You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Abolish the House of Lords
December 6 2022 11.47pm

Abolish the House of Lords

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Play our World Cup 2022 Prediction League!

World Cup Prediction League 2022

Sponsor a forum or Advertise on the HOL!


 

View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 20 Nov 22 10.18pm Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

I am in favour of this, fellow travellers are Farage and Starmer.

The problem is how to accomplish and what to replace with?

Do we need an upper house with the power of veto and amendment or should legislative issues be left to one elected chamber.

The idea that an unelected body comprised of birthright and political patronage can wield power is ridiculous to me.

 


Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 21 Nov 22 12.50am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by HKOwen

I am in favour of this, fellow travellers are Farage and Starmer.

The problem is how to accomplish and what to replace with?

Do we need an upper house with the power of veto and amendment or should legislative issues be left to one elected chamber.

The idea that an unelected body comprised of birthright and political patronage can wield power is ridiculous to me.

A second chamber is a necessary body to review legislation.

It needs to be comprised of experts within fields for obvious reasons.

Now, who gets to sit in that chamber is the key.

Personally, I think it has to be removed from all political interference and be as apolitical as possible.

How that is done.....How you ensure that a political wing doesn't influence who gets a vote....therein lies the rub.

My ideas would probably not involve actually having the houses of parliament as a place you needed to attend and instead legislation would involve only those experts within that field, plus apolitical lawyers. So, it wouldn't always be the same set of people involved and voting on every piece of legislation.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2022 12.56am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 21 Nov 22 7.48am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

It has to be democratic otherwise why bother just carry on with the same failed politicians.

I don't get this idea that an elected chamber would challenge the power of the commons. That is nonsense the powers of the HOL are already defined in law by at least 2 acts of Parliament but if you like redefine them again in the new body.

What should it look like?

The commons is based on population e.g. the SE has more MPs than the Western Isles, to balance that the upper house should be based on regions like the Senate in the US.

How should they be elected, for once I am in favour of PR as the point of the upper house should be to represent as many as possible leaving the Commons to work on majority rule.

What if people can't be bothered to vote like the Euro elections?

Elections to the upper house should be held at the same time as a GE so that people have two votes and avoid a low turn out.

How many members? Certainly not 800.

This is actually a logistical argument, like the Commons the upper house has X number of roles and committees however the senate manages this on 100 so I would say no more than 200.

Anyway this model is used in many western democracies and seems to work.

Edited by Badger11 (21 Nov 2022 7.49am)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 21 Nov 22 8.40am Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

A second chamber is a necessary body to review legislation.

It needs to be comprised of experts within fields for obvious reasons.

Now, who gets to sit in that chamber is the key.

Personally, I think it has to be removed from all political interference and be as apolitical as possible.

How that is done.....How you ensure that a political wing doesn't influence who gets a vote....therein lies the rub.

My ideas would probably not involve actually having the houses of parliament as a place you needed to attend and instead legislation would involve only those experts within that field, plus apolitical lawyers. So, it wouldn't always be the same set of people involved and voting on every piece of legislation.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2022 12.56am)

As an aside, does anyone know what has happened further to the reports that the Palace of Westminster needed a massive amount of repair work, meaning that the two houses would have to relocate for a significant period? I remember a TV report that highlighted a load of problems with the fabric, including rainwater cascading down an internal flight of stairs.

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 21 Nov 22 8.56am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by YT

As an aside, does anyone know what has happened further to the reports that the Palace of Westminster needed a massive amount of repair work, meaning that the two houses would have to relocate for a significant period? I remember a TV report that highlighted a load of problems with the fabric, including rainwater cascading down an internal flight of stairs.

Last I heard it will cost billions and they will have to move out whilst it is done. Some suggestions they move Parliament to the Midlands or York but hat did not go down well with the MPs no doubt they were concerned about finding a decent restaurant.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 21 Nov 22 10.33am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

A second chamber is a necessary body to review legislation.

It needs to be comprised of experts within fields for obvious reasons.

Now, who gets to sit in that chamber is the key.

Personally, I think it has to be removed from all political interference and be as apolitical as possible.

How that is done.....How you ensure that a political wing doesn't influence who gets a vote....therein lies the rub.

