Abolition of the House of Lords

[Foxy2600 301]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No slagging of from me here...

I know, It just starts to get interesting, a decent debate and then 'Bang!' 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 minute ago, Foxy2600 said:

I know, It just starts to get interesting, a decent debate and then 'Bang!' 

This is it. I mean, the thread title is 'abolition of the House of Lords'. If we were to stick strictly to the thread title as I've been told I should be doing then it's hard to see how discussion can evolve beyond a yes or no answer, which doesn't really seem worthy of a whole thread to itself in the first place.

[horsefly 4,301]

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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.

 

Are you really that ignorant or just pretending in order to play your standard childish games? There is nothing in the expression "second chamber" when discussing our political structure that means it can only be located in one place. Even a child can understand a fact as simple as that. 

As for your laughably absurd "raised eyebrow" claim, perhaps even you should be capable of correlating a few dates to be able to see that my comments pre-dated the release of Brown's report. It really isn't difficult for anyone with an IQ that escapes double figures to work out that the principle of making the second chamber representative of the "regions and nations" of the UK must inevitably involve dispersing the second chamber across political bodies throughout the nation.

[horsefly 4,301]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This is it. I mean, the thread title is 'abolition of the House of Lords'. If we were to stick strictly to the thread title as I've been told I should be doing then it's hard to see how discussion can evolve beyond a yes or no answer, which doesn't really seem worthy of a whole thread to itself in the first place.

 Only a buffoon could possibly think that there is nothing to discuss in relation to the proposal to abolish the Lords. This could have been an interesting thread discussing the possibilities of how to make the second chamber a truly democratic voice of the UK population. Sadly you have no other interest than to derail such discussion with your obstinate idiocy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Are you really that ignorant or just pretending in order to play your standard childish games? There is nothing in the expression "second chamber" when discussing our political structure that means it can only be located in one place. Even a child can understand a fact as simple as that. 

As for your laughably absurd "raised eyebrow" claim, perhaps even you should be capable of correlating a few dates to be able to see that my comments pre-dated the release of Brown's report. It really isn't difficult for anyone with an IQ that escapes double figures to work out that the principle of making the second chamber representative of the "regions and nations" of the UK must inevitably involve dispersing the second chamber across political bodies throughout the nation.

It didn't predate references in the media to the plan for regional chambers.

But once again, the plans Labour has for English regional chambers doesn't involve them assuming any of the responsibilities of the Lords as an amending chamber for the Commons; they have proposed the leaders of each regional body will participate in another body to fulfill that function along with the existing bodies in Wales and Scotland.

But let's be honest: your specious effort to shut this subject down comes down to you simply not having a satisfactory answer regarding Labour dodging the question over Commons reform; if you did, you could make that argument instead of all this desperate bluster.

Edited December 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

8 hours 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.

You really are extraordinarily dumb sometimes. The idea in principle is stunningly simple to grasp. The second chamber of government has the primary function of being a revising chamber. It has NO legislative role whatsoever, and it has NO role in instituting policy. Abolition of the HOL will not alter that primary function of the second chamber remaining a revising chamber (no matter how many bodies it is dispersed across). Local parliaments, councils etc, exist to institute policy, THEY ARE NOT REVISING CHAMBERS. FFS! What is so difficult to understand about this?

Edited December 13, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,301]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It didn't predate references in the media to the plan for regional chambers.

But once again, the plans Labour has for English regional chambers doesn't involve them assuming any of the responsibilities of the Lords as an amending chamber for the Commons; they have proposed the leaders of each regional body will participate in another body to fulfill that function along with the existing bodies in Wales and Scotland.

But let's be honest: your specious effort to shut this subject down comes down to you simply not having a satisfactory answer regarding Labour dodging the question over Commons reform; if you did, you could make that argument instead of all this desperate bluster.

More lies to cover your remarkably inadequate attempt to understand politics.

And still you bring up reform of the commons in a thread about abolition of the Lords. NOTHING STOPS YOU STARTING A THREAD ON COMMONS REFORM. So why don't you do just that FFS and let the adults attend directly to the issue with which this thread is concerned.

[horsefly 4,301]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No slagging of from me here...

Shall we count the number of posters across all the other political threads who take a very clear exasperated view on your contributions. 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,187]

3 hours ago, Foxy2600 said:

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. 

