Labour Subtly Undermining Lords Credibilty
Paul Hyett
Labour leadership next session?
Every time they reject a Labour amendment, it becomes a propaganda
victory for Labour in their campaign to abolish heriditory peers.
In the face of this, how so the Lords maintain their legitimate scrutiny
of legislation?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Andrew Yong
>I believe that that argument has been won. I can't see the gallant
>citizens rallying around to save one of the few independent parts of
>the Constitution.
No, but I think TB can be prevented from implementing his
first-and-only-stage plane to turn the House of peers into an
appointed quango. Then it will be up to him: whether he wants an
elected Senate challenging him all through his first term in office,
or whether he will settle for the independent but meek Lords spiritual
and temporal.
andrew
--------------------------------------
Andre...@Christ-Church.Oxford.AC.UK or @chch.ox.ac.uk
Andrew Yong
>> No, but I think TB can be prevented from implementing his
>> first-and-only-stage plane to turn the House of peers into an
>> appointed quango.
>
>How do you think that's going to be prevented, then?
I'm not perfectly confident, but Lord Pearson of Rannoch's humble
address to The Queen and his alternative plans for reform of the Lords
can lead to a determined resistance to Blair's plans by the Lords, who
after all are still part of Parliament: I don't think Blair can
seriously get away with changing the constitution in this way without
having to put forward some long-term blueprint for the Lords. I also
do not think the first Labour prime minister after 18 years of Tory
government would like to risk a strong second chamber before he has
completed all his important reforms: what he wants is a weaker second
chamber, not a stronger one.
But even if this succeeds it will not save the Lords forever: the most
we can hope for is to keep the present Lords as it is or with minimal
reforms for a few years until he has pushed through all his
controversial reforms, and an elected Senate can be agreed.
Andrew Yong
>> I don't think Blair can
>> seriously get away with changing the constitution in this way without
>> having to put forward some long-term blueprint for the Lords.
>
>Ooh, I think he can >(a) its about 100 years overdue and
You exaggerate by several decades.
>(b) it was made
>explicit before the election. I can't see anything stopping it.
I think the Lords, whose duty it is to function as a check on the
dominant party in the Commons, are perfectly entitled to demand
nothing less than a general election where the _whole_ plan of Lords
reforms is put to the British people before they give in to their
execution. The Salisbury Convention is merely a convention designed to
allow Labour to legislate _with_ the Lords: it would be stupid to
allow them to use it for their Lordships' collective emasculation.
If Labour refuse, the Lords should press ahead with Lord Salisbury's
or Pearson of Rannoch's alternative plans which preserve the autonomy
of the Upper House until a democratic alternative is put forward by
the Government. They can also delay the Government's reform bill by a
year, and in the meanwhile cause havoc to its schedule of reforms and
other legislative measures. The Government in the Lords is at a
disadvantage it doesn't have in the Commons: there is no guillotining,
nor is there the same power the Leader of the House of Commons has.
After all, the Government has made sure they have nothing to lose.
Bppjules
Gardner) writes:
>" We will
> clean up politics
> - End the hereditary principle in the House of Lords"
I actually agree with this.
But why won't Labour use the same principle to get rid of the Monarchy?
I'd vote for a party that promised a referendum on the future of the Monarchy,
even if other wouldn't..........
Julian.
Paul Hyett
<chri...@sable.ox.ac.uk> stated this considered view. To keep the
thread going, I replied -
>6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
>
>>> I don't think Blair can
>>> seriously get away with changing the constitution in this way without
>>> having to put forward some long-term blueprint for the Lords.
>>
>>Ooh, I think he can >(a) its about 100 years overdue and
>
>You exaggerate by several decades.
>
>>(b) it was made
>>explicit before the election. I can't see anything stopping it.
>
>I think the Lords, whose duty it is to function as a check on the
>dominant party in the Commons, are perfectly entitled to demand
>nothing less than a general election where the _whole_ plan of Lords
>reforms is put to the British people before they give in to their
>execution.
Rubbish! HoL reform was in Labour's manifesto. Since they won the
election, it is therefore deemed to have been approved by the
electorate.
> The Salisbury Convention is merely a convention designed to
>allow Labour to legislate _with_ the Lords: it would be stupid to
>allow them to use it for their Lordships' collective emasculation.
Breaking the Salisbury Covention would be pointless, as Labour would
counter either by invoking the Parliament Acts, or by threatening to
create hundreds of new life peers.
>
>If Labour refuse, the Lords should press ahead with Lord Salisbury's
>or Pearson of Rannoch's alternative plans which preserve the autonomy
>of the Upper House until a democratic alternative is put forward by
>the Government. They can also delay the Government's reform bill by a
>year, and in the meanwhile cause havoc to its schedule of reforms and
>other legislative measures.
Which would be a further nail in the Lords coffin, as the public would
NOT accept unelected peers overriding the democratically elected
Commons. With the public support gained, Labour would be able to carry
through stronger anti-Lords measures than they otherwise could.
> The Government in the Lords is at a
>disadvantage it doesn't have in the Commons: there is no guillotining,
Close the Westminster Bars, that alone should prevent the Lords debates
dragging on too long! :)
>
>After all, the Government has made sure they have nothing to lose.
No, THAT'S the point of the legislation! :)
Bppjules
Gardner) writes:
>In the same manifesto, New Labour stated:
>
> "We have no plans to replace the monarchy."
Typical Labour, the House of Lords is evil, but the Monarchy is lovely. Any
idiot can govern like Blair, never actually guided by any sort of principle.
I don't agree with it, but at least the Tory position is consistent.
Julian.
Bppjules
NF Stevens
The difference is that the power that the monarchy wields is purely
symbolic. The House of Lords has real power to change legislation.
In this case the difference is material.
Norman
Bppjules
Stevens) writes:
>The difference is that the power that the monarchy wields is purely
>symbolic.
I see, so the power to call a General Election, the power to dismiss a Prime
Minister, the power to stop any legislation you don't like, is all just
symbolic? There is a lot to suggest that the present Queen has input into
legislation (certainly under the Thatcher administration) before it is drafted,
so she does have real power.
>The House of Lords has real power to change legislation.
>In this case the difference is material.
The Commons can over-rule the Lords. The Commons can't over-rule the Monarch.
Either the principle is wrong or it's not. Typical of Labour to try and support
half the principle but not the other half.
Julian.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>Gardner) writes:
>
>>" We will
>> clean up politics
>> - End the hereditary principle in the House of Lords"
>
>I actually agree with this.
