Or perhaps I should say House trading. That is, if you support an elected House of Lords (so we can secure some more seats there for our people), we will allow you to go forward with the boundary changes that might secure more seats for your people in the Commons. Striking deals like this is no way to craft major reform of the constitution. The latest salvage plan appears to be the removal of the 92 hereditary peers (oddly enough, they are the only elected members, albeit in a rather odd fashion), in order to make way for a fresh set of 92 elected members of the Lords at the next general election.
Most peers are agreed that the House is overcrowded and that there should be a way to enable retirement, removal for non-attendance and, of course, expulsion of members who are convicted of criminal offences. Lord Steel has been pressing for years to achieve this through his very important and useful House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill. After a very long time it has passed Second Reading. Indeed the House might be minded to make further sensible reforms to its own procedures and membership if given the chance.
It would be a shame to lose the expertise that is provided in specialised subjects by many of the hereditary peers. If we need to make room for more elected peers, then maybe those members of the House who are in favour of 80 or 100% election should be true to their principles, vacate the seats that they believe they ought not to occupy, and make way for the elected . . . .
As far as I’m concerned, the whole process has been discredited and should be scrapped. It’s being done for the benefit of the political elite, not for the benefit of the country.
I can’t believe that the house themselves are voting on the house of lords reform. Remove it from their hands and let us, the people, vote.
I would rather have non elected that are actually doing their job than elected who sit in the house of commons tweeting and playing on their ipads all day. There will be useless people on both sides and they are the ones we should be getting rid of. How about a league table, like the ones placed on schools. Those seen to be doing next to nothing could be outed.
Where’s the option for getting rid of the Lords entirely?
Ah yes, turkey’s don’t vote for losing their tax avoiding “expenses”.
My question is, LB, what expertise is it these hereditaries have that the UK parliament can’t do without? Are there any specifics?
And why would only those born to a dynasty have such specialist subjects in theit gift to become experts of? Is this line supposed to suggest that only these privileged indviduals have the brain power for certain matters, yet to be revealed? How do other countries who don’t suffer from this imposition of titled carbuncles manage to make it through then? Especially that place you all love and worship with a special kind of awe, as they are free of it, after having a little tea party some years ago. The US appears to have rolled on without their need for Lords of the womb.
In a slightly round about way, I’ll answer with a question.
Do you have a surgeon, financial advisor, fertility expert, TV director, fraudster, perjurer … on contract for when you need them? Do you think the fraudster should be be in the theatre advising the surgeon during an operation? I think I know what your answer would be.
You don’t have these people on contract, you get them in when you need them.
So there is no need for ‘expertise’, particularly expertise arrived at because of whom your parents sh***ed.
There is no need for representation for the Lords because there is no need for the Lords at all.
Representative democracy came about when it took several weeks for MPs to get to Westminster. You needed a representative because you couldn’t cast a vote, and because if you had to turn up in person, too many people doing so would be logistically impossible.
Those limits have gone. We can all vote now if we want to.
That’s why referenda by proxy is the way forward. For those that want the existing system, nominate an MP, let them decide. For others, they can cast their vote as they see fit.
Technology has change the landscape completely. MPs and Peers are just trying to hang on to their tax evading expenses, and to prevent people find out about their fraud on the pensions front.
@LB:
I believe that would be an unsafe way to run government. Too many outside channels for security. And regardless of what you may believe, government does need secure sources for a variety of reasons.
It goes without saying, I agree on hereditaries not being either necessary or a home born asset. Too many links to businesses worldwide and in general and too many links abroad abroad altogether. Which is why we have too much emphasis on foreign aid, etc., and not enough on what is good and affordable for the people of the UK.
Referenda by proxy? Who is floating that? What kind of game are yo playing? That sounds a ‘subjugation method to allow us all freedom.’ What are you selling? The IT app that is just the ticket and will cost us all a fortune? No one needs a proxy. So let that one go. That is the biggest fiddle of votes you can employ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud
I’ll say technology has changed the landscape. Here’s a little reminder. Just in case its slipped your memory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A5dsrHBfyc
I believe that would be an unsafe way to run government. Too many outside channels for security. And regardless of what you may believe, government does need secure sources for a variety of reasons.
=============
I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to say. Give us a specific.
=============
It goes without saying, I agree on hereditaries not being either necessary or a home born asset. Too many links to businesses worldwide and in general and too many links abroad abroad altogether. Which is why we have too much emphasis on foreign aid, etc., and not enough on what is good and affordable for the people of the UK.
