UK Considers Whether to Have Elected Government

[Johz]

The UK House of Commons is currently debating whether the age-old system of appointment in the House of Lords should really continue, and whether the government should actually think about being elected. Crazy, I know, but bear with me. The proposal is that the House of Lords (HoL) will become 80% elected, as opposed to 100% unelected as it is now. Many people oppose this, especially a large number of Tory MPs who wrote an angry letter, and signed it 'concerned, of Tumbridge Wells', which shows how het up people are about these changes.

Of course this being politics, there are of course other factors. David Cameron (Call me Dave!) is supporting this reform, but some people believe that this is simply because he doesn't want the LibDems to realise that they're not actually doing anything in the coalition, despite the fact that they're not actually doing anything in the coalition. Nick Clegg is universally hated, so normally everyone would just vote against whatever he wants but he's the one who campaigned for HoL reform. Ed Miliband is struggling, because his manifesto stated that he supported HoL reform, but this time David Cameron suggested it, and Ed doesn't want to be seen supporting anything that anyone else supports. (He's sort of like the really indie kid who goes around being independent and aloof, but also not being voted for.) His current policy is that he supports HoL reform, but not the HoL reform that David Cameron supports.

But this is all nonsense, and you probably don't care. What is important is the actual debate. Should any government in the civilised world be made up in any part by unelected members? Does the need for democracy outweigh the need for unelected and independent advisors? If we have an elected upper house, will this break down the moral constitution of the nation more or less than gay marriage? Is SCOTUS, which is, I believe, currently unelected, as bad as the HoL in terms of undemocraticness?

[The House of Petain]

No. We have an elected upper house.

[Audacious Huxley]

Could you do me the favour of informing of the actual power that the House of Lords has? I haven't kept up with particular face of politics in Dear England since the Restoration. It reflects poorly on me, I know.

[The House of Petain]

Could you do me the favour of informing of the actual power that the House of Lords has? I haven't kept up with particular face of politics in Dear England since the Restoration. It reflects poorly on me, I know.

They get paid....so they kind of spend collected taxes...

[Audacious Huxley]

Could you do me the favour of informing of the actual power that the House of Lords has? I haven't kept up with particular face of politics in Dear England since the Restoration. It reflects poorly on me, I know.

They get paid....so they kind of spend collected taxes...

But what legislative powers do they have? Can they veto bills and the like?

[Tubbsalot]

But this is all nonsense, and you probably don't care. What is important is the actual debate. Should any government in the civilised world be made up in any part by unelected members? Does the need for democracy outweigh the need for unelected and independent advisors? If we have an elected upper house, will this break down the moral constitution of the nation more or less than gay marriage? Is SCOTUS, which is, I believe, currently unelected, as bad as the HoL in terms of undemocraticness?

No, there shouldn't be any unelected members, there's no reason for a government employee to escape the all-seeing eye of the public. Down with these corrupt government cleaners and such.

As far as I know the HoL doesn't do too much horrible offensive stuff, but I don't really know about it. Probably the important part is how angry the Tories get over it, because if they're angry it's pretty much guaranteed that you should elect the Lords.

[The House of Petain]

They get paid....so they kind of spend collected taxes...

But what legislative powers do they have? Can they veto bills and the like?

Well like the monarchy, they are a decaying relic kept in tact to try and reminisce about the good ol' days.

[Audacious Huxley]

But what legislative powers do they have? Can they veto bills and the like?

Well like the monarchy, they are a decaying relic kept in tact to try and reminisce about the good ol' days.

Indeed, I gathered that much, but what is their power legislatively speaking? One assumes if they're a mere token there would be no issue.

[The House of Petain]

Well like the monarchy, they are a decaying relic kept in tact to try and reminisce about the good ol' days.

Indeed, I gathered that much, but what is their power legislatively speaking? One assumes if they're a mere token there would be no issue.

According to Wiki:

"While the House of Lords is unable unilaterally to prevent bills passing into law (except in certain limited circumstances), its members can severely delay bills that they believe to be misguided and thereby force the government, the Commons, and the general public to reconsider their decisions. In this capacity, the Lords acts as constitutional safeguard that is independent from the electoral process and that can challenge the will of the people when the majority’s desires threaten key constitutional principles, human rights or rules of law."

[Crabulonia]

They get paid....so they kind of spend collected taxes...

But what legislative powers do they have? Can they veto bills and the like?

No, their power has been whittled away a piece at a time, so now they can only stall bills if they weren't in the election manifesto and can't stall them at all if they were part of a party's electoral platform.

