Fully elected House of Lords

[Happy Face 29]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6429371.stm

 

As much as I'm not a fan of hereditary peers, I think 100% elected is a mistake. You'll end up with little difference between the two hosues, everyone in them being a self-serving, slimy, crooked, vote chasing politician.

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6429371.stm

 

As much as I'm not a fan of hereditary peers, I think 100% elected is a mistake. You'll end up with little difference between the two hosues, everyone in them being a self-serving, slimy, crooked, vote chasing politician.

 

 

Yup, but I actually think hereditary peers were better than the current appointed cronyism (I'm hoping cash for peers takes some high profile targets down, but I suspect it will be a whitewash or at best 1 person setup to take the fall - and to think Labour came to power vowing to destroy "sleaze".... I'd say the were on par if not worse than the last Tory government on that issue now).

 

Fully elected won't be some democratic nirvana...... but it might be the least worst option (better than hereditary and better than cronyism)..... which frankly is largely what Democracy is anyway, kinda controlled corruption and the least worst for of Government.

 

At the end of the day the Lords has an important role in reigning in the commons, especially when there is a large majority for one party in there. That’s something that must be important with the Lords though, the elections cannot be at the same time as a general election as having one party control both houses is worrying to say the least.

[Guest alex]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6429371.stm

 

As much as I'm not a fan of hereditary peers, I think 100% elected is a mistake. You'll end up with little difference between the two hosues, everyone in them being a self-serving, slimy, crooked, vote chasing politician.

Whilst being against it in principle, I think it worked well.

[Ally 0]

A fully elected house would be crap without some sort of major constitutional reform that would see a proper two tier legislature like in the US and other countries.

 

The voters would need to actually see what role the Lords played to make their vote worthwhile, or turnout will be pathetic. Ask the average bloke on the street and he'll probably know what the Commons does, but not a clue about the Lords.

[snakehips 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6429371.stm

 

As much as I'm not a fan of hereditary peers, I think 100% elected is a mistake. You'll end up with little difference between the two hosues, everyone in them being a self-serving, slimy, crooked, vote chasing politician.

Whilst being against it in principle, I think it worked well.

 

This voting the 'upper house' is a joke imo. Have they (NEW Labour politians) not noticed the complete apathy with the electorate?? The mind boggles at the turnout at such elections and the result of 'couldn't care less vote for anything' ballots!

 

Whilst far from being good, the House of Lords did have a little respect imo. But, ultimately, the upper house can only 'knock-back' a Bill three times iirc, which makes their roll pretty insignificant really?

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6429371.stm

 

As much as I'm not a fan of hereditary peers, I think 100% elected is a mistake. You'll end up with little difference between the two hosues, everyone in them being a self-serving, slimy, crooked, vote chasing politician.

Whilst being against it in principle, I think it worked well.

 

This voting the 'upper house' is a joke imo. Have they (NEW Labour politians) not noticed the complete apathy with the electorate?? The mind boggles at the turnout at such elections and the result of 'couldn't care less vote for anything' ballots!

 

Whilst far from being good, the House of Lords did have a little respect imo. But, ultimately, the upper house can only 'knock-back' a Bill three times iirc, which makes their roll pretty insignificant really?

 

 

Well that's mostly due to the 1949 act (which Blair has used a few times IIRC).

 

But that doesn't make them worthless, far, far from it.

 

The delay they can inflict has changed or even stopped more than the odd bill, not to mention that the publicity they produce when doing so tends to highlight such issue for the public (which is a very important role in and of itself) and in doing so brings any iffy legislation right into the publics mind.

 

In that sense the are still a vital safeguard of democracy, even if in some ways they are toothless (although making them fully elected would be grounds for given the upper house more "teeth" IMO).

 

 

The above is partly why frankly the hereditary system (despite being achronistic and inherently exclusive and totally unrepresentative of the country as a whole) actually probably worked better (to protect the public interest that is - NOT help the Government pass whatever it fancied) than the current appointed cronies system.