>
>But why won't Labour use the same principle to get rid of the Monarchy?
>
>I'd vote for a party that promised a referendum on the future of the Monarchy,
>even if other wouldn't..........
Hehe, don't let Louis Epstein hear you say that - he'd have a fit! :)
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>I don't agree with it, but at least the Tory position is consistent.
Ever heard of Darwinism, Julian?
Adapt or die - Labour learned that the hard way, will the Tories?
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>I don't agree with it, but at least the Tory position is consistent.
>
>Ever heard of Darwinism, Julian?
>
>Adapt or die - Labour learned that the hard way, will the Tories?
If you mean should Hague sell out what he believes in to gain power, then no, I
hope the Tories don't learn from Mr. Blair.
John Major's position on the House of Lords and the Monarchy was consistent and
logical. Tony Blair's is absolute nonsense, based on prejudice and weak
leadership.
Julian.
Bppjules
Andrew Yong
>Rubbish! HoL reform was in Labour's manifesto. Since they won the
>election, it is therefore deemed to have been approved by the
>electorate.
The important word here is "deemed". The Salisbury convention makes
that rather generous allowance in order to allow socialist governments
to govern within the constitutional framework. It does not give them a
blank cheque to completely mutilate the constitution based on some
vague and unspecific promise of stop-gap reform contained in a
manifesto few voters have ever read.
If you want to claim a proper mandate, then in the traditions of
British parliamentary democracy Tony Blair should dissolve Parliament
and hold a general election on the issue of Lords reform; though
nowadays a referendum would suffice. Some previous constitutional
conflicts have required two general elections.
Also if the Lords are to accept the present Government reforms they
should demand that if the second stage of the reforms isn't
implemented within five years the first stage would be revoked.
>> The Salisbury Convention is merely a convention designed to
>>allow Labour to legislate _with_ the Lords: it would be stupid to
>>allow them to use it for their Lordships' collective emasculation.
>
>Breaking the Salisbury Covention would be pointless, as Labour would
>counter either by invoking the Parliament Acts, or by threatening to
>create hundreds of new life peers.
The parliament acts provide a one year delay by the Lords.
The latter option could constitutionally be refused by Her Majesty
until Labour have fought and won a general election specifically on
Lords reform. The last time the King agreed to do that the Liberal
government had to advise two dissolutions. Anyway, wouldn't the
creation of about 500 new life peers completely screw up the chamber
Tony is trying to "reform"? The introduction of so many life peers
into the Lords would also take years, at today's quota of two new
peers a day.
>Which would be a further nail in the Lords coffin, as the public would
>NOT accept unelected peers overriding the democratically elected
>Commons. With the public support gained, Labour would be able to carry
>through stronger anti-Lords measures than they otherwise could.
There are _no_ stronger anti-Lords measures. Anyway bringing the
debate into the forefront would be worth it.
>>After all, the Government has made sure they have nothing to lose.
>
>No, THAT'S the point of the legislation! :)
Precisely, that's why the Lords will now fight it without reserve.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>I don't agree with it, but at least the Tory position is consistent.
>>
>>Ever heard of Darwinism, Julian?
>>
>>Adapt or die - Labour learned that the hard way, will the Tories?
>
>If you mean should Hague sell out what he believes in to gain power, then no, I
>hope the Tories don't learn from Mr. Blair.
If you're in opposition for 18 years, you'll sing a different tune. If
not, you'll be as anachronistic as 'Old' Labour is portrayed.
>
>John Major's position on the House of Lords and the Monarchy was consistent
> and
>logical.
> Tony Blair's is absolute nonsense, based on prejudice and weak
>leadership.
>
Weak? He certainly knocked Labour into shape enough for their biggest
ever majority!
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Tony Blair's is absolute nonsense, based on prejudice and weak
>>leadership.
>
>Weak? He certainly knocked Labour into shape enough for their >biggest ever
majority!
It's easy to gain power without principle.
Julian.
Rob
uk.politics.misc :
>On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Andrew Yong at Andrew Yong
><chri...@sable.ox.ac.uk> stated this considered view. To keep the
>thread going, I replied -
>>6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think Blair can
>>>> seriously get away with changing the constitution in this way without
>>>> having to put forward some long-term blueprint for the Lords.
>>>
>>>Ooh, I think he can >(a) its about 100 years overdue and
>>
>>You exaggerate by several decades.
>>
>>>(b) it was made
>>>explicit before the election. I can't see anything stopping it.
>>
>>I think the Lords, whose duty it is to function as a check on the
>>dominant party in the Commons, are perfectly entitled to demand
>>nothing less than a general election where the _whole_ plan of Lords
>>reforms is put to the British people before they give in to their
>>execution.
>
>Rubbish! HoL reform was in Labour's manifesto. Since they won the
>election, it is therefore deemed to have been approved by the
>electorate.
You sound more and more like Boothroyd every day Paul :)
New Age dude
> Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Rubbish! HoL reform was in Labour's manifesto. Since they won the
> >election, it is therefore deemed to have been approved by the
> >electorate.
>
> The important word here is "deemed". The Salisbury convention makes
> that rather generous allowance in order to allow socialist governments
> to govern within the constitutional framework. It does not give them a
> blank cheque to completely mutilate the constitution based on some
> vague and unspecific promise of stop-gap reform contained in a
> manifesto few voters have ever read.
It is of course ludicrous to think that people vote for a particular party
because of all their manifesto proposals. I imagine most people who voted
for Labour couldn't care jot about Parliamentary reform and simply did so
because they wanted to turn over a new leaf after 18 years of Tory
goverments.
Such serious constitutional changes are indeed worthy of a referendum.
--
Nuno A. G. Bandeira - Chemistry undg., IST Lisbon
* JARRE, V/\NGELIS, ENYA, OLDFIELD *
--
Leo
>In article <35e090db...@news.u-net.com>, nor...@arcady.u-net.com (NF
>Stevens) writes:
>>The difference is that the power that the monarchy wields is purely
>>symbolic.
>I see, so the power to call a General Election, the power to dismiss a Prime
>Minister, the power to stop any legislation you don't like, is all just
>symbolic?
Yes, because the circumstances in which she can use these powers are so
tightly defined by protocol that in practice she has no choice, hence no
power. I am much more concerned to abolish the parts of the Royal
Prerogative that are exercised by the PM and the Cabinet than those
exercised by the Queen herself.
>There is a lot to suggest that the present Queen has input into
>legislation (certainly under the Thatcher administration) before it is drafted,
>so she does have real power.
