Abolition of the House of Lords

[horsefly 4,301]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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.

The idea that it is legitimate to discuss House of Lords reform only if one also discusses House of Commons reform is utterly ridiculous. For a start one of those chambers is elected according to democratic principles and the other isn't. The case for reforming the unelected chamber to bring it into line with democratic government is patently obvious. None of that precludes any future discussion of reforms elsewhere.

Edited December 6, 2022 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Labour control the Metropolitans parliamentally but not locally. I am sure they would be as guilty as the Tories for wanting to see a backstop (three years since we mentioned that) should they lose their core voters.

[Barbe bleu 826]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

 

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).

 

Just because a l9ot of countries (most of which directly or indirectly copied us) have two chambers doesn't mean it is necessary.  No one thinks that Sweden, Germany or New Zealand are not fully functioning democracies despite going  down the 'one and done' route.

I'd maybe keep it for the pomp and expert debate but put what little power it has in the regional bodies.   Labour's proposal just duplicates unnecessarily.

But if I'm honest. I dont really care. Lords reform is way down my list of 'give a damns'.  I'm just posting as I was bored earlier and wanted to catch up with the lyb-horsefly gestalt.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

36 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Just because a l9ot of countries (most of which directly or indirectly copied us) have two chambers doesn't mean it is necessary.  No one thinks that Sweden, Germany or New Zealand are not fully functioning democracies despite going  down the 'one and done' route.

I'd maybe keep it for the pomp and expert debate but put what little power it has in the regional bodies.   Labour's proposal just duplicates unnecessarily.

But if I'm honest. I dont really care. Lords reform is way down my list of 'give a damns'.  I'm just posting as I was bored earlier and wanted to catch up with the lyb-horsefly gestalt.

There are two ways of looking at it I suppose. On the one hand, two chambers offers an opportunity to get different perspectives on legislation and more thought into the consequences of legislation before it comes to pass, but on the other hand, it also gives more time for lobbyists to get their hooks in and water down/influence legislation in a way that might not necessarily be for the public good. On balance, I like that legislation has a bit of back and forth in our system, but I accept that a single chamber can work.

If we did go for an elected second chamber, I'd definitely be in favour of it reacquiring the ability to stop legislation from the commons as many times as it wanted, seeing as there's no reason for another elected chamber to have equal weight to the first. I think It'd also be very desirable for there to be absolutely no party whips in a second revising chamber.

[horsefly 4,301]

Barbe bleu

Just because a l9ot of countries (most of which directly or indirectly copied us) have two chambers doesn't mean it is necessary.  No one thinks that Sweden, Germany or New Zealand are not fully functioning democracies despite going  down the 'one and done' route.

I'd maybe keep it for the pomp and expert debate but put what little power it has in the regional bodies.   Labour's proposal just duplicates unnecessarily.

But if I'm honest. I dont really care. Lords reform is way down my list of 'give a damns'.  I'm just posting as I was bored earlier and wanted to catch up with the lyb-horsefly gestalt.

Getting rid of an unelected second chamber riddled with corruption and privilege and replacing it with an elected one that that has genuine representation from the regions of the UK "duplicates" what exactly? Take the East Anglian region as an example, just what would be "duplicated" by ensuring a second chamber has genuine elected representatives from this region? It's entirely your prerogative not to care, as it is entirely my prerogative to embrace Labour's attempt to regenerate faith and participation in our political system by making the most fundamental reform to our democracy since women got the vote. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by horsefly

[Herman 9,768]

One of the brexiters main reasons, or so they said, for leaving the EU was because of the "unelected leaders that we couldn't get rid of". But a proposal to get rid of a genuine unelected chamber in the UK is met with apathy and a big shrug of the shoulders from the same people. Strange.

[horsefly 4,301]

9 minutes ago, Herman said:

One of the brexiters main reasons, or so they said, for leaving the EU was because of the "unelected leaders that we couldn't get rid of". But a proposal to get rid of a genuine unelected chamber in the UK is met with apathy and a big shrug of the shoulders from the same people. Strange.

Spot on Herman! Democracies become degenerate when apathetic scepticism prevails in the voting public. You would think that Labour's attempt to restore faith and credibility to our political system by making the second chamber truly representative of the regions and nations of the country would be welcomed by anyone moved enough to take the slightest interest in politics (such as those posting about it on a social forum for example). I suspect the same people shrugging their shoulders are identical with the same set who complain that "they're all the same" when yet another unelected Lord/Lady is exposed as corrupt. But of course, they will happily point out, "There's nothing you can do about it" as they deride Labour's proposal to actually do something about it.

