Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News1 min ago
Abolishing The House Of Lords
This poll is closed.
Should the House Of Lords be abolished?
- No, replace it with something democratic. - 139 votes
- 41%
- Yes, abolish it (and don't replace it). - 122 votes
- 36%
- No, leave it as it is. - 51 votes
- 15%
- No, replace it with something appointed. - 30 votes
- 9%
Stats until: 14:23 Sat 16th Nov 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The current setup of the 'old boys' club is unacceptable and has been for many years.
However it is good the HoC do need to be held to account so an elected body (election offset from MP's) is probably the way forward.
At the same time I would like to see numbers in the HoC and the HoL to be drastically reduced.
However it is good the HoC do need to be held to account so an elected body (election offset from MP's) is probably the way forward.
At the same time I would like to see numbers in the HoC and the HoL to be drastically reduced.
I was taught that the House of Lords was there to act as a check to stop the House of Commons bringing in undemocratic legislation. Imagine, a few years ago when Labour had a large majority they could have passed a law allowing elections only every 50 years. This is clearly not democratic and the mere presence of a second house is enough to stop it even being attempted. They are supposed to be "wise old men" who look at the decisions made in the lower house and, if necessary, make them think again. Abolishing the Lords and not replacing it would be dangerous.
You'll be voting for Corbyn next you load of Trotskyists.
// Jeremy Corbyn has announced plans to abolish the House of Lords as part of plans for a “radical overhaul” of the British constitution which will “address the growing democratic deficit” across Britain.
The reform package will include plans to replace the upper chamber with an elected house to shape “political accountability for the future”. //
// Jeremy Corbyn has announced plans to abolish the House of Lords as part of plans for a “radical overhaul” of the British constitution which will “address the growing democratic deficit” across Britain.
The reform package will include plans to replace the upper chamber with an elected house to shape “political accountability for the future”. //
We do need a chamber to keep the Commons in check. But the problem is : if the Lords - or Upper Chamber - is to be elected, it becomes legitimate, and the PM has to pay attention to it. If it remains illegitimate, the PM does not have to take it seriously. My idea : make every qualification-awarding professional body ( accountants, architects, surgeons, pharmacists, etc) elect one member to go to the Upper Chamber, to be known a Member of Upper Chamber, or Lord MUC or Lady MUC ). You thus get all the expertise you need in one serious place to check new legislation, budgets, etc. 100 members should be ample. The MUC remains an MUC as long as s/he remains a working member of his/her professional body. Some professions will have to be lumped together - you can't have one MUC representing one tiny group. And for goodness sake, get rid of the Bishops. Even religious countries do not have members in their legislature just because they are religious.
Perhaps we should decide what the House of Lords is *for* first before deciding how to determine its size and make-up.
As an amending chamber, it's best filled with experts in the field, so that any kind of electoral process seems likely to undermine that. Not that it's there at the moment, of course -- although there are plenty of experts in the Lords alongside the failed MPs. But as soon as you want it to be filled with elected members then it follows that it should have the same sort of role and status as the Commons. Could be a great way to ensure that much less happens, especially if it turns into some sort of replica of the US system.
So I prefer atalanta's proposal to AOG's. Although agreed, in both cases let's dump the religious make-up.
As an amending chamber, it's best filled with experts in the field, so that any kind of electoral process seems likely to undermine that. Not that it's there at the moment, of course -- although there are plenty of experts in the Lords alongside the failed MPs. But as soon as you want it to be filled with elected members then it follows that it should have the same sort of role and status as the Commons. Could be a great way to ensure that much less happens, especially if it turns into some sort of replica of the US system.
So I prefer atalanta's proposal to AOG's. Although agreed, in both cases let's dump the religious make-up.
The place is stuffed with failed and crooked MPs, and "Luvvies'. Do you remember the bloke who charged you (and me) and got rewarded with a peerage. Oh and I believe his wife has been ennobled as well so they are both on 300 quid a day. Enough to. Lean the moat then?
http://
http://
// those over 80 who like to turn up and snooze. //
With the advent of TV coverage it appeared that some did so, but an old friend of mine (an hereditary peer) told me that many of these ancients have hearing problems and if you look at the padded backs of the seats, you can see small inbuilt bronze grills which are actually loud speakers, and some of the noble lords put there ear to them to follow what's going on and consequently appear to be snoozing.
With the advent of TV coverage it appeared that some did so, but an old friend of mine (an hereditary peer) told me that many of these ancients have hearing problems and if you look at the padded backs of the seats, you can see small inbuilt bronze grills which are actually loud speakers, and some of the noble lords put there ear to them to follow what's going on and consequently appear to be snoozing.
Even though the Lords eventually rolled over like the good puppies they should be I still think they need abolishing.
Replace it with a representative of the real population and anyone who expresses a political view is barred... not sure how many we would get with that criteria but it would be interesting.
Replace it with a representative of the real population and anyone who expresses a political view is barred... not sure how many we would get with that criteria but it would be interesting.
ata, I agree. But, your Lord and Lady Muck will not necessarily be the solution, for they would, by definition, have little or no appreciation of the nitty-gritty of parliamentary procedures.
Those in the HoL are not voted into membership, which, in contrast to the HoC, is a laudable institute in controlling[i our democratic processes.
It will be difficult to change -- [i]improve?] -- the status quo.
Those in the HoL are not voted into membership, which, in contrast to the HoC, is a laudable institute in controlling[i our democratic processes.
It will be difficult to change -- [i]improve?] -- the status quo.
The main reason for having the Lords is as a revising chamber to tidy up the Commons' sloppiness. For this you need people who know what they're talking about, but are not driven by party politics. That's why I prefer an appointed chamber, although who does the appointing? It would need cross party agreement.