The good news with the House of Lords is that they actually read the legislation, point out ridiculous bits in it that haven't been thought through by Commons, then send it back to the drawing board if it's bad.

I would hate them for being undemocratic, but I can't bring myself to hate the people who decided we shouldn't have ID cards. The House of Lords brings necessary experience to the legislative process. Commons can't do this. I can't remember what the exact figures were but last time a lot of Commons was replaced entirely with new MPs. Not to say that the old guys were better, but they certainly would know more about legislation than the new guys.

I also have worries about having a politicised upper house. If they are politically aligned with government, shit will get passed, if they are politically against it, nothing will get done. I would support for the upper hosue to be objective, or as objective as possible, but not elected because people vote based on many factors - of which experience will tend to lose against charisma all the time.

[Johz]

Could you do me the favour of informing of the actual power that the House of Lords has? I haven't kept up with particular face of politics in Dear England since the Restoration. It reflects poorly on me, I know.

Every bill that the House of Common passes must then go through the House of Lords. The House of Lords must approve it (unless, as has happened a couple of times, the Commons uses the Parliament Act to shove it through) and will send it back if they wish ammendments to be made. The process repeats until an agreement can be reached. This means that the Lords actually have a large amount of blocking power, although they are unable to create their own laws.

[Radiatia]

I personally feel the House of Lords to be archaic and think the UK would be far better off with a unicameral system.

But ultimately... I don't really care as long as they aren't doing something crazy like electing the Head of State.

[Crabulonia]

I personally feel the House of Lords to be archaic and think the UK would be far better off with a unicameral system.

But ultimately... I don't really care as long as they aren't doing something crazy like electing the Head of State.

That would make sense but we never elect good people, I'm quite sure they don't exist in politics in large enough number (or at all, if I'm being cynical) to bring good changes. The shitheads need to be blocked as much as possible to stop them from ruining it all.

Then again, I would support a smaller House of Lords and one that is appointed by an independent body rather than by a PM having a cup of tea with the queen.

[Cromarty]

Angleter sums up my opinion on the House of Lords Reforms:

No. I do not want an elected House of Lords. Were it to be elected in the same manner as the Commons, then it would indeed be a Commons duplicate and be a useless Upper House. Were it to be elected proportionally, then the balance of power would lie with the Lib Dems and the minor parties, no matter who is in power in the Commons. Since I have the utmost difficulty with the corrupt concept of a Lords appointed by the government, and find the lack of a revising Upper House quite a bad idea, I would be in favour of making the Lords hereditary again and ensuring that they are non-partisan.

I have several other particular qualms with Clegg's proposal: that the extremely long terms suggested would be an affront to the concept of 'more democracy' that the reform bandwagon so adore, and to the much more pertinent questions of Parliamentary transparency and standard of quality. Electing it by proportional representation and thus removing the ability for particular Lords to be voted in or out would be an extreme case of rotten boroughs- why must a Lord actually do anything if he's toeing the party line, isn't up for election for a good few years, and even then has a comfortable place on the party list? Furthermore, the notion of putting in place yet another 400 politicians who, presumably, will need nice staffed offices and handsome pay packets, is anathema to me.

Edit: Also OMFGITSJOHZ<3

[Loliland]

Ignore this. I posted under wrong nation and cannot delete...

[Pasig]

How uninformative the OP is!

The House of Lords serves a fantastic purpose.

The House of Commons is where the elected politicians decide on bills.

The House of Lords is full of appointed experts from all walks of life, who can suggest changes to bills. They do so, because a lot of them are businessmen, so they know how a certain bill will affect their respective fields of expertise.

There are religious leaders, lawyers, business leaders, ex-politicians, inherited titles, etc.

PLEASE WATCH THIS TO KNOW MORE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNonZiuOFyw

[Crabulonia]

Angleter sums up my opinion on the House of Lords Reforms:

No. I do not want an elected House of Lords. Were it to be elected in the same manner as the Commons, then it would indeed be a Commons duplicate and be a useless Upper House. Were it to be elected proportionally, then the balance of power would lie with the Lib Dems and the minor parties, no matter who is in power in the Commons. Since I have the utmost difficulty with the corrupt concept of a Lords appointed by the government, and find the lack of a revising Upper House quite a bad idea, I would be in favour of making the Lords hereditary again and ensuring that they are non-partisan.