[king canary 7,607]

It does feel like the Mone scandal is absolutely perfectly timed for Starmer now. 

Unelected peer, milking the country of money in a time of crisis while simultaneously barely actually showing up to the Lords to do the apparent 'job' she was asked to do. A perfect example of everything wrong with the second chamber really.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Abolition of the Lords is the default offered By Labour, like so many times before. I cannot see how they can keep their accolade seeking donors to their party happy and no detailed plans are offered. I'm sure that council leaders, fed upwith patting themselves on the back inside their Link magazine, at a cost of 90K, are eager to ensure that only party political puppets will sit in such chamber.

Why not abolish it and be done with it, because you have no more opposition in this country with radically different ideas to that of those who have cut the system to shreds for 12 years, serving themselves and their business mates and in reality we should look at a new form of politics that does not shut out the public from these incessant party political drones who get elected on false promises and outright lies.

The planned impoverishment of the public is obvious and to speak of inflation being the only important issue today, shields the mistakes made with strawmen arguments and lets crooks ruin our public services.

I feel knackered by these hunts and do not believe anything they want amplifying as they can't change their spots. Watch their 'independently assessed' ( my fat backside) remunerations going up by more than inflation.

As for justice, forget it. They are happily vilifying young people via the media, just as the unions,for daring to want a more sustainable future away from fossil fuels, wanting a change to housing policies, wanting a fair pay negotiation and for daring to protest non violently. Instead they are using the courts for their fascist aims, jailing those who they need in future to be part of society.

Starmer is an American stooge who values the needs and wishes of foreign rogue states more than the voters who were hoodwinked with his backstabbing diatribe.

[Barbe bleu 826]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

Barbe bleu

Just because a l9ot of countries (most of which directly or indirectly copied us) have two chambers doesn't mean it is necessary.  No one thinks that Sweden, Germany or New Zealand are not fully functioning democracies despite going  down the 'one and done' route.

I'd maybe keep it for the pomp and expert debate but put what little power it has in the regional bodies.   Labour's proposal just duplicates unnecessarily.

But if I'm honest. I dont really care. Lords reform is way down my list of 'give a damns'.  I'm just posting as I was bored earlier and wanted to catch up with the lyb-horsefly gestalt.

Getting rid of an unelected second chamber riddled with corruption and privilege and replacing it with an elected one that that has genuine representation from the regions of the UK "duplicates" what exactly? Take the East Anglian region as an example, just what would be "duplicated" by ensuring a second chamber has genuine elected representatives from this region? It's entirely your prerogative not to care, as it is entirely my prerogative to embrace Labour's attempt to regenerate faith and participation in our political system by making the most fundamental reform to our democracy since women got the vote. 

In the case of Scotland, Wales, N Ireland London there are already fully democratic  regional bodies.  In most other regions there are mayors or regional representation groups that could easily be built up into a full body.  One suggestion is to  just empower the members of these bodies.

I'm  not sure what having another regional body would achieve. If I lived in London I would have potentially four people directly elected to  represent my regional interests ('new lord',  local assembly member, list assembly member, mayor)  but only two or three local (volunteer) representatives and only one for national and international matters.  That's overkill in the middle tier and inevitably will lead to the middle leaking into the upper or/and lower.  I just dont see the need or the desirability.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

In the case of Scotland, Wales, N Ireland London there are already fully democratic  regional bodies.  In most other regions there are mayors or regional representation groups that could easily be built up into a full body.  One suggestion is to  just empower the members of these bodies.

I'm  not sure what having another regional body would achieve. If I lived in London I would have potentially four people directly elected to  represent my regional interests ('new lord',  local assembly member, list assembly member, mayor)  but only two or three local (volunteer) representatives and only one for national and international matters.  That's overkill in the middle tier and inevitably will lead to the middle leaking into the upper or/and lower.  I just dont see the need or the desirability.

 

Perhaps it might be best to wait and see what Labour's detailed plans actually are for the second chamber. It would be naive to think that it is not well aware of the various tiers of government with which a new chamber would need to relate. At this stage Labour has done nothing more than commit to the principle of abolishing the Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber. I fail to see how anyone can genuinely quibble at the abolition of a chamber that is a paradigm of privilege, cronyism, corruption, and orthogonal to every aspect of the democratic ideal which the UK claims to uphold. Perhaps you might consider writing to Labour HQ to express your concerns, that would be a very noble example of the sort of participatory democracy that a reformed second chamber is meant to encourage.

