House of Lords reform
I note with interest the proposal for House of Lords reform but I really do have to ask, why do we need a second chamber?
The current composition of the House of Lords is unacceptable consisting of peers appointed by the Prime Minister of the day and the 80 odd peers who are elected as part of the heredity element(and chosen by the heredity's). On many occasions in the past they have sought to frustrate the will of the elected chamber who have a democratic mandate unlike their colleagues in the Lords.
I also fear that any democratic element to the House of Lords will inevitably undermine further the supremacy of the Commons and lead to legislative problems further down the line. While the House of Lords does delay legislation at times, I fear the problems could be much worse if they had an electoral mandate. Also in this country we do not have a clamour for more elected politicians,House of Lords reform it is not an issue that I've heard recently on the doorstep.
While my view is very much a minority view within the Labour party, it is a shame that is not being pursued further within the white paper. At the end of the day, if people do not like what the Commons do, they can vote for someone else at the next election, the Lords are accountable to no one. I'm also a firm believer that all politicians should have an electoral mandate which is why I'm also against any hybrid element.
Many countries in democracies also manage perfectly well without second chambers(Scandinavian countries being an example) and the absence of a second chamber does not make them a bad democracy in my eyes, does a second chamber really improve democracy and how government works?, somehow I very much doubt that is the case.
Legislation could also be passed onto the statute books that much quicker.
In terms of payoffs to peers, while in some cases it is acceptable as some dedicate themselves to the Lords, should we really be paying off some of the wealthiest individuals in this country who sit in the Lords. Councillors do not get redundancy for losing their seats, should it really be different for many Lords, a great number of whom will be in receipt of parliamentary pensions.
The current composition of the House of Lords is unacceptable consisting of peers appointed by the Prime Minister of the day and the 80 odd peers who are elected as part of the heredity element(and chosen by the heredity's). On many occasions in the past they have sought to frustrate the will of the elected chamber who have a democratic mandate unlike their colleagues in the Lords.
I also fear that any democratic element to the House of Lords will inevitably undermine further the supremacy of the Commons and lead to legislative problems further down the line. While the House of Lords does delay legislation at times, I fear the problems could be much worse if they had an electoral mandate. Also in this country we do not have a clamour for more elected politicians,House of Lords reform it is not an issue that I've heard recently on the doorstep.
While my view is very much a minority view within the Labour party, it is a shame that is not being pursued further within the white paper. At the end of the day, if people do not like what the Commons do, they can vote for someone else at the next election, the Lords are accountable to no one. I'm also a firm believer that all politicians should have an electoral mandate which is why I'm also against any hybrid element.
Many countries in democracies also manage perfectly well without second chambers(Scandinavian countries being an example) and the absence of a second chamber does not make them a bad democracy in my eyes, does a second chamber really improve democracy and how government works?, somehow I very much doubt that is the case.
Legislation could also be passed onto the statute books that much quicker.
In terms of payoffs to peers, while in some cases it is acceptable as some dedicate themselves to the Lords, should we really be paying off some of the wealthiest individuals in this country who sit in the Lords. Councillors do not get redundancy for losing their seats, should it really be different for many Lords, a great number of whom will be in receipt of parliamentary pensions.
posted by Martin Whelton at 4:53 pm
1 Comments:
". . . and the absence of a second chamber does not make them a bad democracy in my eyes, does a second chamber really improve democracy and how government works?, somehow I very much doubt that is the case.
Legislation could also be passed onto the statute books that much quicker."
You've obviously never read Lords' Hansard debates; there's much less politicking in the Lords and the minister in charge actually answers questions and justifies the Govt's position, because they haven't got an automatic and highly artificial in-built majority. They actually have to debate and compromise and convince people they're right in the Lords. For that reason it would be quite a loss to completely abolish the second chamber.
Post a Comment
<< Home