Plans for abolition of House of Lords to be unveiled

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 14 Mar 2010, 07:56

The Telegraph - 14/03/10

Plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.

Article continues ...

And not before time.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 14 Mar 2010, 12:50

I agree that a wholly elected 2nd chamber is a good idea. However, the timing is rather dubious...

Next step - the British Republic!

Post by **clv101** » 14 Mar 2010, 15:19

I don't think the 2nd chamber should be wholly elected. It should include an appointment of experts. Not necessarily people popular enough to be elected, but people who are 'clever' and understand things. Also people who are able to do and say what they want without having to worry about popular opinion.

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 14 Mar 2010, 16:58

Yep, I'd welcome this though I'd like more details. Perhaps keeping some experts might be useful, I've heard Germany are interested in adding this element to their governing process.

I hear that senior members of Cameron's shadow cabinet are grumbling they are rarely if ever consulted; the boss likes to run things with Osborne and a handful of unelected cronies. I'm not sure an elected second chamber will solve the problem of castrated MPs and cabinet.

Plus - full PR please.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 Mar 2010, 19:35

clv101 wrote:I don't think the 2nd chamber should be wholly elected. It should include an appointment of experts. Not necessarily people popular enough to be elected, but people who are 'clever' and understand things. Also people who are able to do and say what they want without having to worry about popular opinion.

Indeed. And that's not so very far from what we have now. It just needs a few tweeks. I'd much rather see Lords appointed for life and as a result of a long track record of good actions and wisdom than elected by popular opinion.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 15 Mar 2010, 01:57

I hear that senior members of Brown's cabinet are grumbling they are rarely if ever consulted; the boss likes to run things with Balls and a handful of unelected cronies.

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 15 Mar 2010, 03:53

kenneal wrote:I hear that senior members of Brown's cabinet are grumbling they are rarely if ever consulted; the boss likes to run things with Balls and a handful of unelected cronies.

You're probably right, but with the Cameron revelation it looks like a systemic problem - and a serious one. I'm only pointing out that an elected second chamber won't help with this particular issue.

I’d argue that Brown, Balls and Mandelson (or Cameron, Osborne and Mrs Cameron) running the entire country is a much bigger problem than a misfiring House of Lords.

Having said that I can't resist adding that between them Cameron and Osborne's total work experience is as follows:

One week at Selfridges (Osborne)
One week data entry in the NHS (Osborne)
PR for a TV company (Cameron)
Conservative Central Office (Cameron/Osborne)
MP and Shadow role (Cameron/Osborne)

My fear is that they think they know it all. There's certainly few, if any, meaningful constitutional checks to stop them doing what they want.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 15 Mar 2010, 04:57

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 15 Mar 2010, 11:56

Yep, scary!

There are people on here better qualified to be Chancellor than Georgie; a second class history degree and never having had a proper job isn’t enough. I’m no big LibDem enthusiast, but at least Vince Cable was Chief Economist with one the world’s largest corporations plus has a PhD in economics.

EDIT: oops, typo changed "latest" to "largest"

Post by **clv101** » 15 Mar 2010, 12:36

Quintus wrote:

Yep, scary!

There are people on here better qualified to be Chancellor than Georgie; a second class history degree and never having had a proper job isn’t enough. I’m no big LibDem enthusiast, but at least Vince Cable was Chief Economist with one the world’s latest corporations plus has a PhD in economics.

This is why we shouldn't have a 100% elected government. Ability to be elected is no guarantee of ability to do the job one has been elected to.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 15 Mar 2010, 13:05

clv101 wrote: This is why we shouldn't have a 100% elected government. Ability to be elected is no guarantee of ability to do the job one has been elected to.

If we didn't have a 100% elected government, we would presumably have an x% appointed government. Who would do the appointing? and in whose interest would they be appointed?

Even in our 100% democratic system, we seem to have suffered political capture (e.g. The Quiet Coup). I suspect with an appointed fraction, such influence would be even greater. At least democracy gives the powerless the power of numbers,

Peter.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 15 Mar 2010, 13:19

clv101 wrote:This is why we shouldn't have a 100% elected government. Ability to be elected is no guarantee of ability to do the job one has been elected to.

IMO, we must have a 100% elected House of Commons, but perhaps the system of voting needs to change (PR ?). The likely result of which would be more coalition government, which would hopefully lead to roles for people like Vince Cable, Martin Bell etc.

I don't know why so many people are fearful of a hung/coalition government, as there is so little to choose beteween the policies of the 3 main parties anyhow.
The only real alternative visions are being offered by the Greens/UKIP/BNP etc.

Life appointments to the House of Lords seems reasonable, so long as there's a fair and balanced process to the appointment process. If we do introduce elections, I couldn't see there being much (any ?) interest in voting. At a guess, EU elections currently get ~35% turn out, and Local elections ~20%, so I'd imagine ~10% turn out for these elections. Would it be worth it for such a small mandate ?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 15 Mar 2010, 15:30

Quintus wrote:
kenneal wrote:I hear that senior members of Brown's cabinet are grumbling they are rarely if ever consulted; the boss likes to run things with Balls and a handful of unelected cronies.
You're probably right, but with the Cameron revelation it looks like a systemic problem - and a serious one. I'm only pointing out that an elected second chamber won't help with this particular issue.

I’d argue that Brown, Balls and Mandelson (or Cameron, Osborne and Mrs Cameron) running the entire country is a much bigger problem than a misfiring House of Lords.

Having said that I can't resist adding that between them Cameron and Osborne's total work experience is as follows:

One week at Selfridges (Osborne)
One week data entry in the NHS (Osborne)
PR for a TV company (Cameron)
Conservative Central Office (Cameron/Osborne)
MP and Shadow role (Cameron/Osborne)

My fear is that they think they know it all. There's certainly few, if any, meaningful constitutional checks to stop them doing what they want.

What experience did Bleh and Brown have when they first got in?

But the difference is that when they got in the country was in a strong economic position and they didn't have to, nor did they want to, change the economic policy. The next government will inherit a country on the rails.

What a recommendation to vote Labour!!

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 15 Mar 2010, 16:39

well, one thing they did straightaway was to transfer power over interest rate decisions to the BoE, classic example of giving some significant authority to non-elected experts.

Where they went wrong IMHO was to fail to build enough reserves during the good years, mainly that was because TB wanted us to splash out on the NHS. We now have a great NHS but no reserves with which to weather the downturn.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Mar 2010, 17:39

goslow wrote:mainly that was because TB wanted us to splash out on the NHS.

Thank goodness too. I have personally benefited from that in a literally life-changing way.