News0 min ago
Should The Lords Be ‘Axed’
I’m not sure whether the term ‘axed’ is appropriate - like the removal of a British institution should be treated like a reality TV programme on Channel Five:
https:/
But do you think that the Lords should now be axed because it is so out of step with what the British public want (with regards to Brexit)?
Is it no longer fit for purpose?
https:/
But do you think that the Lords should now be axed because it is so out of step with what the British public want (with regards to Brexit)?
Is it no longer fit for purpose?
Answers
> it is acting as a barrier to democratical
15:21 Wed 09th May 2018
NJ
You put forward:
//They portray a sense of superiority which is very much ubjustified//
Lords are superior to the rest of us. They’re lords.
We are not.
I totally do no agree with the idea that at the end of our lives we are all equal.
Nothing wrong with looking up to people who are socially, psychologically or intellectually superior.
Just as there’s no problem looking down at morons.
You put forward:
//They portray a sense of superiority which is very much ubjustified//
Lords are superior to the rest of us. They’re lords.
We are not.
I totally do no agree with the idea that at the end of our lives we are all equal.
Nothing wrong with looking up to people who are socially, psychologically or intellectually superior.
Just as there’s no problem looking down at morons.
"Says the guy who’s profession dress up like a cross between an c18th clergyman and a c16th dandy."
Er...I don't ever recall revealing my profession on AB.
"Lords are superior to the rest of us. They’re lords."
That's the problem, sp. They don't gain such superiority simply by being elevated to the House. They are not chosen for their intellectual superiority. Many of them are political has-beens (or never have beens) and have no claim to any of the social, psychological or intellectual superiority you suggest.
By all means keep the Lords as a sort of glorified West End club (provided it is sustained solely by members' subscriptions). Let the government of the day reward their friends and cronies with membership (perhaps paying their first year's subs out of their own pocket). But replace their function as a second legislative chamber by something a little slimmer and more fit-for-purpose.
Er...I don't ever recall revealing my profession on AB.
"Lords are superior to the rest of us. They’re lords."
That's the problem, sp. They don't gain such superiority simply by being elevated to the House. They are not chosen for their intellectual superiority. Many of them are political has-beens (or never have beens) and have no claim to any of the social, psychological or intellectual superiority you suggest.
By all means keep the Lords as a sort of glorified West End club (provided it is sustained solely by members' subscriptions). Let the government of the day reward their friends and cronies with membership (perhaps paying their first year's subs out of their own pocket). But replace their function as a second legislative chamber by something a little slimmer and more fit-for-purpose.
The idea of the Lords is a good one but its implementation is anachronistic.
It should be smaller, fixed size and populated by PR. I would use the same election as the Commons, but apply the results using PR; this would to some extent work against tactical voting. The Parliament Act should then be toughened up to take account of a more legitimate Lords.
It should be smaller, fixed size and populated by PR. I would use the same election as the Commons, but apply the results using PR; this would to some extent work against tactical voting. The Parliament Act should then be toughened up to take account of a more legitimate Lords.
It's a reasonable proposal, ellipsis. For my part, I just find it ironic that this would have been sorted beforehand, during the Coalition government -- Lords Reform being a key LibDem policy -- but all this was killed by the Tories in or around 2012. MPs voting against included David Davis (Brexit Sec.), Jacob Rees-Mogg, Penny Mordaunt, John Redwood, Nadine Dorries, Zac Goldsmith, and Labour's Frank Field -- all of whom are (hard) Brexit supporters.
https:/
https:/
The sterile argument, should it be elected or appointed, is pointless. We need a second chamber, to revise and advise, and the answer is the French/German model. As almost all legislation affects local government, to a lesser or greater degree, let the second chamber be composed of representatives of local authorities (borough, district, county, regional, mayoral etc) and that solves the problem. No need for elections, small on-cost, and the second chamber represents the countries (Wales, Scot, NI) and counties and has the expertise so beloved of the supporters of the present chamber.
"Shouldn't this second chamber be elected?
By us?"
I'd go along with that as long as party politics did not enter the equation. But it inevitably will and so you replicate some of the problems currently evident. The parties will put up their preferred candidates who will probably be Commons rejects or has-beens. You can see this in miniature with the election of Police & Crime commissioners.
I'm afraid your idea does noy appeal to me, scooping. The main reason is that I'd like to see the abolition of all levels of local government, from Parish Councils through to devolved assemblies, abolished.
By us?"
I'd go along with that as long as party politics did not enter the equation. But it inevitably will and so you replicate some of the problems currently evident. The parties will put up their preferred candidates who will probably be Commons rejects or has-beens. You can see this in miniature with the election of Police & Crime commissioners.
I'm afraid your idea does noy appeal to me, scooping. The main reason is that I'd like to see the abolition of all levels of local government, from Parish Councils through to devolved assemblies, abolished.
"what’s the point in another"
The point is that it does a different job. The lower house governs, the upper house checks the proposal is sensible and the will of the people; preventing such things as knee jerk reactions, etc.. It is neither there to rubber stamp, nor to impose their own view in order to thwart the legitimate goverance of the lower house.
IMO the upper chamber must be fully elected in order to be democratic. Political parties should be barred to avoid favourtism of parties in the lower house. Representatives are there to support the people not political ideology. Terms should be longer to ensure stability, and only part of the house up for re-election at a time to ensure hysteresis rather than sudden dramatic change of view for the house.
The point is that it does a different job. The lower house governs, the upper house checks the proposal is sensible and the will of the people; preventing such things as knee jerk reactions, etc.. It is neither there to rubber stamp, nor to impose their own view in order to thwart the legitimate goverance of the lower house.
IMO the upper chamber must be fully elected in order to be democratic. Political parties should be barred to avoid favourtism of parties in the lower house. Representatives are there to support the people not political ideology. Terms should be longer to ensure stability, and only part of the house up for re-election at a time to ensure hysteresis rather than sudden dramatic change of view for the house.
Not axed but replaced by a smaller group (50-100) all elected by us. To go someway to alleviate the problems NJ has put forward, using the other idea above on PR should prevent a duplicate of the commons.
It has nothing to do with Brexit, other than Brexit shows the latest issue with them, they are an outdated, overpaid and bloated quango that needs to go.
It has nothing to do with Brexit, other than Brexit shows the latest issue with them, they are an outdated, overpaid and bloated quango that needs to go.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.