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps it might be best to wait and see what Labour's detailed plans actually are for the second chamber. It would be naive to think that it is not well aware of the various tiers of government with which a new chamber would need to relate. At this stage Labour has done nothing more than commit to the principle of abolishing the Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber. I fail to see how anyone can genuinely quibble at the abolition of a chamber that is a paradigm of privilege, cronyism, corruption, and orthogonal to every aspect of the democratic ideal which the UK claims to uphold. Perhaps you might consider writing to Labour HQ to express your concerns, that would be a very noble example of the sort of participatory democracy that a reformed second chamber is meant to encourage.

I'm not arguing against abolition in current form. No one really is. 

What I am cautioning against is there being a directly elected second chamber, particularly if that is going to pointlessly duplicate or dilute existing bodies.  

Edited December 7, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,792]

I think the principal that the HoL as it stands should be abolished is now already accepted and set. Mone killed it off good and proper. Well done Labour.

As to what replaces it is a fair discussion. The Tories should get onboard pronto with its abolition and already be offering constructive alternative solutions else they will increasingly look like they are simply clinging onto inbuilt/inbred privilege and cronyism.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not arguing against abolition in current form. No one really is. 

What I am cautioning against is there being a directly elected second chamber, particularly if that is going to pointlessly duplicate or dilute existing bodies.  

The present HOL is fundamentally a revising chamber. As such it doesn't duplicate or dilute existing political bodies. That fundamental function will remain true of a reformed second chamber. The key difference will be that the people doing the revising will be democratically elected representatives of all the regions and nations of the UK. I really don't think your concerns are remotely likely to present a problem. But sure, it's always wise to remain cautious.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

The present HOL is fundamentally a revising chamber. As such it doesn't duplicate or dilute existing political bodies. That fundamental function will remain true of a reformed second chamber. The key difference will be that the people doing the revising will be democratically elected representatives of all the regions and nations of the UK. I really don't think your concerns are remotely likely to present a problem. But sure, it's always wise to remain cautious.

How can anyone defend a chamber that has Ian Botham given a pension and a red fur coat because he was outspoken about Brexit?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

waiting for Labour to reveal its detailed plans? why? Have they not got a duty to tell voters what their plans are over and above today's lies replacing their old ones? Look what Labours deregulation under Blair achieved and what voting with most of the Tories policies has done. Norfolk and Suffolk crimping together because some Tory Councillors are copying their national un-mandated leaders behaviour. For the leaders we have nothing but growth and business matters, and at any costs to our children's future.

12 years of unmitigated mongering and self serving, with no end to their chaotic existence and without us being able to get alternatives to such party political greed being giving a hearing or mention. What has the HoL revised when we have 120.000 children without a proper home?

Incremental change has not worked out, trickle down economics trickles upwards into already brimming pockets. Money for new fighter jets to carry on with the pretense of an empire? whilst a working nation relies on food banks.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

waiting for Labour to reveal its detailed plans? why? Have they not got a duty to tell voters what their plans are over and above today's lies replacing their old ones? Look what Labours deregulation under Blair achieved and what voting with most of the Tories policies has done. Norfolk and Suffolk crimping together because some Tory Councillors are copying their national un-mandated leaders behaviour. For the leaders we have nothing but growth and business matters, and at any costs to our children's future.

12 years of unmitigated mongering and self serving, with no end to their chaotic existence and without us being able to get alternatives to such party political greed being giving a hearing or mention. What has the HoL revised when we have 120.000 children without a proper home?

Incremental change has not worked out, trickle down economics trickles upwards into already brimming pockets. Money for new fighter jets to carry on with the pretense of an empire? whilst a working nation relies on food banks.

 

Its no good waiting on SKS. I have an awful feeling he is going to screw things up unless he grows a pair. Didn't he see Corbyn's popularity crumble when he prevaricated over Brexit?

[dylanisabaddog 4,930]

On 20/11/2022 at 09:57, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

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

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

The Guardian is now openly criticising the absence of Commons reform in Labour's proposals on the constitution: "House of Lords reform is necessary, but not a sufficient constitutional change to mend Britain’s broken politics."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/09/the-guardian-view-on-proportional-representation-labour-should-back-it

[horsefly 4,301]

23 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Guardian is now openly criticising the absence of Commons reform in Labour's proposals on the constitution: "House of Lords reform is necessary, but not a sufficient constitutional change to mend Britain’s broken politics."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/09/the-guardian-view-on-proportional-representation-labour-should-back-it

Start a thread on Commons reform then FFS! This one is about abolition of the Lords.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

36 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Start a thread on Commons reform then FFS! This one is about abolition of the Lords.