Out of interest, what did you find crazy about the MEP voting system?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

29 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You really are extraordinarily dumb sometimes. The idea in principle is stunningly simple to grasp. The second chamber of government has the primary function of being a revising chamber. It has NO legislative role whatsoever, and it has NO role in instituting policy. Abolition of the HOL will not alter that primary function of the second chamber remaining a revising chamber (no matter how many bodies it is dispersed across). Local parliaments, councils etc, exist to institute policy, THEY ARE NOT REVISING CHAMBERS. FFS! What is so difficult to understand about this?

None of the proposed English regional assemblies will be acting as revising chambers for the Commons; they will assume powers devolved from the Commons. They are in no way replacements for the Lords.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

33 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Out of interest, what did you find crazy about the MEP voting system?

A system that was so ridiculous that my constituency stretched across 7 counties but had only 6 MEPs.

Edited December 13, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

48 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

A system that was so ridiculous that my constituency stretched across 7 counties but had only 6 MEPs.

The voting system for MEPs used in the UK wasn't directly the fault of the EU. The EU gives a range of options; the UK chose de Hondt as the one that gives the least proportional results.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

More lies to cover your remarkably inadequate attempt to understand politics.

And still you bring up reform of the commons in a thread about abolition of the Lords. NOTHING STOPS YOU STARTING A THREAD ON COMMONS REFORM. So why don't you do just that FFS and let the adults attend directly to the issue with which this thread is concerned.

This is a public forum. You're entitled to start a thread, and other people are entitled to bring into that thread whatever they please. In my view, the question of Commons reform ties in completely with Lords reform because the two chambers are fundamentally linked as the two chambers between which all UK legislation passes. I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on that, but fundamentally I don't care that you disagree and I will say what I want. If you're not happy with that, perhaps you should start your own new thread on your facebook page or something where you are entitled to remove people who raise related questions that you don't want to address. Here, you do not have that privilege, so get over it.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

None of the proposed English regional assemblies will be acting as revising chambers for the Commons; they will assume powers devolved from the Commons. They are in no way replacements for the Lords.

Oh dear! You really are determined to prove your stubborn and shameless ignorance. I couldn't have been more clear in saying PRECISELY that any replacement for the Lords will have to perform the same revising function of the Lords. I couldn't have been clearer in saying that because the current regional tiers of government (councils, regional parliaments etc) institute actual policy they WON'T perform that role. None of that rules out the formation of a new kind of regional assembly that will perform precisely the role of revising alone.  How can you not understand simple English you buffoon?

[horsefly 4,301]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This is a public forum. You're entitled to start a thread, and other people are entitled to bring into that thread whatever they please. In my view, the question of Commons reform ties in completely with Lords reform because the two chambers are fundamentally linked as the two chambers between which all UK legislation passes. I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on that, but fundamentally I don't care that you disagree and I will say what I want. If you're not happy with that, perhaps you should start your own new thread on your facebook page or something where you are entitled to remove people who raise related questions that you don't want to address. Here, you do not have that privilege, so get over it.

 

 

It is absolutely true that this is a public forum, and within the limits of the rules anyone can post whatever they like. However, the putative point of a public discussion is that specific issues can be discussed in a cooperative and constructive fashion. Disagreement is an important part of that process but it is only constructive disagreement when there is mutual agreement to attend to a clear issue for discussion. 

An intelligent person would accept the centuries-old fundamental principle that debate is only made genuinely possible by interlocuters focussing on clear discrete issues. Indeed, academic advancement  is premised in large part upon the permanent activity of dispelling the confusion caused by those who entangle several questions/issues  together in a mishmash of obfuscation. It is clear to anyone willing to use their brain that HOL reform can be discussed entirely separately from HOC reform. Indeed that is precisely what Labour has been trying to do. That doesn't preclude in the slightest the case that can be made for HOC reform too, and indeed I'd be stunned if anyone didn't think that was also necessary.

Sadly, it is clear (as many others have pointed out throughout several threads) that all too frequently you don't have the slightest interest in actual debate, and simply intend obstinately to sabotage the possibility of any kind of rational constructive discussion about certain particular issues.

It's a real shame because abolition of the HOL would be the biggest constitutional change since women got the vote and deserved a genuine debate on this thread about the possibilities such a momentous change could bring for advancing and regenerating democracy in this country. I'm sure many contributors on the site might have enjoyed contributing but have been put off doing so by your pointless aggressive obstinacy in trying to confuse HOL reform with the separate issue of HOC reform. Sadly, I have allowed myself to be drawn into playing your game by becoming irritated by your perpetual lying about what I have actually said.  So I'll leave you to indulge in your pathetic little game without further comment.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

It is absolutely true that this is a public forum, and within the limits of the rules anyone can post whatever they like. However, the putative point of a public discussion is that specific issues can be discussed in a cooperative and constructive fashion. Disagreement is an important part of that process but it is only constructive disagreement when there is mutual agreement to attend to a clear issue for discussion. 