Interesting. Any particular examples?
>>The House of Lords has real power to change legislation.
>>In this case the difference is material.
>The Commons can over-rule the Lords.
True. But it takes time and effort, and why should the Lords have even that
much power?
>The Commons can't over-rule the Monarch.
Parliament can overrule the Monarch: that principle was established
provisionally in 1649 and definitively in 1689. It is called the principle
of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
>Either the principle is wrong or it's not. Typical of Labour to try and support
>half the principle but not the other half.
In theoretical principle, I agree. But there is political realism in their
stance, and that is important, too.
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy-lover
"To mistrust science and deny the validity of the scientific method is to
resign your job as a human. You'd better go look for work as a plant or
wild animal." --P.J. O'Rourke
Bppjules
writes:
>Yes, because the circumstances in which she can use these powers >are so
tightly defined by protocol that in practice she has no choice, >hence no
power.
But she has in theory those powers. The Lords has no power at all, the Commons
can over-rule them, the Commons can't over-rule the Monarch.
If you're arguing, which the Labour party is, that the Lords is wrong because
you are born into it, I can't see how the Monarchy can be right.
To be fair, I think great chunks of the Labour Party are consistent in this
(especially the left-wing parts) in not supporting either the hereditary
element in the Lords, nor supporting the Monarchy.
>>There is a lot to suggest that the present Queen has input into
>>legislation (certainly under the Thatcher administration) before it is
>>drafted, so she does have real power.
>
>Interesting. Any particular examples?
By necessity, mostly hearsay, because Thatcher would never admit to them, but I
have got a list of examples somewhere where the Queen is interfered. It could
be argued that Thatcher asked for advice, and the Queen gave her opinion, but
that again is being given real power simply because you are born into the role.
>>The Commons can over-rule the Lords.
>
>True. But it takes time and effort, and why should the Lords have even >that
much power?
IMO the Lords should have that power, but without the hereditary Peers. The
Commons does need to be held in check, but obviously not so much as it stops
the work of the Commons.
>>The Commons can't over-rule the Monarch.
>
>Parliament can overrule the Monarch: that principle was established
>provisionally in 1649 and definitively in 1689. It is called the principle
>of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
The Monarch can over-rule anything. They can't even abolish her without her
signing the Bill to make it an Act of Parliament.
>>Either the principle is wrong or it's not. Typical of Labour to try and
>>support half the principle but not the other half.
>
>In theoretical principle, I agree. But there is political realism in their
>stance, and that is important, too.
Agreed, I call it a moral and philosophical vacuum, which is typical of New
Labour.
Political realism is saying that you disagree with both, but you will only deal
with one thing at a time. That isn't what Blair is saying.
Julian.
Bppjules
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>Rubbish! HoL reform was in Labour's manifesto. Since they won the
>>election, it is therefore deemed to have been approved by the
>>electorate.
>
>You sound more and more like Boothroyd every day Paul :)
>
There's no need to insult me! :)
However, that IS how the system operates (unfortunately). While it would
be great to be able to vote each policy individually, direct democracy
of that nature is currently impractical (to say the least)! :)
Andrew Yong
>> The Salisbury convention makes
>> that rather generous allowance in order to allow socialist governments
>> to govern within the constitutional framework.
>
>Pish. Salisbury - a socialist? You'll be telling us Blair is a socialist
>next.
No, a leader of the Lords who recognised the need to balance Upper
House scrutiny with popular sovereignty.
>Nothing vague or unspecific about it at all. It was very precise and
>specific - quite unlike much of the rest of the New Labour mnifesto, it has
>to be said. It couldn't have been more clear.
> Manifesto> As an initial, self-contained reform, not
> Manifesto> dependent on further reform in the future,
> Manifesto> the right of hereditary peers to sit and
> Manifesto> vote in the House of Lords will be ended
> Manifesto> by statute.
That's hardly what Labour have led us to believe. No doubt they
counted on no-one reading the manifesto.
>No he shouldn't He doesn't have to and it would infuriate the voters to
>"hold an election" on such an exceedinly footling and trivial matter. Plus
>your whole argument is flawed. Governments can't "decide" what an election
>is about in any case.
It's parliamentary tradition. Anyway, I did say nowadays a referendum
would suffice.
>> they should demand that if the second
>> stage of the reforms isn't implemented within
>> five years the first stage would be revoked.
>
>They aren't in a position (practically or morally) to demand anything.
They are in a position to block every piece of government legislation
for one year.
Bppjules
(Marc Living) writes:
>Moreover, it was the 1979 to 1983 Labour Party which panicked, and
>believed that it needed to rip up its manifesto and start again. IMO
>it was *that* process which did more to keep them in opposition for 18
>years than anything that the Callaghan Government did.
If it wasn't for the Falklands, Labour could have been elected anyway in 1983.
Callaghan had the Major problem, no majority to work with.
1987 was unwinnable for Labour because of the growing economy and the boom in
the economy, and 1992 was there for the taking for Labour until John Major
snatched it from them.
I don't think Callaghan's Gvt kept Labour out for 18 years either...........
Julian.
Bppjules
Paul Hyett
<chri...@sable.ox.ac.uk> stated this considered view. To keep the
thread going, I replied -
I wonder if they'd actually stoop to THAT, just to preserve their sorry
hides for one more year? Now wouldn't THAT cause a constitutional
crisis!
Paul Hyett
clara.net> stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I
replied -
>On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:10:28 +0100, m'learned friend Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>>>They are in a position to block every piece of government legislation
>>>for one year.
>
>>I wonder if they'd actually stoop to THAT, just to preserve their sorry
>>hides for one more year? Now wouldn't THAT cause a constitutional
>>crisis!
>
>constitutional crisis?
>
All right, a crisis against their continued existance!
Leo
>In article <35f14283...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk (Leo)
>writes:
<snip - mostly stuff dealt with below>
>>>The Commons can over-rule the Lords.
>>True. But it takes time and effort, and why should the Lords have even >that
>much power?
>IMO the Lords should have that power, but without the hereditary Peers. The
>Commons does need to be held in check, but obviously not so much as it stops
>the work of the Commons.
IMO the Commons should be held in check by a proper second chamber, chosen
by a method that gave it some natural authority. A completely appointed
chamber (i.e. the Lords minus the hereditary peers) is just about the only
option I can think of that is worse than the status quo, if only
marginally.
>>>The Commons can't over-rule the Monarch.
