Categories
Politicians shouldn’t appoint Lords – politicalbetting.com
Politicians shouldn’t appoint Lords – politicalbetting.com
June will see the King’s Birthday honours (even though his birthday is in November) and new peers will be created. Unless Starmer breaks the depressing precedent, new peers will include major party donors, loyal backbenchers and party officials, and other people that party leaders like. A Guardian columnist will call for an elected second chamber, which would mean yet more politicians.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Im no more attracted to a technocratic chamber than an appointed one.
As to why... Maybe our benign history means that we've never experienced the downside of unquestionable executive power concentrated in one institution. Or person.
House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.
I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.
Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.
https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map
All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.
An English parliament is a massive constitutional issue. A lack of representation where the English pretend that England is Britain whilst bemoaning the cash and independence granted to the other nations.
We fix that quite simply. 4 nations, four parliaments. Each nation can manage its own affairs as it sees fit with a federal parliament over the top to manage our coexistence, foreign policy, defence and part of the budget.
For the people saying no, what is the preferred model? What we have now is nonsensical and increasingly problematic, what we had prior to devolution was itself falling into disrepute and would be practically impossible to revert to. If not Federalism then what? Bumble along with the current mess?
Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.
Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides
This is also fun
https://been.app/
An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
Though, in all fairness, this is a good and serious issue. It might also be added that the question of the supremacy of the UK parliament in constitutional affairs is an important one. At the moment, Scotland and Wales only have devolution, which is instantly reversible by Prime Ministerial edict and the majority vote of a HoC which itself is mostly non-Scots. Federalism it ain't. It should be remembered that for centuries the separate Scots legal, educational and administrative systems were run solely from Whitehall till the development of administrative devolution started ca 1890s onwards.
Lots of countries are federal with much smaller units of population, including some US States and Switzerland. Even the IOW has a bigger population than devolved regions like Nunavut or Greenland, and the Channel islands and Isle of Man manage their own affairs perfectly competently with small populations.
I got 276 ...
Edit: 285 actually!
Shetland for the total wildness. Foula!!
You can tell politics is calming down when the Lords question comes out for a visit.
I'm fairly ambivalent - it all depends what you want from an Upper Chamber and that in return relates to how you want the Lower Chamber to operate.
There's a strong argument for a body to properly scrutinise legislation - we've had a lot of poorly constructed legislation in recent times and having somewhere where the faults in the legislation itself can be found and corrected is no bad thing but we have a Committee system in the Commons and the basic question then becomes why is such poor legislation being drafted and put before Parliament?
If one chamber represents the will of the people (to a point under FPTP), having a second chamber of people who know what they're talking about is no bad thing. That would require a more flexible approach of bringing in experts (yes, we all "hate" experts, I'm told - I don't) to examine partiular pieces of legislation (a quality control exercise if you will) and ensure what is being promulgated a) works and b) doesn't contradict or clash with existing law.
I have no idea exactly what places I have stayed in, visited, or passed through but I presume it is all of England and Wales, about half of Scotland and none of NI. A very large percentage of that will also be 'stayed in' if you count at least one sleep.
My world travel is very much more limited focusing primarily on Western Europe with only a little further afield.
I am amazed you have only hit 50% of the world. It shows what a challenge that is, particularly as Europe contributes a significant number of countries.
I think larger countries need to be covered by State/Province/Oblast etc. I can't really claim to have seen Russia just by visiting St Petersberg and Moscow, nor Canada having only been to Toronto and Montreal.
You don't know what those other are. So you aren't removing just non Conservatives. They will have political views. I can think of two immediately that were LD MPs just for example.
It is a simple fact that there are approximately 100 more Conservative whipped Lords more than any other grouping and that they approximately equal all the other whipped groupings added together. A simple fact I quoted to negate the statement 'stuffed with left leaning statist peers'
How on earth could you have an issue with that?
In fairness to @Luckyguy1983 from his political perspective his view may well be that many of the Conservative whipped Lords may be left leaning which is a fair enough view, but it is bizaree you should challenge the 2 facts I stated.
It sounds beautiful and interesting if you catch the right weather, but I never seem to have cause to go.
When I retire completely*, I am tempted to get a camper van and do an IanB2 with my hound and tour the rest of Britain and Europe. There is an incredible density of things to see.
* it will be to the IoW, but I am likely to want to get away at times.
No elected second chamber (unless it is a small element) as, whatever other countries do, in the UK we would see rival claims from both chambers to the same legitimacy which would cause both rows and get things stuck (see USA).
There needs to be an element of political appointment but this should be limited much more than now.
We manage to have a body which is respected to oversee judicial appointments, and it works pretty well. Such a commission would be one option.
There needs to be more than just an applicant scrutiny process. Lots of people who would be good in the Lords would never apply, and lots of applicants should be disqualified simply because they want the job. It should mostly go to people who don't want it.
Finally, I am in a minority of about one here, there should be a small hereditary element, to represent the Edmund Burke elements of political theory.
The only big holes now are central and west Africa, Central America and parts of the Middle East - Saudi Iran etc
But there are also about 60 micro states - mainly islands in the Caribbean and Polynesia and so on. So getting over 130 is really quite hard unless you dedicate yourself to it. Which some do!
Basically all coloured apart from NI, Caithness, Argyll, Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire, various Scots islands.
And which experts? For example - SAGE or alt SAGE? Mark Carney?