I have several other particular qualms with Clegg's proposal: that the extremely long terms suggested would be an affront to the concept of 'more democracy' that the reform bandwagon so adore, and to the much more pertinent questions of Parliamentary transparency and standard of quality. Electing it by proportional representation and thus removing the ability for particular Lords to be voted in or out would be an extreme case of rotten boroughs- why must a Lord actually do anything if he's toeing the party line, isn't up for election for a good few years, and even then has a comfortable place on the party list? Furthermore, the notion of putting in place yet another 400 politicians who, presumably, will need nice staffed offices and handsome pay packets, is anathema to me.

Angleter knows what's what, though I would think that making it hereditary would necessarily breed more conservatism (small c) and less of the change we need. It would also make it fall far easier to corruption, since presumably the heredity would keep the same person in the house for at least 20 years. You could probably even sneak it under the radar, bribe them twice a year (say at birthday's and Christmas).
Edit: Also OMFGITSJOHZ<3

[Penguinmark]

Since the Lords cannot block legislation (they can only delay it or propose amendments), it won't be a massive disaster for democracy if this reform fails. But it needs to be done.

[Cromarty]

Angleter knows what's what, though I would think that making it hereditary would necessarily breed more conservatism (small c) and less of the change we need. It would also make it fall far easier to corruption, since presumably the heredity would keep the same person in the house for at least 20 years. You could probably even sneak it under the radar, bribe them twice a year (say at birthday's and Christmas).

I think it's not that much easier to fall into corruption, but I admit it is a concern. Hmm, they'd definitely need to be a powerful watchdog and complaints system.

[Crabulonia]

Angleter knows what's what, though I would think that making it hereditary would necessarily breed more conservatism (small c) and less of the change we need. It would also make it fall far easier to corruption, since presumably the heredity would keep the same person in the house for at least 20 years. You could probably even sneak it under the radar, bribe them twice a year (say at birthday's and Christmas).

I think it's not that much easier to fall into corruption, but I admit it is a concern. Hmm, they'd definitely need to be a powerful watchdog and complaints system.

It depends how many Lords there are as to whether it's actually worth it though. Since these are people whose lives are tied up in the running of the country, I can't see many of them falling to promoting something short-term since they would be shooting themselves or their children in the foot.

I think still it would be preferable to have a Lords which is open to new people rather than repeating itself. Heredity does not hit me as ensuring good people would always be in the Lords seeing as it does not work based on merit but on blood.

[Forsher]

The UK House of Commons is currently debating whether the age-old system of appointment in the House of Lords should really continue, and whether the government should actually think about being elected. Crazy, I know, but bear with me. The proposal is that the House of Lords (HoL) will become 80% elected, as opposed to 100% unelected as it is now. Many people oppose this, especially a large number of Tory MPs who wrote an angry letter, and signed it 'concerned, of Tumbridge Wells', which shows how het up people are about these changes.

Of course this being politics, there are of course other factors. David Cameron (Call me Dave!) is supporting this reform, but some people believe that this is simply because he doesn't want the LibDems to realise that they're not actually doing anything in the coalition, despite the fact that they're not actually doing anything in the coalition. Nick Clegg is universally hated, so normally everyone would just vote against whatever he wants but he's the one who campaigned for HoL reform. Ed Miliband is struggling, because his manifesto stated that he supported HoL reform, but this time David Cameron suggested it, and Ed doesn't want to be seen supporting anything that anyone else supports. (He's sort of like the really indie kid who goes around being independent and aloof, but also not being voted for.) His current policy is that he supports HoL reform, but not the HoL reform that David Cameron supports.

But this is all nonsense, and you probably don't care. What is important is the actual debate. Should any government in the civilised world be made up in any part by unelected members? Does the need for democracy outweigh the need for unelected and independent advisors? If we have an elected upper house, will this break down the moral constitution of the nation more or less than gay marriage? Is SCOTUS, which is, I believe, currently unelected, as bad as the HoL in terms of undemocraticness?

I hate upper houses, having them unelected is a suitable compromise. I also hate the idea of judges being elected, it is ultimately disturbing.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I think we should fill the upper house with z list celebrities and every week the public get to vote on who gets thrown out and who gets put in.

[Yewhohohopia]

Meh make it all heriditary again. That way people aren't so much voting on party lines etc. etc. (although yes this will probably change its outlook somewhat).

[Forsher]

I think we should fill the upper house with z list celebrities and every week the public get to vote on who gets thrown out and who gets put in.

Big Brother

No further words needed, right?

[Penguinmark]

Meh make it all heriditary again. That way people aren't so much voting on party lines etc. etc. (although yes this will probably change its outlook somewhat).

They'll still be partisan. More than half of the 92 surviving hereditary peers are aligned with the Tories.