>>Parliament can overrule the Monarch: that principle was established
>>provisionally in 1649 and definitively in 1689. It is called the principle
>>of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
>The Monarch can over-rule anything. They can't even abolish her without her
>signing the Bill to make it an Act of Parliament.
Precedent establishes that Parliament has the power to choose the monarch.
It did so in 1603, and the events of 1688 seem to establish that this
Parliamentary approval is an ongoing thing: that is, that if the monarch
ceases to have Parliament's confidence, Parliament can appoint a new
monarch, effectively deposing the old one. The monarchy descends by
primogeniture for no reason more or less than that an act of Parliament
(the Act of Succession) says so. Should it happen that the protestant heirs
of George of Hanover cease to reign in a way that commands Parliament's
confidence (e.g. because a republican majority is elected), Parliament will
have no less recourse than it did against James II. In practice, if it came
to that, the Queen would go with much less fuss than he did.
>>>Either the principle is wrong or it's not. Typical of Labour to try and
>>>support half the principle but not the other half.
>>In theoretical principle, I agree. But there is political realism in their
>>stance, and that is important, too.
>Agreed, I call it a moral and philosophical vacuum, which is typical of New
>Labour.
>Political realism is saying that you disagree with both, but you will only deal
>with one thing at a time. That isn't what Blair is saying.
Well, I'm happy to see NuLab at least doing something to dust the cobwebs
off our constitution, after the weedy excuses of all previous Labour
administrations. Rome was not built in a day. We will have to be patient.
It looks as though in the immediate future, the Scottish parliament will be
a more effective second chamber than the Lords.
Andrew Brian Hickman
wrote in article <35f0e1a3...@news.clara.net>...
> On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:10:28 +0100, m'learned friend Paul Hyett
> <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
> >>They are in a position to block every piece of government legislation
> >>for one year.
> >I wonder if they'd actually stoop to THAT, just to preserve their sorry
> >hides for one more year? Now wouldn't THAT cause a constitutional
> >crisis!
> Why would acting in accordance with the constitution cause a
> constitutional crisis?
The Labour Party largely operates on the almost unthinking trust of the
electorate and when they shout foul, the notional Tories run scared, as
they feel and largely are untrusted. The Lords are of course 'toffs'.
Paul Hyett
>>clara.net> stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I
>>replied -
>>><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>>>>>They are in a position to block every piece of government legislation
>>>>>for one year.
>
>>>>I wonder if they'd actually stoop to THAT, just to preserve their sorry
>>>>hides for one more year? Now wouldn't THAT cause a constitutional
>>>>crisis!
>
>>>Why would acting in accordance with the constitution cause a
>>>constitutional crisis?
>
>
>threatened with dissolution because it insists on acting within the
>constitution, then your argument follows.
>
>What *would* (IMO) be unconstitutional is if that part caved in to
>threats and, for that reason, failed to carry out its constitutional
>functions (or assert its constitutional rights).
The HoL will be perfectly capable of carrying out it's functions as
normal, even without the hereditory peers. Unfortunately ALL those who
oppose reform conveniently 'forget' that Labour would STILL be in a
decided minority! Additionally, all those who claim Labour could then
pack the HoL full of placemen, also ignore that fact that they could do
THAT now!
Andrew Yong
>The HoL will be perfectly capable of carrying out it's functions as
>normal, even without the hereditory peers. Unfortunately ALL those who
>oppose reform conveniently 'forget' that Labour would STILL be in a
>decided minority!
Which I assume you intend to compare to your fictional Tory majority
in the present House of Lords. Every party in the present House is in
a "decided minority".
> Additionally, all those who claim Labour could then
>pack the HoL full of placemen, also ignore that fact that they could do
>THAT now!
They couldn't. It would require more than 500 new creations.
Andrew Brian Hickman
wrote in article <35ea527...@news.jaring.my>...
> Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >The HoL will be perfectly capable of carrying out it's functions as
> >normal, even without the hereditory peers. Unfortunately ALL those
> >who >oppose reform conveniently 'forget' that Labour would STILL
> >be in a decided minority!
> Which I assume you intend to compare to your fictional Tory majority
> in the present House of Lords. Every party in the present House is in
> a "decided minority".
> > Additionally, all those who claim Labour could then
> >pack the HoL full of placemen, also ignore that fact that they
> >could do THAT now!
> They couldn't.
Even though it is probably impracticable, what legally prevents packing?
> It would require more than 500 new creations.
Does that count active or membership?
Andrew Yong
>Even though it is probably impracticable, what legally prevents packing?
What legally prevents Tony Blair from making Peter Mandelson Bishop of
London? What legally prevents the Labour front bench in the Lords from
voting in judicial decisions of the House? What legally prevents Tony
Blair from making himself a Duke?
>
>> It would require more than 500 new creations.
>
>Does that count active or membership?
Not sure. The HoL website has a list though.
Andrew Brian Hickman
wrote in article <35eba50e...@news.jaring.my>...
> " Andrew Brian Hickman" <t.my.c...@hot.brain.mail.com> wrote:
> >Even though it is probably impracticable, what legally prevents packing?
> What legally prevents Tony Blair from making Peter Mandelson Bishop of
> London?
Why would Mandelson want the demotion, even though being Jewish would
probably be no bar. Not believing in Christ was never a bar to being a Bishop.
> What legally prevents the Labour front bench in the Lords from voting in
> judicial decisions of the House?
No idea, or what the relevance to packing is?
> What legally prevents Tony Blair from making himself a Duke?
I do not see that there is, even if the raised eyebows bothered. You did not
get around to explaining what was wrong with my question?
> >> It would require more than 500 new creations.
> >Does that count active or membership?
> Not sure. The HoL website has a list though.
I asked, as is I do not believe it requires 500 active HoL members, especially
if you reduced the availability of backwoodsmen by some acceptable method.
Paul Hyett
>I agree - which is why it is best to replace the House of Lords. The
>problem is that the replacement body should be decided first: not as
>some undefined "second stage" which will be dropped from future plans
>as soon as the Government gets used to the patronage opportunities
>inherent in a wholly appointed second House.
>
I'd favour one elected on PR by regions (preferably STV), but give them
some semblance of REAL power, say an absolute veto over government
measures on a 2/3 majority, and NO whipping allowed!
Since it would be unlikely that any party would get 50%+ of the seats,
cross-party consensus would be necessary, and the standard anti-PR
argument about extremists would not apply, since they'd only have a
handful of seats.
Having fixed (4 year?) terms for these elections would eliminate
politics based timing of them too.
