The House of Lords

[sanada]

MP's have been calling for the House of Lords too be elected, if this were to happen the system for winning seats in the House of Lords would be a Representative system, instead of the House of Commons 'first past the post' system of winning seats,
so this leaves me wondering, the House of Lords will be more democratic than the House of Commons, and soon the House of Commons will be targeted for been 'undemocratic'.

I ask for you're very important opinions on two things;
Should the House of Lords remain as it is?
and...
Is Representative voting a good system? This would lead to power sharing governments etc etc

[removeduser_487563287433]

Okay.

Firstly which MPs have been calling for the House of Lords to be elected? I think you will find it is only a tiny proportion. Sounds like baseless rubbish to me.

The reform of the House of Lords started as the best and degenerated into the worst thing about Tony Blair's premiership.

[sanada]

Firstly which MPs have been calling for the House of Lords to be elected? I think you will find it is only a tiny proportion. Sounds like baseless rubbish to me.

I see your point, should of been posted in the mud pit,

the main aim of this topic was to invoke discussion about Representative voting system, using the House of Lords example as a kind of anchor.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's better democratically but is infinitely more complicated and boring and will certainly lead to massive voter apathy, especially when voting for the House of Lords which most people either think irrelevent or don't know anything about, and would actually harm democracy in Britain. It would also upset our system and destroy the strong governments that we enjoy.

It would be the political equivelent of getting cat aids.

[Evolution]

Donate 1 Million pound to Gordon brown, bow on one knee to the queen and

TAADAA You are a WIG WEARING Plonka of a LORD.

[Ummagumma]

The House of Lords is a good system to hold in check some of the more stupid things the House of Commons has wished to legislate, but I cannot find any redeeming feature to life peerage. No one should be 'born to rule'.

[MasterOfNone]

I agree - although representatives of the people should be elected, the reality at this time is that the House of Lords has indeed blocked some of the terrible legilsation originating in the House of Commons.

Personally I would like to see the House of Lords represent the counties and be elected by the county legislatures to protect the independence of the counties - functioning a little like the original US Senate and tempering the effects of democracy from the Lower House and providing a check upon government.

[Ummagumma]

Yes. The House itself is fine. My only issue is the non-election of members. On one hand, you have the 'right' to direct influence just for being born into the family of Fortesque-Smythe-Wingnut-Elderberry-Coburg-St John-Mollusc, or from becoming Knighted for re-writing 'Candle in the Wind' for mass public consumption.
The institution should remain, but the qualifications for entry need drastic reforms.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Just how are people chosen for the House of Lords and what power do they have. Is it like the Senate where they have to approve legislation put forward by congress?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Just how are people chosen for the House of Lords and what power do they have. Is it like the Senate where they have to approve legislation put forward by congress?

Yes. Parliament, like Congress, is a bicameral legislature with an upper and lower house where legislation passed by the lower house (the commons or the house) has to be accepted by the upper house (the lords or the senate). However, Parliament is more complicated because the commons can invoke the Parliament Act to force through legislation.

Lords are selected in a number of ways. There are still hereditary peers, but they have had the power to vote taken from them. There is a collection of bishops and usually the chief rabbi has a seat. There are a number of law lords who form our version of the Supreme Court (the House of Lords is the highest court of appeal, as well as being the upper house of the legislature). But the vast majority of the lords are merely appointed by the Prime Minister.

[Woad-Warrier]

The House of Lords definitely needs to scale down its membership.. so thats its a smaller more effective house. Most of the guys I've seen in there look half dead .

I think it should be appointed though, I personally don't see the point of having two houses exactly the same except the two having different age groups. The House of Lords definitely should keep the priests and gain some real power though. Perhaps it could handle financial matters like it did in the past.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Get real. The bishops should be the first things to go from the House of Lords. They have no business whatsoever in government.

[Ummagumma]

You know why it used to handle financial matters though?
Because it was full of the stinking rich landed gentry. They were just protecting their interests.
Maybe, instead of two houses that would be very similar with a public vote, it could be run by those most suited. By that I mean that each respective field sends their most qualified people to adjudicate on matters. Scientists, Doctors, etc - Similar to the Law Lords (who, as far as I know, are appointed by their peers). Have each body select who they think are the brightest stars to come forth, so for example the British Medical Council would have to appoint x members to sit for each term. I'm not sure about the Bishops.. I would prefer a total separation of state and religion - but I am an atheist so I guess that is expected.

[MaximiIian]

For some reason that reminds me of Soviet or Council democracy, which in turn reminds me of corporatism, albeit a democratic form of corporatism.

Interesting idea, though. If properly done, it could work better than Britain's current system.

[LoZz]

tbh even though they are not elected i still find myself agreeing with the lords more then i do with the elected commons, even though they are not elected lords seem trustable

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

Could somebody explane to me why the hell you even have a house of lords?!

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Could somebody explane to me why the hell you even have a house of lords?!

To solve the problem of Homeless lords, we don't want our aristocracy wandering the streets.

In reality, it was a sort of 'council of Nobles' that advised the Monarch, as power has passed to parliament and more specifically to the commons the Lords has remained because no one can be bothered to change it.

[Woad-Warrier]

Could somebody explane to me why the hell you even have a house of lords?!

It acts as a counter to the commons. And so provides balance in some of the stupid legislature that comes from the commons.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Could somebody explane to me why the hell you even have a house of lords?!

It's the upper house of our bicameral legislature.

[Tom Paine]

Okay.

Firstly which MPs have been calling for the House of Lords to be elected? I think you will find it is only a tiny proportion. Sounds like baseless rubbish to me.

The reform of the House of Lords started as the best and degenerated into the worst thing about Tony Blair's premiership.

The majority of MPs voted for a system of 100% elected in the Lords, when the vote came up earlier this year. "Tiny proportion"? Hardly; it is a politically very popular, very strong position; see this news story. In the end your dismissal is, well, wrong.


Anyways. A more democratic upper House would be a great idea, providing the Parliament Act was removed; one democratic House overriding the other is a simple absurdity, when the Act was passed on the basis of the Lords being undemocratic. As to whether PR is a good system, if its used for a second House, not the one from which a government is formed, I don't personally see an issue; in the end its all good as it allows a greater range of views to be heard.