Thursday, March 30, 2006
Reform of the Lords: if any....
The Nameless Tory:
The toothless 'Second Chamber?'
Interesting phrase to use – and it shows the way the Lords is perceived. As a second tier organisation when compared to the Commons. And rightly so – it can send legislation back to the Commons but ultimately it can be over-ridden. Also, it is not democratically elected so there is no accountability. And the leader of the country sits in the Commons, meaning the Commons will always be seen as superior. Which leads some to question what is the point of having a second chamber which is little better than a debating forum for elderly ex-MPs and wealthy friends of the political parties?
Again I would maintain that debate in itself is a worthy end. Plus the Lords have been able to get controversial legislation at least amended. That said I personally like a properly two tiered parliamentary system and would favour the Lords having a bit more power to propose legislation and veto other legislation. In other words, I want the Lords to have more power.
The reason why it has always been controversial to propose more power for the Lords is because historically they have been unrepresentative and also because they are unaccountable. Therefore I would propose a House of Lords that remains a second tier chamber to the Commons but also:
The Lords will be democratically elected – the Lords are elected for fixed terms of ten years, thus giving them a longer term view point but at the same time as giving them accountability
There will be around 200 Lords, less than the House of Commons but representing regions of the UK rather than constituencies, giving the Lords a more national perspective and hopefully freeing up the MPs to spend more time working on their constituencies
They will have the power to propose legislation, and send it to the Commons, as long as the legislation is passed by two third’s of the Lords
They will have the power to veto legislation from the Commons, again with a two third’s vote from the Lords.
They will elect a President/Leader of the Lords who will act as a spokesperson for the Lords and also act as a Deputy Prime Minister – performing the more ceremonial functions of the Prime Minister (and hopefully giving the Prime Minister more time to govern.
These thoughts are off the top of my head and are subject to change.....
The Moai:
I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially this:
'If you are a rich man, and you are so public-spirited as to donate squillions to a political party, so that its members can get on with their task of understanding and improving the condition of the country, then you should surely be encouraged, not vilified. The last thing we want is for the whole political clerisy to be bankrolled exclusively by the taxpayer, with state funding for all manner of cranks, bigots and extremists. If Chai Patel and others want to give money to Labour or to the Tories, then I see no reason why they should not be rewarded with a suitable gong for their philanthropy: on two conditions.
First, that they should in future give on condition that the gift (or loan) is public; and second, that they cannot thereby ascend to the legislature. It is time to end this crisis, and rescue the Lords, by insisting on a fully elected chamber, in which all peers are chosen by the same method, and yet without the same democratic mandate as the commons....'
The toothless 'Second Chamber?'
Interesting phrase to use – and it shows the way the Lords is perceived. As a second tier organisation when compared to the Commons. And rightly so – it can send legislation back to the Commons but ultimately it can be over-ridden. Also, it is not democratically elected so there is no accountability. And the leader of the country sits in the Commons, meaning the Commons will always be seen as superior. Which leads some to question what is the point of having a second chamber which is little better than a debating forum for elderly ex-MPs and wealthy friends of the political parties?
Again I would maintain that debate in itself is a worthy end. Plus the Lords have been able to get controversial legislation at least amended. That said I personally like a properly two tiered parliamentary system and would favour the Lords having a bit more power to propose legislation and veto other legislation. In other words, I want the Lords to have more power.
The reason why it has always been controversial to propose more power for the Lords is because historically they have been unrepresentative and also because they are unaccountable. Therefore I would propose a House of Lords that remains a second tier chamber to the Commons but also:
The Lords will be democratically elected – the Lords are elected for fixed terms of ten years, thus giving them a longer term view point but at the same time as giving them accountability
There will be around 200 Lords, less than the House of Commons but representing regions of the UK rather than constituencies, giving the Lords a more national perspective and hopefully freeing up the MPs to spend more time working on their constituencies
They will have the power to propose legislation, and send it to the Commons, as long as the legislation is passed by two third’s of the Lords
They will have the power to veto legislation from the Commons, again with a two third’s vote from the Lords.
They will elect a President/Leader of the Lords who will act as a spokesperson for the Lords and also act as a Deputy Prime Minister – performing the more ceremonial functions of the Prime Minister (and hopefully giving the Prime Minister more time to govern.
These thoughts are off the top of my head and are subject to change.....
The Moai:
I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially this:
'If you are a rich man, and you are so public-spirited as to donate squillions to a political party, so that its members can get on with their task of understanding and improving the condition of the country, then you should surely be encouraged, not vilified. The last thing we want is for the whole political clerisy to be bankrolled exclusively by the taxpayer, with state funding for all manner of cranks, bigots and extremists. If Chai Patel and others want to give money to Labour or to the Tories, then I see no reason why they should not be rewarded with a suitable gong for their philanthropy: on two conditions.
First, that they should in future give on condition that the gift (or loan) is public; and second, that they cannot thereby ascend to the legislature. It is time to end this crisis, and rescue the Lords, by insisting on a fully elected chamber, in which all peers are chosen by the same method, and yet without the same democratic mandate as the commons....'
# posted by The Moai @ 5:14 AM 
