Whats wrong with the House of Lords?

[Ryoko]

Moaning again on the TV about changes to the house of lords to make it more democratic, I think they have completely missed the point.

The lords was there so the land owners could have their say on policies.

The commons was there for the commoners to have their say on policies, via elected representatives.

At the end of the day bills where meant to be passed after both the common man and the rich had reached an agreement.

Now the Commons is full of rich landed gentry, who serve only themselves and their rich mates, they never listen to the voters, the Lords are still the lords, so what we have is really two houses of lords.

Thus I say it is the house of Commons that needs reforming, chuck all the millionaire Etonian landed gentry out.

It's another one of those laws of unintended consequences. I quite like the way the US Supreme Court is managed. Fixed number of places & presidents appoint 'their man' when a place comes free. Ends up that sometimes one party has the balance of power, sometimes the other. Mind you, the prospect of people canvassing to be a Lord has to be worth it... 'Vote for me. I look good in ermine!'

The Supreme Court nomination process is ridiculous! Plus they can be impeached. Would the power of recall extend to 'Lords' or whatever they'll be called? Nominations in that way would not ensure plurality nor would it increase representation for minority political groups.

Do they still make the robes out of real ermine (stoat skin) or is there a veggie version now?

Quormine?...

Brilliant! I'll have robes of quormine then

Go nicely with your coro-nut....

Might make a coro-nut roast for tea

"increase representation for minority political groups"

'Lord' Nick Griffin... brr.....

Judging from his Newsnight performance, NG would be toasted in the Lords.

I know. They might not allow people with criminal convictions to become Lords (1998 conviction for inciting racial hatred).

That's the thing with democracy - you have to allow everyone to play their part and cast their vote. On the other hand, can you imagine the pasting he'd get at the hands of Baroness Scotland?

X-post with Grimma

Wasn't it the bishops who fought back on one of Daves shaft the poor welfare Bills?
(can't remember which, brain not on full power )

Though that was the first time I knew they were there so not very influential before that

Welfare Reform Bill.

Yes, only unfortunately the government insisted on undoing all the excellent work carried out by the Lords.

The proposed 15 year terms are a joke. It will give us an unaccountable second chamber - unaccountable to the public, at any rate. Probably very responsive to the parties who put people in via a party list, though. Worst of all worlds.

Re. the welfare bill. Just one tiny example: the government insisted on penalising anyone in social housing who has a spare bedroom, even though the Lords pointed out foster parents MUST have a spare bedroom to qualify for fostering and created an exemption to cover them. And now the government pretends to give a toss about children being dumped in children's homes hundreds of miles away from their home boroughs because it's cheap. Liars. They have just knowingly passed a law which is likely to reduce the number of foster places available. Because they are more interested in attacking the poor than in actually doing anything productive or sensible.

It would make the parties accountable to the people Edam. Even though we directly elect MPs how accountable are they?

Thanks Mamma

More accountable than members of the House of Lords currently or under these proposals, it would appear.

Depends on the seat doesn't it?

Don't you think that you need someone there who hasn't constantly got their eye on the next election or opinion poll? There are advantages and disadvantages to having representatives in a revising chamber who are not hostage to popular opinion.

Totally agree with MammaBussels that the beauty of the Lords is that they can vote without thought to popular opinion. I think this is a very useful check and balance.

While hereditary peers were not in any way perfect it did serve as a way to ensure there were a group of people who were from different parts of the country. The majority are beyond being corrupted because they have wealth and status already. While not 'democratic' I prefer a system where experts and those with influence in the UK (I would like to see more business owners in the Lords) to having an elected House of Lords.

The Bishops should stay in the House of the Lords as they have been a huge advocate for the poor and disabled and I think they provide balance. Like it or not, the UK is a Christian country and I think the Bishops provide a moral compass. I say this as someone who isn't Christian.

If the Bishops stay wouldn't it be a good idea to have senior figures from other faiths too?

If the Bishops stay wouldn't it be a good idea to have senior figures from other faiths too?
No. Not really. Why should people get to have a say on national policies simply because they believe something unprovable? How does having representatives from people with different unprovable beliefs really help?

As to the 'moral compass' of Bishops - while they occasionally do the right thing, if you look back over time their voting record is not particularly edifying.

On any given Sunday 2% of the UK population are sitting on the pews in COE churches. The religious makeup of the UK population is in a constant state of flux, though the trend of the last 20 years is away from the established churches and into the agnostic/athiest/don't care sector. The Lords Spiritual have been instrumental in supporting socially restrictive legislation. They opposed the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuality, oppose gay marriage, were vehemently opposed to civil unions, IVF and support restricting women's rights over their reproductive life.

To add to the pool of men (because women can't be Bishops or Imams) is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.