Andrew Yong
>I do not see that there is, even if the raised eyebows bothered. You did not
>get around to explaining what was wrong with my question?
Nothing inherently wrong with it, but very few British constitutional
limitations are imposed by law.
>I asked, as is I do not believe it requires 500 active HoL members, especially
>if you reduced the availability of backwoodsmen by some acceptable method.
I think reducing the backwoodsmen is the most logical reform of the
Lords. Even a life peer, if he hasn't been to the House int he past 10
years, shouldn't be able to vote.
Andrew Brian Hickman
wrote in article <35ed5e14...@news.jaring.my>...
> " Andrew Brian Hickman" <t.my.c...@hot.brain.mail.com> wrote:
> >I do not see that there is, even if the raised eyebows bothered. You
> >did not get around to explaining what was wrong with my question?
> Nothing inherently wrong with it, but very few British constitutional
> limitations are imposed by law.
Understood.
> >I asked, as is I do not believe it requires 500 active HoL members, especially
> >if you reduced the availability of backwoodsmen by some acceptable method.
> I think reducing the backwoodsmen is the most logical reform of the
> Lords. Even a life peer, if he hasn't been to the House int he past 10
> years, shouldn't be able to vote.
I have no real preference. As long as the concept is achieved, hopefully
in a better way than has currently not been properly mapped by Labour.
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I'd favour one elected on PR by regions (preferably STV), but give >them some
semblance of REAL power, say an absolute veto over >government measures on a
2/3 majority, and NO whipping allowed!
How do you ban party whipping?
It is too dangerous for an Upper House to have that sort of power. If the
elections had been in 1996, the newly elected Labour Upper House could have
brought the country to collapse by opposing every single piece of Conservative
legislation.
Julian.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>I'd favour one elected on PR by regions (preferably STV), but give >them some
>semblance of REAL power, say an absolute veto over >government measures on a
>2/3 majority, and NO whipping allowed!
>
>How do you ban party whipping?
Whip them LITERALLY if they do? :)
>
>
>It is too dangerous for an Upper House to have that sort of power. If the
>elections had been in 1996, the newly elected Labour Upper House could have
>brought the country to collapse by opposing every single piece of Conservative
>legislation.
Not possible, since Labour wouldn't have had the prerequiste 2/3
majority.
Andrew Yong
>This would have included an absolute veto on all non-money Bills by a
>simple majority (not two-thirds).
A new house would also need the equivalent of the flooding of the HoL,
if popular sovereignty is to be preserved. The regions of the UK are
not as legitimate as the states of Australia or the US that their
house deserves a veto.
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>It is too dangerous for an Upper House to have that sort of power. If the
>>elections had been in 1996, the newly elected Labour Upper House could have
>>brought the country to collapse by opposing every single piece of
>Conservative legislation.
>
>Not possible, since Labour wouldn't have had the prerequiste 2/3
>majority.
All the other opposition parties would have joined together.
Julian.
Leo
>In article <9ZKdorAl...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>I'd favour one elected on PR by regions (preferably STV), but give >them some
>semblance of REAL power, say an absolute veto over >government measures on a
>2/3 majority, and NO whipping allowed!
>How do you ban party whipping?
Probably impossible to ban directly. What would reduce its influence would
be to have the executive elected separately from the legislature, as for
instance in the USA. Since the choice of government would presumably remain
with the Commons, for the time being at least, whipping would be less
important in the secnd chamber.
>It is too dangerous for an Upper House to have that sort of power. If the
>elections had been in 1996, the newly elected Labour Upper House could have
>brought the country to collapse by opposing every single piece of Conservative
>legislation.
Remember Paul was talking about requiring a 2/3 majority to block
legislation. If the new second chamber was elected by PR that would mean
the government had less than 1/3 support. Don't you think such a
government's legislation ought to be blocked?
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy-lover
"Every area of trouble gives out a ray of hope, and the one unchangeable
certainty is that nothing is certain or unchangeable." -- John F. Kennedy
Bppjules
writes:
>Remember Paul was talking about requiring a 2/3 majority to block
>legislation. If the new second chamber was elected by PR that would mean
>the government had less than 1/3 support. Don't you think such a
>government's legislation ought to be blocked?
No. You can't run a country if your legislation is being blocked. The Upper
House's elections would probably be seen as chance to vote against the Gvt, so
a 67% majority is easy to achieve.
If the legislation can't be passed, you'd have to dissolve Parliament. You
can't do that every other year, it would be short-termism to the highest
degree.
Julian.
Paul Hyett
lara.net> stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I
replied -
>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:07:48 +0000, m'learned friend
>6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) made the following
>submissions:
>
>>In article <35edb99...@news.clara.net>,
>>ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
>
>>> Your suggestion shows that the goalposts have already been moved. In
>>> 1911 when the "temporary first stage" was passed, it was expressly
>>> envisaged that the reformed chamber would receive back *all* its
>>> powers and privileges.
>
>>I think your fears are entirely justified, Marc - that is that hereditary
>>voting rights will be abolished and that after that somehow, nothing more
>>will happen and in 50 years time that will still be the situation.
>
>>Where we perhaps differ is that I still think that this is infinitely
>>preferable to the status quo. It's not ideal by any means, but it's still
>>long overdue reform.
>
>I do not see replacing the current system, whereby only one House is
>under the direct control of the executive, with a system whereby
>*both* Houses are under the direct control of the executive as being a
>step forward in any sense of the word (unless you are referring to a
>step forward to absolutism).
>
>The acid test for any such reform is this. Would you be happy for a
>Conservative Government to be in control of such a "reformed" House?
I'm NEVER happy for tories to be in control of ANYTHING! :)
>
Seriously though, if enough people voted for them, I would accept it.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>It is too dangerous for an Upper House to have that sort of power. If the
>>elections had been in 1996, the newly elected Labour Upper House could have
>>brought the country to collapse by opposing every single piece of Conservative
>>legislation.
>
>Remember Paul was talking about requiring a 2/3 majority to block
>legislation. If the new second chamber was elected by PR that would mean
>the government had less than 1/3 support. Don't you think such a
>government's legislation ought to be blocked?
Quite!
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>It is too dangerous for an Upper House to have that sort of power. If the
>>>elections had been in 1996, the newly elected Labour Upper House could have
>>>brought the country to collapse by opposing every single piece of
>>Conservative legislation.
>>
>>majority.
>
>All the other opposition parties would have joined together.
Might still not have been enough, if you assume similar percentages to
the GE - 31% Tory, plus (3% Ref, 1% UU) who I assume would be more
likely to favour the tory status quo.
