Reforming the Upper Chamber

[1%er]

So how would you reform it?

It isn't my business how the people of the UK are governed.I was just pointing out that the house of commons has many of the same problems you applied to the house of lords.

 

[BandWagon]

It isn't my business how the people of the UK are governed.I was just pointing out that the house of commons has many of the same problems you applied to the house of lords.

Well, they are at least elected, which is a good start. OK, from a list compiled by the political parties, but you've got to start somewhere. Maybe proportional representation?

 

[1%er]

Well, they are at least elected, which is a good start. OK, from a list compiled by the political parties, but you've got to start somewhere. Maybe proportional representation?

Any system where the elected representative is beholden to a political party rather than the people who elect them isn't really a system I'd want.

 

[BandWagon]

Any system where the elected representative is beholden to a political party rather than the people who elect them isn't really a system I'd want.

So tell me which countries have systems that you approve of?

 

[1%er]

So tell me which countries have systems that you approve of?

None as far as I know, but there are lots of places where one can live without political interference

 

[BandWagon]

None as far as I know, but there are lots of places where one can live without political interference

So tell?

 

[1%er]

So tell?

I don't understand your post

 

[BandWagon]

Which places can you live without political interference?

 

[1%er]

Which places can you live without political interference?

Areas where government laws and rules are not enforced, most of the developing world outside the towns and cities.

People in those areas have to fend for themselves and live according what is acceptable to them.

 

[BandWagon]

Areas where government laws and rules are not enforced, most of the developing world outside the towns and cities.

People in those areas have to fend for themselves and live according what is acceptable to them.

Don't tell me, a libertarian?

 

[1%er]

Don't tell me, a libertarian?

who me?

I'm not sure I know what a libertarian is.

ETA I'm looking it up

Edit again If wiki is the correct definition of libertarian then I'm not one, although some of what that says appeals to me.

 

[BandWagon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

[1%er]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

See my edit

We are getting a long way from the thread

 

[BandWagon]

So you want to live in a 3rd world country with lousy health care, a dictator in charge, and die early? Smart move.

 

[1%er]

So you want to live in a 3rd world country with lousy health care, a dictator in charge, and die early? Smart move.

I do live in what you describe as a 3rd world country, but the healthcare is good (It seems I can get treatment faster than some of the people who have posted here about their experiences of the NHS) there is an elected government 3,500 KM away and I'm older than the life expectancy of parts of the UK.

I moved here over 30 years ago and yes, it was a smart move

(Well I'm off to the local community center which doubles as the local bar nice chatting with you)

 

[Cpatain Rbubish]

I feel awkward about posting this but I think it should be left well alone for the foreseeable future.

Although I find it's structure, method of composition and general non democratic nature unpalatable, it's record in the role of second house has been surprisingly good in my lifetime and IMO.

It has served more effectively than our elected representatives to curb the worse excesses of policy, poorly drafted or plain mental legislation and law.

It's true that it can be ultimately overruled by the parliament act but this is a political method of last resort in which the original proposed legislation will have been though both houses twice and almost without exception been subject to amendments on its journey. It's often these amendments that remove the worst of the original legislation. Also many bad bills (sorry Bill) die a death through this process due to lack of parliamentary time.

I'm far more concerned about the commons, our elected representatives tbh.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Here's the idea:

Unpaid or not paid much
Have to be professionals/business people etc - sane, cynical types, preferably old?

You stupid cunt

 

[Wilf]

You stupid cunt

Gets to the heart of it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Although I find it's structure, method of composition and general non democratic nature unpalatable, it's record in the role of second house has been surprisingly good in my lifetime and IMO.

.

Hmmm. Going back just a little bit further, the HOL prevented abolition of the death penalty for nearly two decades. It's a rotten institution.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've just had an idea, which is generally a Bad Thing, but I thought I'd pass it on anyway.

The House of Lords is a mess - undemocratic, ineffectual since it lacks a mandate and can be by-passed by means of the Parliament Act, and full of politcal appointees, hereditaries, and even - god help them - clerics.

Here's the idea:

Fully elected upper house, drawn from people who are non-political
Regionalised, so each region elects say 20/30 members
Unpaid or not paid much
Have to be professionals/business people etc - sane, cynical types, preferably old
Check and balance on the executive, nothing illegal permitted, stop illegal wars, balance the books etc - the govt can't wreck the place as they usually do
Each regional group sits in turn - Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham , Exeter, whatever - cheap, just hire a hotel suite for a few days
Each regional group works on plans to revitalise its region and sends them to the executive, who have a duty to review them and reply publicly
Govt is obliged to set aside some % of GDP for regional investment


I think this would kill 2 birds with one very cheap stone: restore legitimacy to parliament and revitalise the regions. What do you think?

1) If you limit your choice of potential members to "professionals/business people", your upper house would operate in the interests of that group, not in the interests of "the people".
2) "Professionals/business people" don't tend to work for "not much".
3) An upper house, as one of its' functions is to keep a check on the legislation passed by the lower house, needs to sit permanently, or it'll constantly be playing "catch-up".
4) Completely reforming one house without completely reforming both will cause more constitutional issues than it solves. Best to start again, from the ground upward.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So how would you reform it?

Kill everyone who wants to be a career politician. Not quickly, mind. A slow fate, perhaps mining salt, pour encourager les autres.