An intelligent person would accept the centuries-old fundamental principle that debate is only made genuinely possible by interlocuters focussing on clear discrete issues. Indeed, academic advancement  is premised in large part upon the permanent activity of dispelling the confusion caused by those who entangle several questions/issues  together in a mishmash of obfuscation. It is clear to anyone willing to use their brain that HOL reform can be discussed entirely separately from HOC reform. Indeed that is precisely what Labour has been trying to do. That doesn't preclude in the slightest the case that can be made for HOC reform too, and indeed I'd be stunned if anyone didn't think that was also necessary.

Sadly, it is clear (as many others have pointed out throughout several threads) that all too frequently you don't have the slightest interest in actual debate, and simply intend obstinately to sabotage the possibility of any kind of rational constructive discussion about certain particular issues.

It's a real shame because abolition of the HOL would be the biggest constitutional change since women got the vote and deserved a genuine debate on this thread about the possibilities such a momentous change could bring for advancing and regenerating democracy in this country except for reform of the House of Commons which I really don't want to talk about. I'm sure many contributors on the site might have enjoyed contributing but have been put off doing so by your pointless aggressive obstinacy in trying to confuse HOL reform with the separate issue of HOC reform. Sadly, I have allowed myself to be drawn into playing your game by becoming irritated by your perpetual lying about what I have actually said.  So I'll leave you to indulge in your pathetic little game without further comment.

It's a big change undermined by the lack of key reform for the Commons. The hilarious thing about Gordon Brown's report, which includes the proposal to abolish the House of Lords, is page 6 has the following quote.

Quote

And while individual MPs do important and respected work, national politicians as a class are today the least trusted people in Britain.

So it has literally singled out the the disastrous state of affairs concerning trust in elected MPs, and yet follows up with focussing on:

• Abolition of the Lords
• Creation of new English devolved parliaments
• Creation of a new replacement second chamber

Specifically on the Lords

Quote

37. The House of Lords should be replaced with a new second chamber of Parliament: an Assembly of the Nations and Regions

38. The new second chamber should complement the House of Commons with a new role of safeguarding the UK constitution, subject to an agreed procedure that sustains the primacy of the House of Commons.

39. The new second champber must have electoral legitimacy, and should be markedly smaller than the present Lords, chosen on a different electoral cycle - with the precise composition and method of election matters for consultation.

So, overall, Labour's proposals have singled out trust in the Commons for special mention, but go on to say they'll shuffle about practically all of the constitution while doing nothing to reform what they acknowledge to be the biggest source of trust issues in the UK: The House of Commons. In fact, they are going out of their way to state that the new elected House of Lords will still be subservient to the totally unreformed Commons.

Substantial changes are the proposed devolution of powers from Westminster to new assemblies, which unfortunately is necessary after the mess Labour created by devolving power in Scotland and Wales while leaving England under direct Westminster rule to be characterised by nationalists in the Home counties as 'the English parliament'. Had they been thinking straight in 1997, perhaps they could have simply strengthened the powers of existing local councils and county councils  instead of launching expensive projects to employ more politicians .

Devolution in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland will be reviewed.

As to the composition of the new Lords, given that it will be regionally based, it cannot fail to be weighted so heavily towards England that the representatives of the other nations will be on the fringes, and if those representatives happen to be SNP or Plaid Cymru then they will use the parliament as a platform for yet more differentiation from Westminster to point the finger in a bid to stoke up more determination to break up the union.

Finally, any savings from abolishing the existing Lords will be more than consumed by the cost of creating all of these new bodies and associated civil service activities. That's not to say all of it's bad, but the fact that they've singled out the Commons as a problem while proposing absolutely no reform other than token changes to ministerial guidelines is an utter joke, while the proposed replacement for the Lords is liable to divide the constituent nations of the UK further given the extent to which English representatives will inevitably outweigh those of the other Home Nations. Had this change been complemented by change to a proportional system for the Commons then that in itself would have diluted the differences between the Home Nations by making thedifferences between leanings in different home nations exaggerated by first past the post less pronounced. 

