The direction our system of government is moving in

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: The direction our system of government is moving in
Yimmy 3/7/2007 11:16:41 PM

Good or bad? h**p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6420965.stm Am I the only one who thinks it's more than a bit off for a bunch of elected commoners to be allowed to vote what becomes of the House of Lords? Don't get me wrong, I am no Lord, but I feel our system as the status quo stands, is quite a good one. Why are we trying to fix that which is not broken? With the much reduced powers of the Queen, and now with the House of Lords becoming a simple extension of the House of Commons, I think our system is losing its balance.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

VelocityVector 3/9/2007 4:46:05 PM

Aw geeze, perhaps Mr. Bulmer isn’t the only person who has got irritating sand in his “garden.” I’ll check back here passively from time to time as I know you Brits won’t be poking noses in the U.S. political threads given reactions here. Cheers and hope to see you at your favorite watering hole soon, and in this respect I am most sincere ;>)

v^2

Quote Reply

flamingknives 3/9/2007 4:59:36 PM

Now, now. No need to go off in a huff.

I don't have the same cultural background as you and I'm not psychic. So you need to explain things rather than assuming that they are self-evident.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral 3/9/2007 8:39:21 PM

Now, now. No need to go off in a huff.

I don't have the same cultural background as you and I'm not psychic. So you need to explain things rather than assuming that they are self-evident.

Self evident truth is a building block of US politics. It's the old 'common sense' arguement. On closer examination the view is rarely one common to all and the truth of the matter requires more evidence than 'itself'. It's a US national blind-spot.

I'd like to see an elected House of Lords than has incentive and powers to completely quash badly concieved laws, rather than just send them back a couple of times. A house that is arrived at in the same manner as the commons will garner the same sentiment and response. I think that a minimum of two full terms in local government should be required to run for the Lords. In addition office in one house (Lords or Commons) should preclude office in the other place. A long term of office (half the house up for re-election every general election?) should encourage a more experienced (and less politically pressured) house.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 3/10/2007 4:37:12 AM

The trouble with elected officials is that it's a popularity contest to get, and stay, elected. With this driving force, acts of conscience are punished, because any stand on any subject will turn increments of the population against you. Repeated enough times and everyone hates you and elects someone else. Rinse and repeat.

The incentive to oppose knee-jerk and populist legislation (fox-hunting, firearms, sand in gardens) doesn't exist when your position depends on the populist opinion of you.

Quote Reply

AdamB 3/11/2007 6:19:01 AM

We need a House of Lords - elected or unelected - to keep the Commons in check.

America's Senate is the equivalent of our Lords.

The name may also be changed.

One proposal for the new name of the House of Lords is the "Witan" or "Witenagemot" which is the Anglo-Saxon ancestor of the House of Lords. It was a political institution in Anglo-Saxon England which operated between approximately the 7th century and 11th century.

The name witenagemot derives from the Old English for "meeting of wise men" (witan, wise man or counsellor; gemot, assembly). It was the remnant of the ancient tribal general assembly which had soon developed into a convocation of the land's most powerful and important people including senior clergy, ealdormen and the leading thegns speaking to the king.

Calling it the "Witan", a name from the Anglo-Saxon monachies of England, is the same as the Americans calling their equivalent the "Senate" (which they do) which derives from the Roman republics.

Quote Reply

Armchair Private 3/11/2007 10:44:15 AM

The vote on the House of Lords was a farce in constitutional terms and gave the lie to the stated ambition to"reform" it.

If you want to refrom or modenise something you have to first deceide what exactly you want it to do and be. BEFORE you decide what its make up is gonna be. It beggars belief.

From the posts above its obvious their is no consensus in the UK on what it should be, just as much as their isn't in the House of Commons. But surely we can all agree that the worst of all worlds is to end up with a 100% elected chamber whipped like the house of commons? why? because the whole point of having two chambers (Bicameral) is so that one can act as a check on the other. Duh. if it ends up whipped as well as 100% elected then it provides no value at all, as it'll vote exactly like the HoC.

Personally I like the HoL quite alot now, an elected chamber will attract exactly the sort of failed estate agent that theHoC attracts now. As it is in the Lords we have arch bishops, Melvyn Brag the astronomer royal, William Rees Mogg... people from all over the political spectrum who are united in one way: They are either at the top of their fields or have seen it all before. This is good.

The reforms as they stand at the moment strike me more as a sop to Labour's left in getting rid of the residual hereditary peers - not a bad aim on it's own (though democracy is a method to ensure reasnoble governance not some sort of holy grail end in-and-of-itself!).

After 5 centuries what's the rush exactly?

Quote Reply

flamingknives 3/11/2007 12:17:54 PM

"The reforms as they stand at the moment strike me more as a sop to Labour's left in getting rid of the residual hereditary peers - not a bad aim on it's own (though democracy is a method to ensure reasnoble governance not some sort of holy grail end in-and-of-itself!). "

Outstanding Armchair Private! Well said.

You ought to get a promotion for that.

Quote Reply

Armchair Private 3/11/2007 2:56:35 PM

Outstanding Armchair Private! Well said.

You ought to get a promotion for that.

Armchair Lance Corporal y'mean? Nah... the power would go to my head.

I'd not be surprised if you compared the voting of the HoC on various issues to the way the HoL voted to most people in the UK they'd prefer the HoL's record.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 3/11/2007 3:25:37 PM

The Lords are not a rubber stamp - they are exceptionally influential in modifying or even stopping legislation.

"The trouble with elected officials is that it's a popularity contest to get, and stay, elected."

Flamingknives & Yimmy, I understand what you are saying, but I think your argument falls down on the fact that the current situation is our elected MP's are choosing the majority (only 100 or so out 700 Lords are now hereditary) of of the Lords!! Surely this is worse than the public electing them as it means they are dependent upon the corrupt etc MPs.

As a matter of fact I don't believe that all Lords should be elected - I am quite happy with 20% being appointed ex-officio in order to provide experience and expertise, but as I said in my original post this should be done by the Lords themselves and not by the Commons.

Personally I think that the Institution should remain the "House of Lords" - this is the traditional name and it has over 800 years history. I also don't believe our MP's are corrupt or incompetent - although it's fun the call them that, in reality they are trying to reconcile many competing demands and it isn't easy to get it right! That's not to say that I always agree with them by the way.

Quote Reply

flamingknives 3/11/2007 3:45:26 PM

Tony & Co. have been out to subvert the Lords for ages, and I don't doubt that Maggie and her cohorts tried much the same thing in their tenure. There needs to be some method for selecting Lords that is not based on public popularity or under the control of the House of Commons

Quote Reply

1 2