My ideas would probably not involve actually having the houses of parliament as a place you needed to attend and instead legislation would involve only those experts within that field, plus apolitical lawyers. So, it wouldn't always be the same set of people involved and voting on every piece of legislation.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2022 12.56am)

Yup all this. And faith leaders, regrettably. This from a confirmed atheist!

Currently it is the monarch who decides; but only through the PM. The office of the PM has full effective control on who gets in. Absolutely ridiculous; and now numbering an unwieldly 800.

Ironically, it is the Lords who are crying out for reform and the Commons who are still happy with a politically partial second chamber that serves their needs.

That is, even after the Brexit challenges where Boris said he would scrap it in revenge. Clearly, he didn't mean it.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Behind Enemy Lines's Profile Behind Enemy Lines Flag Sussex 21 Nov 22 12.17pm Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines Add Behind Enemy Lines as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

Yup all this. And faith leaders, regrettably. This from a confirmed atheist!

Currently it is the monarch who decides; but only through the PM. The office of the PM has full effective control on who gets in. Absolutely ridiculous; and now numbering an unwieldly 800.

Ironically, it is the Lords who are crying out for reform and the Commons who are still happy with a politically partial second chamber that serves their needs.

The House of Lords is like the Green Belt; they are institutions there to question the decisions made by future generations. I agree that the make-up of the HoL is the problem, not necessarily its existence.
That is, even after the Brexit challenges where Boris said he would scrap it in revenge. Clearly, he didn't mean it.

 


hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 21 Nov 22 4.27pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

Yup all this. And faith leaders, regrettably. This from a confirmed atheist!

Currently it is the monarch who decides; but only through the PM. The office of the PM has full effective control on who gets in. Absolutely ridiculous; and now numbering an unwieldly 800.

Ironically, it is the Lords who are crying out for reform and the Commons who are still happy with a politically partial second chamber that serves their needs.

That is, even after the Brexit challenges where Boris said he would scrap it in revenge. Clearly, he didn't mean it.


If someone wrote a book detailing all the things Johnson has said, which he then didn't do or indeed, sometimes did the opposite to...they would have to import extra pulp.

I agree, the use of that chamber to reward political allies and stooges really has to come to an end. All the parties do it and it's embarrassing.

I mean, I like Ian Botham and all that....but what the feck is he doing in there? The list goes on and on.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 21 Nov 22 7.38pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

It needs to be less gender biased in its title. House of Titled People. Yet a bit insensitive to the homeless, or those on housing lists. Abode of Titled People. Then again that has tit in it so someone will complain. Despite the fact that it's usually full of tits.

 


Patrick Vieira's
Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 21 Nov 22 7.39pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

It needs to be less gender biased in its title. House of Titled People. Yet a bit insensitive to the homeless, or those on housing lists. Abode of Titled People. Then again that has tit in it so someone will complain. Despite the fact that it's usually full of tits.



The Aviary?

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 21 Nov 22 7.57pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11



The Aviary?

Probably get culled in the latest bird flu outbreak.

 


Patrick Vieira's
Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 22 Nov 22 9.02am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

A second chamber is a necessary body to review legislation.

It needs to be comprised of experts within fields for obvious reasons.

Now, who gets to sit in that chamber is the key.

Personally, I think it has to be removed from all political interference and be as apolitical as possible.

How that is done.....How you ensure that a political wing doesn't influence who gets a vote....therein lies the rub.

My ideas would probably not involve actually having the houses of parliament as a place you needed to attend and instead legislation would involve only those experts within that field, plus apolitical lawyers. So, it wouldn't always be the same set of people involved and voting on every piece of legislation.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Nov 2022 12.56am)

I agree with most of this. I certainly don't think we ought to have an elected, political, second chamber. It would just be an expensive, pointless diversion with the capacity to generate heat but no light.

A second chamber of the experienced, wise and skilled is what's needed to review, suggest and improve. Ensuring the appointments are solely on merit, without any kind of political input, is essential, as is the need to remove hereditary rights, which are an anachronism in the modern world. A standing Commission reporting to the Monarch seems the way to go.

How they should meet, whether together, or as specialist committees is something that itself could be reviewed by them, but probably a mixture of both dependent on the subject.

I do though think that some ex politicians need to be included. Like it or not, politics has an influence over whether things are deliverable, or not, so having some who have been in the mix to add wise counsel to the advice being sent forwards seems sensible.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Abolish the House of Lords