Edit: By the way, I fixed a bit of your comment for you. You forgot to add the bit in red. 😉

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a nothing constitutional change. The hilarious thing about Gordon Brown's report, which includes the proposal to abolish the House of Lords, is page 6 has the following quote.

So it has literally singled out the the disastrous state of affairs concerning trust in elected MPs, and yet follows up with focussing on:

• Abolition of the Lords
• Creation of new English devolved parliaments
• Creation of a new replacement second chamber

Specifically on the Lords

So, overall, Labour's proposals have singled out trust in the Commons for special mention, but go on to say they'll shuffle about practically all of the constitution while doing nothing to reform what they acknowledge to be the biggest source of trust issues in the UK: The House of Commons. In fact, they are going out of their way to state that the new elected House of Lords will still be subservient to the totally unreformed Commons.

Substantial changes are the proposed devolution of powers from Westminster to new assemblies, which unfortunately is necessary after the mess Labour created by devolving power in Scotland and Wales while leaving England under direct Westminster rule to be characterised by nationalists in the Home counties as 'the English parliament'. Had they been thinking straight in 1997, perhaps they could have simply strengthened the powers of existing local councils and county councils  instead of launching expensive projects to employ more politicians .

Devolution in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland will be reviewed.

As to the composition of the new Lords, given that it will be regionally based, it cannot fail to be weighted so heavily towards England that the representatives of the other nations will be on the fringes, and if those representatives happen to be SNP or Plaid Cymru then they will use the parliament as a platform for yet more differentiation from Westminster to point the finger in a bid to stoke up more determination to break up the union.

Finally, any savings from abolishing the existing Lords will be more than consumed by the cost of creating all of these new bodies and associated civil service activities. That's not to say all of it's bad, but the fact that they've singled out the Commons as a problem while proposing absolutely no reform other than token changes to ministerial guidelines is an utter joke, while the proposed replacement for the Lords is liable to divide the constituent nations of the UK further given the extent to which English representatives will inevitably outweigh those of the other Home Nations. Had this change been complemented by change to a proportional system for the Commons then that in itself would have diluted the differences between the Home Nations by making thedifferences between leanings in different home nations exaggerated by first past the post less pronounced. 

Now post that on a thread titled: "Reform of the House of Commons". 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

As an additional thought on the replacement for the Lords, it occurs to me that, given that Labour has decided to ignore the appetite in their party to reform the Commons to a PR system, why haven't they taken the opportunity to propose a replacement to the Lords based on a proportional system to at least pay lip service to the desires of their party members to see electoral reform more in line with most progressive European nations while keeping the Commons the way it is instead of having both Houses of Parliament based on a principle of regional representation?

Edited December 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,791]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

As an additional thought on the replacement for the Lords, it occurs to me that, given that Labour has decided to ignore the appetite in their party to reform the Commons to a PR system, why haven't they taken the opportunity to propose a replacement to the Lords based on a proportional system to at least pay lip service to the desires of their party members to see electoral reform more in line with most progressive European nations while keeping the Commons the way it is instead of having both Houses of Parliament based on a principle of regional representation?

My two-penneth.

There is no reason to delay or not reform the House of Lords because of possible reform, PR or otherwise of HoC. The two are clearly separate issues and can be dealt with separately - the easier being the long overdue HoL reform. 

Somehow linking HoC and electoral PR reform with HoL reform (on whatever (non)/electoral basis) is simply a very weak, disingenuous and very transparent Tory attempt to derail such much needed reform.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

My two-penneth.

There is no reason to delay or not reform the House of Lords because of possible reform, PR or otherwise of HoC. The two are clearly separate issues and can be dealt with separately - the easier being the long overdue HoL reform. 

Somehow linking HoC and electoral PR reform with HoL reform (on whatever (non)/electoral basis) is simply a very weak, disingenuous and very transparent Tory attempt to derail such much needed reform.

Labour's proposal to abolish the Lords is accompanied by proposals to:

-Establish a new second chamber based on regional representation

-Establish several elected regional assemblies for the entirety of England 

- Change devolution arrangements for Scotland, Wales, and NI

Electoral reform for the Commons is not as big a deal as that anyway in terms of legislation; many countries have reformed their principle parliaments without fuss. Couple with that the fact that many of the proposals in Brown's report speak of having a process of consultation for them once in office, there's really no defence for not even suggesting consultation on the subject of Commons reform given that the document has an explicit agenda of restoring trust in British politics and explicitly acknowledges our national politicians as the least trusted group in society, never mind the fact Labour conference is clear in its support for Commons reform.

