/her mates and paymasters

4. It enables the electorate to vote out lazy/ inept/ corrupt members who treat the chamber as a lunch club and expenses jamboree, and an opportunity to fill their pockets with lobbyist's money

5. It enables the second chamber to be dispersed across the regions and nations of the UK thereby being a true voice of the entire country.

6. It has the potential to energise a model of participatory democratic government by replacing a house based on privilege and appointment with one accountable to local populations

I could go on...

You say that we can get rid of individuals we see as lazy, Inept, corrupt.  But that is difficult in practice if the party in question insists on putting them on the list.

You have bought into the official Labour line of greater local accountability for the second chamber. That's fine and I dont necessarily disagree but why have a second chamber at all ?   Can the same job undertaken by the Lords not be done by a MSPs / senedd members/ London assembly members / new and existing regional bodies ? Are they really so busy they cannot take on a role trusted to volunteers?

A elected second  chamber, with a  regional focus is probably going to spend a lot of time butting heads with the existing assemblies and trying to carve out a purpose.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

You say that we can get rid of individuals we see as lazy, Inept, corrupt.  But that is difficult in practice if the party in question insists on putting them on the list.

You have bought into the official Labour line of greater local accountability for the second chamber. That's fine and I dont necessarily disagree but why have a second chamber at all ?   Can the same job undertaken by the Lords not be done by a MSPs / senedd members/ London assembly members / new and existing regional bodies ? Are they really so busy they cannot take on a role trusted to volunteers?

A elected second  chamber, with a  regional focus is probably going to spend a lot of time butting heads with the existing assemblies and trying to carve out a purpose.

You say that we can get rid of individuals we see as lazy, Inept, corrupt.  But that is difficult in practice if the party in question insists on putting them on the list.

Any party doing that runs the risk of the member concerned being voted out. As things stand that could never happen to ANY member of the second chamber as they have a position there for life.

You have bought into the official Labour line of greater local accountability for the second chamber. That's fine and I dont necessarily disagree but why have a second chamber at all ?

Second chambers are present in every democratic country around the world, because rational dialogue is central to the very process of democracy. Our own Lords plays a crucial role in debating and revising proposed government legislation and forcing it to reconsider policies it would otherwise rush through in autocratic haste. Labour's proposal to ensure that debate is representative of the considered opinion of local communities through members accountable to their constituencies is an important advance in promoting a healthy participatory political culture.  I would expect the second chamber to be dispersed throughout the country in regional bodies similar to the example of some of those that you mention (There is no reason why it should be centralised in a single location as is the present case).

A elected second  chamber, with a  regional focus is probably going to spend a lot of time butting heads with the existing assemblies and trying to carve out a purpose.

Time will tell just what form the reformed second chamber will take and whether that will require reforms in other political bodies. However, I see no reason in principle why it should "butt heads" with other tiers of government in any way different from our present political arrangements (Lords, Commons, councils, regional parliaments etc). 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

You say that we can get rid of individuals we see as lazy, Inept, corrupt.  But that is difficult in practice if the party in question insists on putting them on the list.

You have bought into the official Labour line of greater local accountability for the second chamber. That's fine and I dont necessarily disagree but why have a second chamber at all ?   Can the same job undertaken by the Lords not be done by a MSPs / senedd members/ London assembly members / new and existing regional bodies ? Are they really so busy they cannot take on a role trusted to volunteers?

A elected second  chamber, with a  regional focus is probably going to spend a lot of time butting heads with the existing assemblies and trying to carve out a purpose.

Ironically, Labour's proposals for regional chambers make more sense as a balance if you reform the Commons to a party list proportional system like the Labour conference has formally backed and the leadership has ignored.

Gordon Brown was asked about it and he stated that reform the Commons was 'outside the scope' of his report (hilarious) and said 'it was a question for the manifesto', which begs the question why to specifically exclude commons reform, but include absolutely everything else, but I guess we'll see next time they publish a manifesto. I suppose there could be a surprise; then again, last time Commons and Lords reform got to a Labour manifesto, nothing came of it.