The editorial specifically mentions the House of Lords policy...

Edited December 11, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The editorial specifically mentions the House of Lords policy...

So what! It merely says HOL reform is necessary before it moves on to discuss possible reforms elsewhere. This thread is specifically about abolition of the Lords NOT reform of the Commons. Nothing prevents you starting up a separate thread about HOC reform.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

 

On 11/12/2022 at 08:42, horsefly said:

So what! It merely says HOL reform is necessary before it moves on to discuss possible reforms elsewhere. This thread is specifically about abolition of the Lords NOT reform of the Commons. Nothing prevents you starting up a separate thread about HOC reform.

 

You've engaged positively regarding the subject of creating regional parliaments in England on this thread. If only discussion of the abolition of the House of Lords is permissible, by rights you should have tried to shut down conversation on regional parliaments as well, which also goes beyond the subject of the abolition of the Lords into the question of other possible reforms.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

47 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

 

You've engaged positively regarding the subject of creating regional parliaments in England on this thread. If only discussion of the abolition of the House of Lords is permissible, by rights you should have tried to shut down conversation on regional parliaments as well, which also goes beyond the subject of the abolition of the Lords into the question of other possible reforms.

 

Not remotely accurate! I discussed the possibility of regional parliaments as constituting the second chamber when the Lords is abolished, so quite clearly that is directly related. You keep raising the very separate issue of PR and reform of the Commons. It really isn't difficult to grasp.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

43 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Not remotely accurate! I discussed the possibility of regional parliaments as constituting the second chamber when the Lords is abolished, so quite clearly that is directly related. You keep raising the very separate issue of PR and reform of the Commons. It really isn't difficult to grasp.

It's a proposal to create a new layer of regional government in England as opposed to the UK, substantially different to the House of Lords in function and purpose, and more akin to the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales; it has no relevance to the question of the abolition of the House of Lords in and of itself.

The only difference is it happens to be a Labour proposal included in Brown's report - unlike Commons reform - which makes it welcome as part of your party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party dressed up as a discussion of the abolition of the House of Lords.

Edited December 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a proposal to create a new layer of regional government in England as opposed to the UK, substantially different to the House of Lords in function and purpose, and more akin to the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales; it has no relevance to the question of the abolition of the House of Lords in and of itself.

The only difference is it happens to be a Labour proposal included in Brown's report - unlike Commons reform - which makes it welcome as part of your party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party dressed up as a discussion of the abolition of the House of Lords.

FFS! Read what I ACTUALLY said. I merely suggested that one possible way of constituting a second chamber representative of the regions and nations would be to disperse the second chamber through bodies like reginal assemblies. It is ENTIRELY a point connected to what might replace the HOL. Now please block me again instead of posting this utterly disingenuous and irritating irrelevance.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

FFS! Read what I ACTUALLY said. I merely suggested that one possible way of constituting a second chamber representative of the regions and nations would be to disperse the second chamber through bodies like reginal assemblies. It is ENTIRELY a point connected to what might replace the HOL. Now please block me again instead of posting this utterly disingenuous and irritating irrelevance.

That's not a second chamber; that's many chambers.

Also, the fact that these chambers would not be a replacement for the Lords is reinforced by the fact that, in addition to Brown suggesting chambers eerily similar to your own suggestion - so similar that to suggest it's coincidental is worthy of a raised eyebrow - Brown's report proposes that the replacement to the Lords be another body consisting of the leaders of these new English bodies - not UK bodies-  plus the leaders of the existing Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish assemblies, rather than these new English regional assemblies performing the function of the Lords.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Foxy2600 301]

Aaaaaaaand ...........the thread follows the usual turn of events and segues into personal slagging off and semantics 🙄

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

5 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

Aaaaaaaand ...........the thread follows the usual turn of events and segues into personal slagging off and semantics 🙄

No slagging of from me here...

[Foxy2600 301]

But before anyone levels at me I brought nothing to the party, I did vote Brexit for the reasons previously stated - i.e. being unable to remove another layer of bureaucracy due to the crazy MEP voting system. Also the the monthly sitting of the EU Parliament in Strasbourg seemed an unnecessary extravagance. However, I am all for the unelected chamber being got rid off and I probably speak for a lot of Brexiters too. I also think having 650 MP's is ridiculous. Whether there could be a second chamber of maybe 100 elected members representative of Regions and elected by PR? Well it would certainly get my vote.