==============
The same applies to appointees, to MPs, because its link to parties that matter.
Now with referenda by proxy, it doesn’t matter. MPs have the same say that you do. 1 vote. Influence peddling becomes an irrelevance.
==========
That sounds a ‘subjugation method to allow us all freedom.’
==========
Where is the subjagation? Ah yes. MPs and Peers are subjugated to the will of the people. They can’t pass a law without people being willing. The only subjugation is that MPs have to put up with democracy and they can’t dictate.
===========
What are you selling? The IT app that is just the ticket and will cost us all a fortune?
===========
Re-read the proposal. The cost savings – it saves money are huge.
Abolishing the lords – 600 mn of 5 years, saved.
Voter registration now is 100 mn a year. What is the cost of adding a proxy name to the form? Another 20% is reasonable. So Total savings, not cost, over 5 years, 500 mn.
Now for the IT system bit. It’s not mandated. However, if just one MP gets such a system set up, I will nominate them as my proxy, such that they will pass on my proxy vote as they promise. They can fund that how they want. I’d pay a small fee for it, but I’ve no doubt that advertising would pay for a lot too. No cost to the tax payer.
Where is the electoral fraud? My view its the current system. Say you will do X and don’t do it. Keep Y a secret until elected. That’s fraud.
Oh, for goodness sake! Stop messing around. I know we all have different opinions but it is time to propose a compromise most people can get behind.
I think most people want an effective and hard working House, with a long term view, not as party dominated as the Commons, with experts from a number of fields and with a significant directly elected component.
I have my own views on the proportions of elected vs appointed (about 50-50), and on the role of the bishops (get rid of them — make it secular) but I would compromise on all of them. Well, almost all: the House must not be controlled by political parties.
The only thing stopping a compromise which would meet those goals is the political parties. They don’t want to give up their power. And it is exactly that which most of us want, as a counterbalance to the Commons!
Technology has change the landscape completely
It should have done but it has done very little.
As Dave H and many others appear to be saying:
Yes, we need both Houses to be filled with reliable and currently provable experts, advocates, scrutineers, and representatives;
but by what superior insights are The People going to do a better selection job than would an Impartial judiciary-like College of Experts ?
one can reasonably picture a new-media, the size of the Sunday Papers but perhaps daily, publishing lists of all candidates and of their histories, expertises, failures, and advocacy-abilities;
and even picture all 63 million of The People typing-in a few words via properly-secured but open-to-the-public computers;
and likewise we can visualise such mammoth lists being categorised and narrowed-down, even by a low-waged rote-clerical body with the judiciary or the civil-service;
Sharon’s problem is similar: where do 63 million People get the sudden advanced knowledge, know-how, insights and selection-abilities to be able to choose all the right members ?
LB: Simply strengthen the requirement for “declarations of interest”
but especially radically, publish and keep up-dating the histories of every member
and we do need every kind of expertise to be answerable, in both Houses of Parliament.
————–
Technology has change the landscape completely
The amazing science of modern civil engineering,which allows the construction and design of a new city like Dubai in 10 years, from nothing, is not emulated in the sphere of
the humanities.
Information Technology should allow and encourage online debates of legislative chambers so that the real space is not needed at all, but no such evolution has taken place locally in Westminster, or show any sign of doing so.
Perhaps the UN is much better at it.
That is probably the answer; that the international and global chambers make full use of IT, when decided our rights, but that
local chambers are just not up to the task.
Not only the Lords and Commons
have failed to develop electronic democratic governance communications
of both public-‘debating’ and ‘cameral’-scrutiny committee meetings.
None of the UK’s major and democratic Media including both the Training and the Education sectors, and including Local Neighbourhoods Networks
have developed such multiway, seriously cooperative
1) information-publishing,
2) focused conversation
3) relevant discussion
4) focused scrutiny
5) essential needs & affordable-how3s identification or co-construction;
6) constructively-competitive debating.
——
Gareth has it right in that key-issue;
but should not be shooting-himself-in-the-foot with such populary hijackked pseudo-terms as “evolution”
(connoting “Nature will take care of all that, it’s not a human initiativeand self-development matter”)
like “friendly-fire”, “ethnic-cleansing”, and “MPs electorate surgeries” such inexactitudes are not only untruthful and inappropriate, they are mindfully and morally corrupting.