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

We still have to agree on the purpose of a second house.

[Yellow Fever 3,791]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We still have to agree on the purpose of a second house.

Agreed KG - That's altogether different from LYBs tirade against the current Labour proposals for reasons that seem more to do with political posturing than constructive engagement in HoL reform.

I'm personally a bit leery about a directly elected HoL but I won't let the 'perfect' become the enemy of the good.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Agreed KG - That's altogether different from LYBs tirade against the current Labour proposals for reasons that seem more to do with political posturing than constructive engagement in HoL reform.

I'm personally a bit leery about a directly elected HoL but I won't let the 'perfect' become the enemy of the good.

My objection is to the absence of Commons reform given the extensive list of far-reaching constitutional reforms included alongside Lords abolition in Brown's report; it's a glaring and indefensible omission in that context given Labour conference's explicit support of such a move.

 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

My objection is to the absence of Commons reform given the extensive list of far-reaching constitutional reforms included alongside Lords abolition in Brown's report; it's a glaring and indefensible omission in that context given Labour conference's explicit support of such a move.

 

 

I will wager I won't see meaningful reform in my lifetime. Blair pretended and the Tories change things just to suit them.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

On 20/11/2022 at 15:23, horsefly said:

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

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

 

Point of order, Horsefly. There was absolutely nothing in this comment about the House of Lords.

[horsefly 4,301]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Point of order, Horsefly. There was absolutely nothing in this comment about the House of Lords.

F**k me you really are a sad old man with too much time on your hands and too little brain to contribute anything useful. Trawl back again and you will find I didn't initiate that diversion from the subject. Do grow up.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

41 minutes ago, horsefly said:

F**k me you really are a sad old man with too much time on your hands and too little brain to contribute anything useful. Trawl back again and you will find I didn't initiate that diversion from the subject. Do grow up.

You didn't declare it off limits, either. In fact, you welcomed it with open arms and it came after your first complaint about me introducing the Lords' sister chamber to the debate before you went on to claim to have hoped about a grown-up debate about 'regenerating our democracy' as you put it.

If you're going to invent arbitrary rules, you should try and at least be consistent, even if they're so obviously stupid in the first place.

Edited December 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a big change undermined by the lack of key reform for the Commons. The hilarious thing about Gordon Brown's report, which includes the proposal to abolish the House of Lords, is page 6 has the following quote.

So it has literally singled out the the disastrous state of affairs concerning trust in elected MPs, and yet follows up with focussing on:

• Abolition of the Lords
• Creation of new English devolved parliaments
• Creation of a new replacement second chamber

Specifically on the Lords

So, overall, Labour's proposals have singled out trust in the Commons for special mention, but go on to say they'll shuffle about practically all of the constitution while doing nothing to reform what they acknowledge to be the biggest source of trust issues in the UK: The House of Commons. In fact, they are going out of their way to state that the new elected House of Lords will still be subservient to the totally unreformed Commons.

Substantial changes are the proposed devolution of powers from Westminster to new assemblies, which unfortunately is necessary after the mess Labour created by devolving power in Scotland and Wales while leaving England under direct Westminster rule to be characterised by nationalists in the Home counties as 'the English parliament'. Had they been thinking straight in 1997, perhaps they could have simply strengthened the powers of existing local councils and county councils  instead of launching expensive projects to employ more politicians .

Devolution in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland will be reviewed.

As to the composition of the new Lords, given that it will be regionally based, it cannot fail to be weighted so heavily towards England that the representatives of the other nations will be on the fringes, and if those representatives happen to be SNP or Plaid Cymru then they will use the parliament as a platform for yet more differentiation from Westminster to point the finger in a bid to stoke up more determination to break up the union.

Finally, any savings from abolishing the existing Lords will be more than consumed by the cost of creating all of these new bodies and associated civil service activities. That's not to say all of it's bad, but the fact that they've singled out the Commons as a problem while proposing absolutely no reform other than token changes to ministerial guidelines is an utter joke, while the proposed replacement for the Lords is liable to divide the constituent nations of the UK further given the extent to which English representatives will inevitably outweigh those of the other Home Nations. Had this change been complemented by change to a proportional system for the Commons then that in itself would have diluted the differences between the Home Nations by making thedifferences between leanings in different home nations exaggerated by first past the post less pronounced. 