Bppjules
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Might still not have been enough, if you assume similar percentages to
>the GE - 31% Tory, plus (3% Ref, 1% UU) who I assume would be >more likely to
favour the tory status quo.
The Tories would have done worse in those elections though, because they would
enable people to make a protest vote against the Government.
So under your legislation, the Tories wouldn't have been able to do anything
from around 1995 to 1997. Groovy Paul, what effective Government that would
be..........
If we wanted a crap Gvt who couldn't do anything we would just elect the Lib
Dems and be done with it.
Julian.
Cliff Morrison
ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
> As for me, if the only choice for membership of the Lords is between
> accident of birth vs pals of the PM, I would rather retain the former.
with the latter, the chances of a lucky break are miniscule...
Cliff Morrison
(Simon Gardner) wrote:
> > As for me, if the only choice for membership of the Lords is between
> > accident of birth vs pals of the PM, I would rather retain the former.
>
> Whereas, though I like neither, I particularly deprecate the former.
Dunno, in the choice Marc poses maybe it is the latter which guarantees
they'll *all* be baddies....
> As I say, this particular reform has been overdue since the time of the
> French Revolution. It's certainly much more important than the Labour
> croneyism problem - which of course was much more severe when the Tories
> were in charge with their all-powerful hidden Quangocracy. At least the
> rump HoL will still be meeting in public.
Wonder how long till its pay-to-view?
Bppjules
(Marc Living) writes:
>But it is not a Government's *job* to "run" the country. That is *our*
>job. The Government's job is to *govern* the country, according to the
>law.
They should govern after being elected by us. We then let them govern.
Otherwise we would have elections every year, not a desirable situation.
>Governments seem to have managed perfectly well at governing the
>country before 1911: and still do in places like the US.
This is Britain in 1998. You cannot stop a Government governing. If you have
Two Houses in conflict, you will simply have a power struggle which would be
costly and inefficient.
>Or drop the legislation as being unnecessary (which 99.9% of it is)?
That would be a disaster, it would be short-termism to the highest degree. A
Gvt would be unable to follow through its program of Government, and be forced
just to implement populist legislation. That is likely to be short-term, and
very inefficient.
>Reading this viewpoint I wonder what you think the role of Parliament
>is? Do you believe it to be simply some sort of optional extra - a
>glorified focus group perhaps? To be dropped as soon as it gets in >the
Government's way?
You can't have two Houses in conflict, you need one strong effective Chamber.
You need a revising Chamber with almost no real power, but which amends and
improves legislation passed to it.
You are the one seeking to lower the power of Parliament, I believe in a strong
Parliament.
>Why not abolish it altogether if that is your view, and just elect a
>Government?
We elect the House of Commons. We don't need two House of Commons in this great
power struggle.
>If so however, you would be going against the whole basis of political
>theory in Britain from the 17th century onwards - which theory holds
>that it is the *job* of Parliament to get in the Government's way.
You're the one seeking to change the constutional arrangement, I am simply
defending it.
Julian.
Bppjules
Bppjules
(Marc Living) writes:
>They can govern. The only difference is that they will no longer be
>allowed to *rule* - unless the people see fit to give them majorities
>in both Houses.
Governments govern by taking the actions they think best in the interests of
the country. They are limited by the House of Commons, and the House of Lords
assists the work of the House of Commons.
Your argument is one of giving people more power more often, and that just
leads to short-termism. There is no benefit to democracy.
>If you have two Houses in conflict, it means that the Government has
>to govern within the *existing* law - rather than change it every five
>minutes.
Governments shouldn't do that, they need to implement their entire range of
policies, not bits of them. If they can't govern properly, then you will never
get radical solutions to problems, something this country needs.
>>>Or drop the legislation as being unnecessary (which 99.9% of it is)?
>
>>That would be a disaster, it would be short-termism to the highest degree.
>
>WHAT! Forcing Governments to administer existing laws, and only
>allowing changes to those laws in the event of Parliamentary
>majorities is "short-termism"?
A lot of legislation is brought in each session, as part of the Government's
programme. I actually think Labour's policies are pretty useless overall, but I
can't expect them to govern properly if they can't implement chunks of their
policies.
If you don't want a Government to drive forward new legislation, you might as
let the civil service run the country within the limitations of present laws.
>I should be interested to hear your justification for saying that
>Governments since the War have been *long* termist.
Inevitably there is a trade-off between short-termism and the country having a
say in the running of the country. Annual elections might be more democratic,
but they lead to short-termism. Five yearly elections may be slightly less
democratic, but they do lead to more long-termism.
>I should also like to hear the logic by which you can claim that
>preventing Governments from whipping through any half-baked measure
>they wish is being "short-termist".
You can't stop whipping. It isn't short-termist, it's just stupid.
>If it cannot get a majority in Parliament, then the legislation does
>not get implemented. That is what Parliament is *for*.
That is the role of the House of Commons. No majority, no legislation. The
Upper House should support the work of the House of Commons, not be in conflict
with it.
>No doubt Charles 1 would have had the same complaints about Parliament
>as you do - but that doesn't make you (or him) correct.
I haven't got any complaints. I am maintaining the situation we have developed
in this country over hundreds of years. I am avoiding huge conflicts between
the two Houses of Parliament which are costly and lead to ineffective
Government.
>You *are* familiar with the concept of checks and balances aren't you?
Yes, and you're seeking to destroy it.
>>You are the one seeking to lower the power of Parliament, I believe in a
>>strong Parliament.
>
>You are seeking a strong *Commons* - not a strong Parliament.
No, I want to keep the strong Parliament we have. The Lords should support the
Commons, not be in permanent opposition to it. The Upper House should be able
to delay bad legislation, not stop it.
>Indeed, you are not even seeking a strong Commons - since you seem to
>believe that its sole function is to rubber stamp Government
>legislation.
Parliament is there to hold the Government to account, and it should have many
powers, as the House of Commons does.
>So perhaps you would explain how you can claim to believe in a strong
>Parliament (bearing in mind that Parliament is a *legislative* body -
>not an executive one).
I wish to maintain the status quo, which has a strong Parliament. The House of
Lords should not be elected, and it should not have the power to stop
legislation, just to delay it.
>>>Why not abolish it altogether if that is your view, and just elect a
>>>Government?
>
>>We elect the House of Commons. We don't need two House of Commons >>in this
great power struggle.
>
>Then scrap the Lords and replace it with a quango of lawyers to make
>sure that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.
