• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

House of Lords Reform

T

theyounghistorian77

New Member
arg-fallbackName="theyounghistorian77"/>
[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ig3oDxAG3bg_V1YzRuLJMQaMeZaw?docId=CNG.5282e2e5c1c8c8031cb4ba507201db69.3e1 said:
AFP[/url]"] Coalition under strain over House of Lords reform

LONDON , British lawmakers began Monday debating plans to reform the upper house of parliament, or House of Lords, that have opened up sharp divisions in Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government.

The two-day debate will be followed by a vote late Tuesday on the bill, which would create a smaller and mainly elected upper house and complete the abolition of hereditary peers from the assembly.

The draft legislation to overhaul the Lords -- an institution dating back to the 14th century -- has caused tensions thin the coalition of Cameron's Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat party.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whose Lib Dems have heavily backed the reforms, opened the debate on Monday by saying said the House of Lords was "a flawed institution" with "no democratic mandate".

"Right now we are one of only two countries in the world -- the other being Lesotho -- with an upper parliamentary chamber which is totally unelected and instead selects its members by birth right and patronage," he said.

In a sign of the fierce passions aroused by the debate, Clegg had to speak loudly to be heard as he was jeered by some Conservative opponents of the bill.

Around 70 rebel Conservative lawmakers signed a letter ahead of the debate, warning that the bill would "pile a constitutional crisis on top of an economic crisis".

They also want the reforms to be given unlimited parliamentary time for scrutiny, rather than the 10 days offered by the government.

A spokesman for Cameron would not confirm reports that the prime minister had spent the weekend trying to persuade backbenchers to get behind the changes, but said he would discuss the issue with his lawmakers.

"No one should be in any doubt about his position on Lords reform. He is committed to these reforms," the spokesman said.

"He and Cabinet colleagues have been making the case over the past couple of weeks. I am sure that he is speaking to colleagues and he will reiterate his position when he does so."

Under the proposed reforms 80 percent of the upper chamber would be elected, while its more than 800-strong membership would be reduced to 450.

Critics fear that elected membership of the House of Lords, which scrutinises legislation before it passes, could undermine the supremacy of the lower house, the House of Commons.

All three main parties in Britain promised changes to the Lords at the last general election in May 2010, but it is the Lib Dems who are the strongest proponents.

The Lib Dems have signalled that they would block key Conservative-driven plans to redraw Britain's constituency boundaries if Cameron's party halts Lords reform.

The main opposition Labour party has said it will back the Lords Bill but accused the government of failing to provide enough time to debate it.

Labour lawmakers are expected to join Conservative rebels in opposing a second motion to limit the debate to 10 days -- which could result in the government's first major defeat in the Commons.

The law would complete the process of abolishing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords which began under the previous Labour government in 1999, when their number was frozen at 92.

Under the new plans members elected under a form of proportional representation would serve a single 15-year term.

Another 90 members will be appointed by a statutory commission on a non-party basis while there would also be 12 Church of England bishops, down from the current 26 representatives.

Ministers aim to see the bill passed into law by May next year, with the first Lords elections in 2015, but the opposition could significantly delay its passage through parliament.
Click to expand...
 
arg-fallbackName="Prolescum"/>
I'm sort of attracted to the idea of a fixed-term meritocratic upper house without party affiliations. I don't know if it's ever been given serious consideration... Just imagine for a second. David Attenborough, JK Rowling, Benjamin Zephaniah, Colin Pillinger, Germaine Greer, Ronnie Corbett and Tom "I'm played by Paul McGann in this one" Baker...



Want.
 
arg-fallbackName="Prolescum"/>
WarK said:
Jeremy Clarkson should be appointed as well :D
Click to expand...

You'll have to shoot me in the face with a tactical nuke before that horrid bastard has any position of authority... :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="WarK"/>
Prolescum said:
WarK said:
Jeremy Clarkson should be appointed as well :D
Click to expand...

You'll have to shoot me in the face with a tactical nuke before that horrid bastard has any position of authority... :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, he said he'd make James May the minister of transport had he come to power. :D
 
arg-fallbackName="theyounghistorian77"/>
Prolescum said:
I'm sort of attracted to the idea of a fixed-term meritocratic upper house without party affiliations. I don't know if it's ever been given serious consideration... Just imagine for a second. David Attenborough, JK Rowling, Benjamin Zephaniah, Colin Pillinger, Germaine Greer, Ronnie Corbett and Tom "I'm played by Paul McGann in this one" Baker...



Want.
Click to expand...

Now that i really would want, but as far as i understand, a reformed HoL under what is being proposed is still going to be party political. :(

---
WarK said:
Jeremy Clarkson should be appointed as well :D
Click to expand...

I cannot see that being terribly productive :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="WarK"/>
You English people clearly don't know what's good for you ;)

It's time you let other nations elect your government.
 
arg-fallbackName="malicious_bloke"/>
In a way i'd like to see the upper house become an elected body. On the other hand, if that happened i'd definitely like to see the members separated from the party politics of the lower house.

One party having a majority in both houses defeats the object of having a two houses in the first place (not to mention being an open invitation for the PM to push any bollocks legislation he/she likes with little chance of failure) while having each house held by a majority of opposing sides just leads to a legislature that gets virtually nothing done.

If the lords were made up of people with no party affiliation it would start to make sense as a filter to the legislation coming out of the commons.
 
arg-fallbackName=")O( Hytegia )O("/>
Plus, how would you do it?
American style where one house has an even representation per voting district, while the other is based upon unit population?

If it was just popular votes, then you might as well have a single house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top