The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the Commons recently held a seminar to discuss reform of the Lords. It published its report, Seminar on the House of Lords: Outcomes, on Tuesday. It makes the case for incremental change, noting that Government should not wait for radical reform before making such change.
In looking at the Government’s proposals for reform, it makes two important points. First, membership of the House of Lords needs to be considered in the context of its intended functions. Second, “the existing conventions governing relations between the two Houses will not survive in their current form if the upper House is given democratic legitimacy, and the Government’s proposals need to be examined in that context.”
It is a short but useful report.
Forgive me for speaking plain:
Apart from its avoidance of the real-predicament both Life on Earth and the British People within that disappearing-Life are being insidiously and unawarely entombed and suffocated by, British Governance is getting stultifyingly boring in its evil-pretence at being “in touch with The People” and “Democratic”.
Apart from the twisted-mind-functions of so-called ‘Leaders’ who have polluted and impaired billions of ‘lower’ would-be genuine democratic minds by such definitive headline
concepts as
(1)”ethnic cleansing” when the fact is “neighbour & ethnic persecution”
(2) “friendly fire” when the fact was “shot in the back by own troops”
(3) “National Health Service” when the fact is “British Medical Illnesses, Epidemics, Medications and Hospitals Sector”
every day our ‘Leaders’ are manipulating us with similarly foggy, twisted and unclear terms –
“existing conventions”
“democratic legitimacy”.
We no longer have even a flicker of light from the Media, such as the BBC Brains Trust used to be at the time of World War 2, in which the clearest message was often the one that should today have been embedded as a point-of-order-question:
“It all depends, upon what you now mean by, _ _ _ _ _ _ _” (“democratic legitimacy”, for instance).
Where is the one-click-accessible British Democratic Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Terms; so that the serious citizen and would-be democratic-participant can quickly
acquire intended meanings ?
I think such is an absolutely vital essential.
But is there such, even planned ?
==============
until you can answer this, and provide unambiguous, unequivocal, and non-duplicitous senses and definitions of the terms you wield, your terms will be life-threatening weapons instead of the life-enhancing mind-tools they should be.
2045W11May2011.JSDM.
milesjsd: Prfoessor Joad would have put it a little more succinctly…
Now what would Dr Joad have said ?
milesjsd: He would have said (as he regularly did) ‘It all depends what you mean by…’
And had the three of us been in a democratically-public large round-table discussion, with your/the terms coming up:
“incremental change”
“radical reform”
“intended functions”
“existing conventions”
“relations between the two Houses”
“their current form”
“democratic legitimacy”
each being met with such “What does it mean ?”
(1) what answers would you give ?
(2) what answers from any other(s) in that round-table loop would you expect or imagine might be given ?
===================
(“And having done that, you have done;
but there is more -“):
(3) What answers, from others, would you expect to be given to the proposal for there to be
“a one-click-accessible British Democratic Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Terms; so that the serious citizen and would-be democratic-participant can quickly acquire intended meanings ?”
(4) What answer would you give thereto ?
Well the problem of too many peers is easily solved. Wembley Arena would have to be baptised by the Bishops and the throne moved there. As I recall when Parliament burned down George IV offered the use of Buckingham House however the Prime Minister of the day was unhappy at the prospect of so many strangers wandering about that he declined the offer. The issue of too many peers does remind me of Parkinson’s Law that ‘work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion’.
The problem of legitimacy is a potential problem; keeping the FPtP system in the lower house means that a house elected by proportional representation (3.) would have a better qualifying legitimacy than the Commons. However the public have abandoned legitimacy in the lower house in favour of minority governance so this should not be a real issue. I suspect the tables would be turned with the upper house accusing the lower house of lacking legitimacy.
I don’t see the role of the house changing in the short term as the report infers. Change would be incremental and constrained by its electorate and manifestos.
The Government is committed to implementing the transition to a wholly or
predominantly elected House of Lords in 2015
In the unlikely event of any progress being made towards a fully elected second chamber, AV/+ would certainly be a possibility, without a referendum!
I see no objection to a president of parliament being elected as well at the same time.
Continued reform of the HofL can only be valuable for good government.
Frankly, the entire Parliament lacks legitimacy. The public made it very clear they didn’t want any of the policies offered to them as a whole in May 2010.
And this last poll repeats that sentiment.
We are, in effect, without a government.
maude elwes: You are confusing parties with Parliament. And indeed Government and Parliament.
@Lord Norton:
I wonder why that is?
“I wonder why that is?”
Perhaps the lady could read up on the subjects before writing?
She has asked why.
I wonder whether Ghadaffi’s government lacks legitimacy?
Perhaps the gentleman could ask what Libya has to do with him and us. And read up on the notion of sovereignty of nations.
And, that to collude with rebels by assisting or arming them, whilst pretending they are ‘the people,’ is an illegal act.
How would he welcome a similar response from Libya to our, for need of a more rampant group, BNP? Should a nation take it into their mind to arm our rebels we could all sit in hope of a new world order. Isn’t that right?
Gaddafi was approved by the West right up until the occurrence of this event. Suddenly, he is suitable bomb cause.
Now that is being mixed up.