We don't need to scrap anything. If the hereditary Peers are removed, fair
enough. It should stay as it is, it is perfectly effective. It helps the House
of Commons in its work, it helps to improve the legislation, it can delay bad
legislation, and it frequently does block bad legislation regardless of the
party in power. That is good, that is the strength we need, and gives the
flexibility to let the Government govern.
>>You're the one seeking to change the constutional arrangement, I am simply
>>defending it.
>
>Typical. As soon as something has been around for a bit people assume
>that there is some justification about it. In 20 years time people on
>this ng will be arguing that the 2nd House has "always" been appointed
>by the PM, and that Government and Constitution wouldn't function
>unless it were so appointed.
I'm not concerned about change, but stupid change for the sake of it is
nonsensical. What on earth is the point of having another House of Commons
which simply leads to conflicts between each House. It doesn't help democracy,
it doesn't help law-making, it doesn't help governance of the country, and it
makes a mockery of Parliament.
>What *you* are defending is an expressly "temporary" constitutional
>arrangement brought in by the Parliament Act 1911 - which Act provided
>that the "temporary" removal of the Lords' powers would be reversed as
>soon as the "second stage" (remember that phrase), namely replacing
>peers with elected members, was completed.
There might be an argument for partial election, that is not an argument for
huge powers to the Upper House. The Upper House must never be allowed to
permanently block legislation. I'd rather the Prime Minister just appointed
people, a certain amount from each party. It works well enough at the moment.
>At the time, the fears of those MPs who thought that the Commons (and
>Government) would become too comfortable with an emasculated Lords,
>and fail to do anything about stage two, were derided as being
>unrealistic. The rest is history.
Mainly because the situation works. The House of Lords shows its strengths when
necessary, and does so very well. It has held up both legislation from
Conservative and Labour Governments when that legislation was of arguable
quality.
John Major is quite right, playing with the constitution is not necessary,
unless there is a need to do so to fix a problem. I have no idea what William
Hague thinks this week.
Julian.
I.K. Ridley
Simon Gardner <6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote:
>Actually, it's about to get a whole lot easier. The BBC - which has just
>taken over the parlimentary feed will be pushing The Parliament Channel
>down (free) from the new $ky digital satellite from this winter - so it
>will be available to a whole lot more people than hitherto (ie more than
>just cable subscribers).
Pity that we have a WWW site vacuum ATM. The Parliamentary Channel used to have
an informative site with State of the parties in Lord and Commons, Bios of MPs
and seleected Peers etc. Unfortunately this site is now closed.
Although the BBC parliament Channel broadcast the recall sessions, they haven't
got round to getting an assoiated internet site going, although a BBC press
release promises this will happen.
Ian Ridley
"There can be nothing harder than arguing a liberal case against populists",
Liberator commentary, June 1997. Views expressed are not neccessarily those of
Leicester University or LU Lib Dems: http://www.le.ac.uk/CWIS/SU/SO/LDSOC/
ldsoc.html (includes the Leics and Rutland Election Archive). HoL: (1/7/98)
C 471 Lab 158 LD 66 CB 325 Oth 117. Con maj: -195. HoC: Lab 419 C 164 LD 46
UUP 10 SNP 6 PC 4 SDLP 3 SF 2 DUP 2 UKUP 1 Ind 1 Spk 1 Vac 0. Lab maj: 180
Jonathan Munday
>In article <35f71181...@news.clara.net>,
>ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
>
>> I get the impression that if we were now discussing the
>> Parliament Act 1911, you would be strenuously in favour of the (then)
>> status quo.
>
>That has always been the Tory party's position on almost everything - with
>the exception of parts of the Thatcher interregnum, that is. Tories now
>appear to be reverting to type. "Ooh there's a new idea - let's heave half
>a brick at it."
>
As reform of the Lords extends at least as far back as 1830 I hardly
think it constitutes a new idea. Nor since any single govt in the 138
yrs since has thought it worth doing a very good one.
The Labour view seems to be "this is a new idea it must be a good one"
which history has repeatedly shown to be a universally disastrous
viewpoint.
--Non Angelus sed Anglus
Jonathan Munday
Paul Hyett
To keep the thread going, I replied -
>ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
>
>> I get the impression that if we were now discussing the
>> Parliament Act 1911, you would be strenuously in favour of the (then)
>> status quo.
>
>That has always been the Tory party's position on almost everything - with
>the exception of parts of the Thatcher interregnum, that is. Tories now
>appear to be reverting to type. "Ooh there's a new idea - let's heave half
>a brick at it."
To put it mildly!
What it all boils down to though, is protecting the power & privilege of
the upper classes, whatever the window dressing tories put on each
individual case.
Their motto has always been 'fuck the poor, i'm all right'! :(
Paul Hyett
<je...@opinicus.demon.co.uk> stated this considered view. To keep the
thread going, I replied -
>As reform of the Lords extends at least as far back as 1830 I hardly
>think it constitutes a new idea. Nor since any single govt in the 138
>yrs since has thought it worth doing a very good one.
>
>The Labour view seems to be "this is a new idea it must be a good one"
>which history has repeatedly shown to be a universally disastrous
>viewpoint.
Well call me odd, but I prefer living in the socialist influenced
1990's, rather than the the illusory 'golden age' of the 1830's!
Rest assured, when I invent a time machine, you can be first on the list
of passengers back to the bygone age you worship! :)
Leo
>In article <35fd83ea...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk (Leo)
>writes:
>
>>Remember Paul was talking about requiring a 2/3 majority to block
>>legislation. If the new second chamber was elected by PR that would mean
>>the government had less than 1/3 support. Don't you think such a
>>government's legislation ought to be blocked?
>No. You can't run a country if your legislation is being blocked. The Upper
>House's elections would probably be seen as chance to vote against the Gvt, so
>a 67% majority is easy to achieve.
I could refine Paul's suggestion as follows: have a quarter of the new
House elected each year. (e.g. divide the country into eight regions and
have two of them vote each year.) Then it could only swing against the
government gradually and with plenty of warning.
This would also be a neat way of at least partially implementing the last
unsatisfied demand of the Chartists: annual elections.
>If the legislation can't be passed, you'd have to dissolve Parliament. You
>can't do that every other year, it would be short-termism to the highest
>degree.
If, given my refinement, a government failed to mend its ways over years of
losses until its representation in the new House fell below 1/3, it might
have to go for a dissolution of the Commons. I can't see this as a
disadvantage.