Technocrats are always the worst option and a quick tweak of their terms of reference and they are just a veneer for ramming through draconian horse shit 'we all agree the proposed legislation for radioactive cornflakes will result in no suppertime radiological incidents'
Thank-you for an interesting header, on what is currently an important subject.
Again in recent years I have had to get involved with the Limitations Act and sadly had to read it in detail. It is a can of worms. It reads like a compromise between two groups who fundamentally disagree with one another (and by the nature of it I don't think this is political). It is full of rules, with exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions and exceptions to exceptions to exceptions as if one group of people were trying to undo what another group of people have done and then the first group try and undo the second groups amendment, etc, etc. It is a hotch potch of compromises. Not a good advert for lawmaking.
Conservative 287
Labour 212
Crossbenchers 181
LibDem 77
Non-affiliated/independent 40
Bishops 24
DUP 6
other groups <5 each
It’s stuffed with Tories.
OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.
(Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here? I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
You ok with me doing that @StillWaters? I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting again do I?
To be known as The House of Bastards.
Titles would run in reverse complexity
5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard
4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard
3) The Right Honourable Bastard
2) Right Bastard
1) Bastard
Changes of Scottish involvement in the Lords over the next few years may be interesting.
SNP non-involvement in the Lords is entirely a deliberate decision by the SNP to punch themselves in the face.
In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.
It's no different in practice in the Lords.
And Belfast is quite a handsome if scarred city. In a striking location
This despite the fact that the idea of a scientist or economist being a neutral, politically innocent computing machine who wears a white coat and does things with test tubes or graphs went out with char ladies and bowler hats - they all have a political agenda.
Can you see how thinking a little deeper than surface level might reveal this to be a rather bad idea?
Alentejo - 40C - in late May. I think that’s a record
The other day a friend offered me his beautiful house in Provence for a week of quiet knapping. Normally I’d jump at the chance - but he was offering a week in July
And I thought… July? Provence? Hmmmmm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5gZWJHP6Hk
Here's one try, based on succession, but only about 30:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23272491
End of.
Maybe we'd even get a British PM from NI at some point. I still think its terrible that we haven't/can't.
As our American friends are demonstrating, good chaps theory breaks down when the chaps in charge are not good.
But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
I simply challenged 'stuffed with left leaning'. 'stuffed' has a real meaning and the evidence showed that to be wrong unless you consider the Conservative peers to be left leaning which @Luckyguy1983 might, which is a fair argument on his part.
Secondly you jump to conclusions regarding the assumption that a crossbencher must be left of the Tories. I assume because you assume if they were Tories they would take the Tory whip. The Lords doesn't work like that. People with strong political views, including Tories sit as Crossbenchers. All ex-speakers of the Commons sit as crossbenchers, non political appointments do also, politicians sometimes change for reasons often when taking a non political role eg Lord Carlile. Many inherited peers do also. None of us know the makeup, but at a guess I would assume there are more Tories amongst them just because of history and appointments even if they don't sit as Tories. Crossbenchers don't take the whip because of their politics, they don't take it for other reasons.
However regardless of the crossbenchers position my 2 statements were factually correct and negate the comment made.
The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
But, yes, it’s like how the rise of the SNP has meant fewer Cabinet members ever represent Scottish constituencies.
I am simply referring to a whole steak and it was a joke.
God the pedantry this morning. You and @StillWaters should get together.
What we're seeing here is some confirmation bias: you believe the House of Lords is and must be an innately conservative institution so you're scratching around to try and make the evidence fit, which doesn't exist.
The Lords represents the establishment. The establishment is, by definition, conservative. The Lords is overwhelmingly old and upper/middle class.
As for percentages, it’s 34% Tory, the largest block. That’s 10pp higher than their general election vote and double their current polling! That’s a massive bias in the Tories’ favour.
Then appointment from a list supplied by the group, proportional to numbers declaring.
Late I know, but I've been trying to sort out posting on a new (to me) website which to me seems excessively complicated, although it might have been the chap who was trying to advise me!
I do think we've reached stage with the British Constitution where a revision of the House of Lords is necessary; it's noticeable that recently a few people seem to be being appointed for short-term posts ..... the Lady who has been appointed to represent Plaid Cymru for example.
And on quite another point, some of us have moved quite a long way; I'm 200 miles from where one set of grandparents lived, and 50 miles from the others, and I 'made' my wife move 250 miles from her parents.
Now one of my children lives 60 miles from us and the other 5000. And I've two grandchildren in Australia!
So, what makes it work? Better equality? More money on maintaining these spaces? The active travel routes and the forest access making it a much better place to live? There were also multiple small play areas and little parks, so every flat was near some nice outside space. I lived, over a decade ago, in a slightly comparable area in the UK in that it was in a flat, near woodland, but that lacked any real play facilities nearby or parks other than the woodland and was in quite a well-to-do part of town. The sink estates were much further from the green spaces.
The one thing that strikes me about the approach of Denmark and Finland to estates with lots of blocks of flats is that there is a lot of open space - it's still high density overall, but there is a lot of space given over to simply giving people space. It's as if the planners - and/or developers actually cared about making nice places to live for everyone. I don't think we had this in the UK.
Once again, it makes me a bit wistful for a different approach to public space and public goods.
ETA: There was a little park with a football pitch (well, no more than some hard ground and couple of goals) and a municipal (branded) football left lying around. How long would that last here?