Lords Reform

[Peter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6339401.stm

[merseysider]

My guess is that what will happen will be the same as what happened the last time Lords reform was attempted, i.e. nothing.

Personally I favour abolition. I see no need for a second chamber. There are a number of established democracies which manage without an upper house, such as New Zealand and Israel.

[Peter]

New Zealand and Israel do not often have majority governments of one party, so often the more silly policies that the leading partners come up with will be moderated by the smaller partners. In the UK we rarely have that luxury, so I feel some counter-balance to the whims of the government are needed.

[J. J.]

I support a Lords, preferably with hereditary peers being able to speak, and some elected with voting power.

[Hash]

Atleast make it like the Canadian Senate, but I favour either a directly-elected "Senate" or pure and simple abolition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

M.P's have voted. And the results are:

All appointed: rejected by a majority of 179 votes
20% and 40% elected: rejected, no vote
Half elected/Half appointed: rejected by 263
60% elected: rejected by 214
80% elected: backed by 38
All elected: backed by 113
To remove the remaining hereditary peers: backed by 280 votes

The votes weren't binding but will, in theory at least, influence what the Government does next.

[afleitch]

Why the hell we are still debating Lords reform at all this late on is beyond me. It is Blair's personal control freakery in action trying to manufacture a favourable situation. Just elect the bloody chamber even, Tony, if it means your lot don't win.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Apparently both Blair and Cameron voted against an all-elected Lords. Or at least, that's what I heard.

[Democratic Hawk]

60%. Now that MP's have decided that they favor a 100% elected 'Lords', I'm reasonably optimistic that it will pass

The 100% elected-option is my preference

Dave

[Silent Hunter]

On 80%, Cameron voted yes, Blair didn't vote. Cameron voted no on 100%.

Blair's at the European Council, so couldn't vote anyway.

[Angel of Death]

Wouldn't it be a riot if the House of Lords ended up being elected by proportional representation before the House of Commons?

[Richard]

Can't the House of Lords simply vote against this?  And can't Her Majesty refuse to ascend it to the throne?  Why would they go with it?

Either be a good little boy and make a real constitutional republic, or keep your older system before that 1999 act.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can't the House of Lords simply vote against this?

Yeah, but there's this thing called the Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to force through legislation even if the Lords votes against it; in other words, unlike many other upper chambers, the Lords doesn't have the power to block legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. The monarch is only there for decoration and has no real power.

[Richard]

She (well, her representative) just recently refused to ascend a gay marriage bill in Australia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Australia isn't Britain. Not really sure how things work over there, but over here the constitutional convention is that the Queen does exactly what the Government tells her to do.
The last time the monarch refused Royal Assent was in 1707.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Lords have voted for an All Appointed Lords (suprise, suprise...) and to reject the other options.
This means that either something will be forced through via the Parliament Act, or that more backroom compromises will be made.

[True Democrat]

Why does Blair have this odd obsession with ending any influence from the House of Lords?  Also, if the Lords becomes an elected body, would it have real power?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why does Blair have this odd obsession with ending any influence from the House of Lords?

He doesn't. The only reason why Lords reform is still an issue is because he got bored of it after his first term (basically. I suppose a sneering remark about him growing to enjoy the patronage could be made but, frankly, I can't think think of any former P.M's that didn't or many politicians that wouldn't). I sometimes think that he has a short attention span.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No more than it does now probably, though it would have more moral authority I guess.

[Democratic Hawk]

The Lords have voted for an All Appointed Lords (suprise, suprise...) and to reject the other options.

The current House of Lords is nowt but a:





Dave