Comments on: lords reform http://lordsoftheblog.net/2008/03/10/lords-reform/ Life and Work in the House of Lords Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:26:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Lords - Independent and Impartial ?? http://lordsoftheblog.net/2008/03/10/lords-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Lords - Independent and Impartial ?? Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:38:05 +0000 http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/lords-reform/#comment-29 Dearie, dearie me Baroness Murphy - I am a tad concerned at your thoughts about making the Lords more 'accountable'. Surely the whole point of having the Lords is that an element of the more archaic traditions are retained ? The public would vote against things like nuclear power, penal reform and in favour of hanging - but the point about the Lords is that they can bring in some balance. As for being anti-democratic, no where is more anti-democratic than that 'other place' which has sold us down the river in Europe, and tried to bring in control orders and 42 day detention and other measures completely lacking in consideration for civil liberties and human rights. We rely on your wit and wisdom to fight against this - gosh, if it were put to the vote, do you really think David Ramsbotham would get back in ? Or Helena Kennedy QC ? They might be replaced by someone willing to tub-thump for 'locking 'em up and throwing away the key. That way madness lies, sweetheart. If I would make one change, it would be to put more women in charge of things there - although people as smart as Baroness Jay are hard to find these days. I would offer my services, but unfortunately my cunning plan to borrow a grand from a thousand people, and pay them back when I'd got a sniff at the ermine has rather been thwarted by a recent turn of events.. Dearie, dearie me Baroness Murphy – I am a tad concerned at your thoughts about making the Lords more ‘accountable’. Surely the whole point of having the Lords is that an element of the more archaic traditions are retained ? The public would vote against things like nuclear power, penal reform and in favour of hanging – but the point about the Lords is that they can bring in some balance. As for being anti-democratic, no where is more anti-democratic than that ‘other place’ which has sold us down the river in Europe, and tried to bring in control orders and 42 day detention and other measures completely lacking in consideration for civil liberties and human rights.

We rely on your wit and wisdom to fight against this – gosh, if it were put to the vote, do you really think David Ramsbotham would get back in ? Or Helena Kennedy QC ? They might be replaced by someone willing to tub-thump for ‘locking ‘em up and throwing away the key.

That way madness lies, sweetheart. If I would make one change, it would be to put more women in charge of things there – although people as smart as Baroness Jay are hard to find these days. I would offer my services, but unfortunately my cunning plan to borrow a grand from a thousand people, and pay them back when I’d got a sniff at the ermine has rather been thwarted by a recent turn of events..

]]> By: The Welsh Jacobite http://lordsoftheblog.net/2008/03/10/lords-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-28 The Welsh Jacobite Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:40:15 +0000 http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/lords-reform/#comment-28 Personally I'd prefer more arcane and "inefficent" procedures, the end of those ersatz "life peers" and the restoration of real lords (the hereditary ones) to your lordship's house. And, please, please, no "accountability". Personally I’d prefer more arcane and “inefficent” procedures, the end of those ersatz “life peers” and the restoration of real lords (the hereditary ones) to your lordship’s house.

And, please, please, no “accountability”.

]]> By: baronessmurphy http://lordsoftheblog.net/2008/03/10/lords-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-27 baronessmurphy Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:22:31 +0000 http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/lords-reform/#comment-27 Baroness D'Souza is quite right of course, merely introducing an elected element will not of itself transform the House into the professional, transparent etc machine we all advocate but it would begin to demonstrate that the second chamber believes itself accountable to the electorate. We are all accountable at present, some to their parties, some to our various 'constituency' interests but many are accounatbel to no-one. I do so agree with her about introducing small changes to procedures and improving the transparency of the House...so even Peers can understand it! Baroness D’Souza is quite right of course, merely introducing an elected element will not of itself transform the House into the professional, transparent etc machine we all advocate but it would begin to demonstrate that the second chamber believes itself accountable to the electorate. We are all accountable at present, some to their parties, some to our various ‘constituency’ interests but many are accounatbel to no-one.

I do so agree with her about introducing small changes to procedures and improving the transparency of the House…so even Peers can understand it!

]]> By: baronessdsouza http://lordsoftheblog.net/2008/03/10/lords-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-26 baronessdsouza Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:56:16 +0000 http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/lords-reform/#comment-26 Yes, yes, yes! There is ample room for reform and change - especially on selection for committees. I would add that there might also be some mechanism for assessing performance (including attendance) of those selected. There are a large number of conventions that could be similarly challenged and improved. However, I really cannot see how an elected member will necessarily contribute to these changes. Why can't we introduce small administrative improvements to the working of the House - bearing in mind the importance of transparency? I am not as yet convinced that the mere fact of elections will automatically transform the House into a professional, transparent, well-oiled, wise and representative chamber. Yes, yes, yes! There is ample room for reform and change – especially on selection for committees. I would add that there might also be some mechanism for assessing performance (including attendance) of those selected. There are a large number of conventions that could be similarly challenged and improved.

However, I really cannot see how an elected member will necessarily contribute to these changes. Why can’t we introduce small administrative improvements to the working of the House – bearing in mind the importance of transparency?

I am not as yet convinced that the mere fact of elections will automatically transform the House into a professional, transparent, well-oiled, wise and representative chamber.

]]> By: baronessmurphy http://lordsoftheblog.net/2008/03/10/lords-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-25 baronessmurphy Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:18:32 +0000 http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/lords-reform/#comment-25 I certainly agree with every comment bar the last. It seems to me we could manage a smooth transition over a decade or two if we introduced an element of elected, say 20%, gradually rising to a larger percent and monitored how the upper house changed in its functions as a result. Being a independent backbencher it's almost impossible to see how the House really functions. Why for example are select committees not composed of people who have applied and won their positions on it? I look down the list of peers appointed to a select committee and it's very hard to see sometimes why individuals have been chosen. Why isn't the process transparent and subject to scrutiny? There are many peers like me who would like the opportunity to serve on a select committee but membership seems to be stitched up elsewhere. Then as the blogger said, the arcane procedures, some charming, some exceedingly irritating, are surely in need of revision. But who is it keeps the House as it is? I haven't a clue. I certainly agree with every comment bar the last. It seems to me we could manage a smooth transition over a decade or two if we introduced an element of elected, say 20%, gradually rising to a larger percent and monitored how the upper house changed in its functions as a result. Being a independent backbencher it’s almost impossible to see how the House really functions. Why for example are select committees not composed of people who have applied and won their positions on it? I look down the list of peers appointed to a select committee and it’s very hard to see sometimes why individuals have been chosen. Why isn’t the process transparent and subject to scrutiny? There are many peers like me who would like the opportunity to serve on a select committee but membership seems to be stitched up elsewhere. Then as the blogger said, the arcane procedures, some charming, some exceedingly irritating, are surely in need of revision. But who is it keeps the House as it is? I haven’t a clue.

]]>