Edit: By the way, I fixed a bit of your comment for you. You forgot to add the bit in red. 😉

 

 

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Now post that on a thread titled: "Reform of the House of Commons". 

Also, this particular post that you complained should be in a new thread about 'reform of the Commons' actually talked about the Lords proposals quite a bit, ironically.

[horsefly 4,301]

More examples to add to the long list of why the unelected House of Lords needs to be abolished:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/house-of-lords-watchdog-calls-for-suspension-of-peer-who-lobbied-matt-hancock-for-covid-sanitiser-firm/ar-AA15o2Zh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2cf1d07a249d4d49a81721a95c4ddd2a

House of Lords watchdog calls for suspension of peer who ‘lobbied Matt Hancock’ for Covid sanitiser firm

 

Ahereditary peer who allegedly lobbied the health secretary on behalf of a company marketing Covid-19 sanitiser products, whilst being paid a £3,000 monthly retainer by the firm, should be suspended from the House of Lords, a watchdog has said.

The Lords Conduct Committee has recommended that the Earl of Shrewsbury be handed a nine-month suspension for his actions and – separately – that Labour’s Baroness Goudie be suspended for six months for allegedly breaching conduct rules by using her position as a peer to help a firm paying her thousands of euros.

The Earl of Shrewsbury, who was affiliated with the Conservatives until October, was found to have approached ministers – including then-health secretary Matt Hancock – and other officials on behalf of healthcare firm SpectrumX.

He worked as a consultant for the firm for 19 months between 2020 and 2022, during which period he was paid around £57,000 in total and also worked as a government whip, the report said....

 

Separately on Friday, the committee reported that Baroness Goudie had breached rules prohibiting peers from seeking profit from their peerage in return for providing parliamentary advice or services – a charge she refutes.

Standards commissioner Martin Jelley found she advised the eco-friendly cremation firm ecoLegacy on which parliamentarians to approach, and registered her interests too late.

She also broke the rules by offering to reserve a committee room for ecoLegacy to engage with politicians, and by commissioning research by the Lords Library into cremation and air pollution, the commissioner found.

The committee said that Lady Goudie was paid a total of €20,000 over 10 months after entering into a consultancy agreement with the company in 2016.

[horsefly 4,301]

Read it and weep: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/29/one-in-10-tory-peers-have-given-more-than-100000-to-party

One in 10 Tory peers have given more than £100,000 to party

Exclusive: 27 members of House of Lords have donated almost £50m in total to Conservatives

 

One in 10 Conservative peers are big donors to the party, giving almost £50m in total, new analysis shows, amid controversy over more financial backers believed to have been put forward on Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list.

After speculation about more donors due to get peerages within the coming weeks, figures compiled by the Guardian show 27 out of the party’s 274 peers have given more than £100,000 to the Conservatives.

 

The rate of donors being given peerages appears to have picked up over the last six years, during the tenures of Theresa May and Boris Johnson.

The new year honours list giving out knighthoods and damehoods is due to be published on Friday, with Rishi Sunak under pressure to clean up politics by cutting out big donors. Last year under Johnson, David Winton Harding, a billionaire hedge fund manager who had given £1.5m to the Tories, was given a knighthood.

During his three years in power, Johnson submitted the names of six major donors for peerages, including three financiers: Sir Michael Hintze, who has given £4.5m to the Conservatives; Michael Spencer, who together with his company has given about £7m; and Peter Cruddas, who has donated £3.4m.

At least two more donors – David Ross, the Carphone Warehouse founder who arranged Johnson’s £15,000 holiday in Mustique in 2020, and Stuart Marks, a technology entrepreneur – have been tipped for a peerages in his resignation honours list. The list has been expected for some time, but it appears to have been held up during the vetting process, with Sunak facing calls from Labour to block it.

There has also been a growing trend of big donor peers being given jobs as ministers. Most recently, Liz Truss requested a peerage for Dominic Johnson, a former party vice-chairman who has given more than £300,000 and was the business partner of her then business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg. He was subsequently appointed as a trade minister, a job he then retained under Rishi Sunak.

At least six big donor peers have been given government jobs in the last decade, including two schools ministers (Theodore Agnew and John Nash), a Scotland Office minister (Malcolm Offord) and a business minister (Jonathan Marland). Dolar Popat served as a government whip. ...

(It's worth reading the rest of this article from the link above)

Edited December 30, 2022 by horsefly