Big Mac
<je...@opinicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <B2195A7C9...@0.0.0.0>, 6...@hack.powernet writes
>>In article <35f71181...@news.clara.net>,
>>ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
>>
>>> I get the impression that if we were now discussing the
>>> Parliament Act 1911, you would be strenuously in favour of the (then)
>>> status quo.
>>
>>That has always been the Tory party's position on almost everything - with
>>the exception of parts of the Thatcher interregnum, that is. Tories now
>>appear to be reverting to type. "Ooh there's a new idea - let's heave half
>>a brick at it."
>>
>As reform of the Lords extends at least as far back as 1830 I hardly
>think it constitutes a new idea. Nor since any single govt in the 138
>yrs since has thought it worth doing a very good one.
>
>The Labour view seems to be "this is a new idea it must be a good one"
>which history has repeatedly shown to be a universally disastrous
>viewpoint.
"Universally disasterous"? What nonsense.
Jonathan Munday
<who...@speed.com> writes
>>The Labour view seems to be "this is a new idea it must be a good one"
>>which history has repeatedly shown to be a universally disastrous
>>viewpoint.
>
>"Universally disasterous"? What nonsense.
>
which in the last 40 yrs has in retrospect turned out to be a good one.
Or retract
Jonathan Munday
OUNCEBACK.clara.net> writes
>On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 09:26:56 +0000, m'learned friend
>6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) made the following
>submissions:
>
>>> >French Revolution.
>
>>> haste results in a "reform" which is, at best, as bad as that which it
>>> is replacing.
>
>>Yes well I understand your position, but profoundly disagree with it.
>
>I think we'll just have to agree to differ on the "worst case" House
>of Lords.
>
>What is your opinion on what the "best case" HL ought to be?
>
>
Too easy - me with a dukedom :)
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>>In article <35fd83ea...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk (Leo)
>>writes:
>>
>>>Remember Paul was talking about requiring a 2/3 majority to block
>>>legislation. If the new second chamber was elected by PR that would mean
>>>the government had less than 1/3 support. Don't you think such a
>>>government's legislation ought to be blocked?
>
>>No. You can't run a country if your legislation is being blocked. The Upper
>>House's elections would probably be seen as chance to vote against the Gvt, so
>>a 67% majority is easy to achieve.
>
>I could refine Paul's suggestion as follows: have a quarter of the new
>House elected each year. (e.g. divide the country into eight regions and
>have two of them vote each year.) Then it could only swing against the
>government gradually and with plenty of warning.
Good idea.
>
>This would also be a neat way of at least partially implementing the last
>unsatisfied demand of the Chartists: annual elections.
>
>>If the legislation can't be passed, you'd have to dissolve Parliament. You
>>can't do that every other year, it would be short-termism to the highest
>>degree.
>
>If, given my refinement, a government failed to mend its ways over years of
>losses until its representation in the new House fell below 1/3, it might
>have to go for a dissolution of the Commons. I can't see this as a
>disadvantage.
Agreed.
Cliff Morrison
<je...@opinicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <B21BD1369...@0.0.0.0>, 6...@hack.powernet writes
> >In article <35f78b5a...@news.clara.net>,
> >marc@equ
> >ity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
> >
> >> I think we'll just have to agree to differ on the "worst case" House
> >> of Lords.
> >>
> >> What is your opinion on what the "best case" HL ought to be?
> >
> >Oh I think that's fairly easy. In the face of recalcitrance over House of
> >Commons reform, I'd like a "House of Lords" or rather a Senate with greater
> >democratic legitimacy than the Commons. That inevitably means a PR and
> >hopefully STV system such that in due course, the Senate will inevitably be
> >seen as more democratic and representative and therefore supersede in
> >importance the Commons with its undemocratic electoral system.
> >
> I am not sure that a House whose judgements, which will paralyse the
> legislative process in a continual fight for legitimacy with the
> Commons, will depend solely on the time of the month of its LibDem
> minority leader prostituting his favours between NuLabour and the
> Tories, and the only democratic institution in Britain with any
> representation of racist parties such as the BNP (who get 2% of the
> votes and would have 2% of the seats) would supercede the Commons in
> anything except ridicule and villification.
Hmmm. And if they didn't exist, no doubt something else could be found as
a handy excuse for maintaining the political "closed shop" -- Far Left,
Islamics, Anarchists, or whatever. It's the thought that counts.
Jonathan Munday
Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
Can I take this to mean that however reluctantly you accept the force
and probability of my remarks and withdraw your support for an STV
elected HoL ?!!!!?
Cliff Morrison
<je...@opinicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Not approving of who some of the public might chose to represent them
surely does not mean they should therefore be prevented from doing so...
In any case - not kidding -- the more I've thought about it the more I
like the idea of the seats in it being filled via a lottery of the
electorate.
DaveT
: In article <35f67d48...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac
: <who...@speed.com> writes
: >>The Labour view seems to be "this is a new idea it must be a good one"
: >>which history has repeatedly shown to be a universally disastrous
: >>viewpoint.
: >
: >"Universally disasterous"? What nonsense.
: >
: Name a new idea labelled by its critics as newness for the sake of it
: which in the last 40 yrs has in retrospect turned out to be a good one.
Gay rights, womens rights, racial equality, environmental issues,
rights of the disabled, all derided by reactionaries of left and right
in my 30 yr political lifetime.
-r-
DaveT
--------------------------------------------------------------
"We dwarves and men should not dance on stages made for giants"
Paul Hyett
<je...@opinicus.demon.co.uk> stated this considered view. To keep the
thread going, I replied -
><who...@speed.com> writes
>>>The Labour view seems to be "this is a new idea it must be a good one"
>>>which history has repeatedly shown to be a universally disastrous
>>>viewpoint.
>>
>>"Universally disasterous"? What nonsense.
>>
>which in the last 40 yrs has in retrospect turned out to be a good one.
You carefully chose *40 years* to exclude the NHS!
Leo
>In article <35f67d48...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac
><who...@speed.com> writes
>>>The Labour view seems to be "this is a new idea it must be a good one"
>>>which history has repeatedly shown to be a universally disastrous
>>>viewpoint.
>>"Universally disasterous"? What nonsense.
>Name a new idea labelled by its critics as newness for the sake of it
>which in the last 40 yrs has in retrospect turned out to be a good one.
BBC2
GUI computer operating systems
Child-centred primary education
Front-loading washing machines
Teabags
Unsliced bread
>Or retract
Nay sir, I demand satisfaction! Tomorrow at dawn!