Monday, February 27, 2006

Reform of the House of Lords

Who will defend the people against the "elected dictatorship" of Tony Blair if the Government is to get reform of the House of Lords back on the political agenda? Presumably because it is too much of a bottle neck for Labour's authoritarian reforms.

The House of Lords needs to be strenghtened, not weakened!

Terror plans suffer Lords defeats
Ministers 'press on' on ID cards
Peers inflict terror bill defeat

5 comments:

wonkotsane said...

"Reform" is inveitable because the stazi are getting too much opposition.

The Lords need to remain unelected and, in fact, given more power.

Labour have appointed themselves a majority to the Lords now as a result of the last "reforms".

Lone Primate said...

The Lords need to remain unelected and, in fact, given more power.

While I think it would be interesting to see a House of Lords with more power, and one perhaps predicated on giving voice to the regions of the UK; on the contrary -- to enjoy more power at this point in history, they must be elected. Britain is far, far behind the times. You've just gotten around to removing the hereditary aspect of the place. What you have now is exactly what we've had in Canada for 140 years in the form of the Senate -- a retirement home for unelected political bagmen. I'd very much like to see us get rid of that, and if you're in a reformist mood too, why wait another century to catch up with us again? Do it now, do it right.

wonkotsane said...

I disagree with elected Lords.

Look at it this way - the people elect a party to the Commons, what are the chances of the opposition controlling the Lords? I'm no mathmetician but I would make an educated guess at somewhere in the region of a million to one.

Following the "reforms" the Labour Stazi made a couple of years back they have appointed themselves a majority in the Lords when previously the Lords was controlled by the Tories.

The Lords are there to provide a supposedly unbiased oversight of the Commons. The best thing about them before the "reform" was that they were there by virtue of birth rather than what political party they supported. It was because of this randomness that the Tories managed to control the Lords while Labour controlled the Commons.

The only way to effectively check the power of the Commons (which is desperately needed) is to reinstate hereditary Lords and repeal the Parliament Act which allows the Commons to overrule the Lords if they won't cave in.

I don't understand how people fail to see that an elected House of Lords would do more damage for democracy than a totally hereditary House of Lords.

Lone Primate said...

The only way to effectively check the power of the Commons (which is desperately needed) is to reinstate hereditary Lords and repeal the Parliament Act which allows the Commons to overrule the Lords if they won't cave in.

That anyone in this day and age can espouse the idea of a guaranteed place in government based upon the sperm of someone eight generations descended from being some king's lovechild is unutterably absurd. If you haven't got the guts to live in a country where the people in the government -- both houses -- work to get elected, impress the nation with their credentials and ideals, stand and fall on the job they did while in power instead of what castle they currently own -- if you really believe that conservative ideals deserve an automatic in instead of having to fight in the arena of public opinion and earn their stripes in the minds of the nation -- then the kingdom you should be living isn't Britain, it's Saudi Arabia.

ZAROVE said...

Guts?

All an election is is a popularity contest, and speakign form a 2009 vantage and in the states, we just elected a man with no creedentials and whose reason for being elected was a slick advertisement package and the fact that he has darker skin.

Thats it.

Most who voted for Obama actulaly oppose most of hat he stands for, but his eloquent speaking skills snd well fashioned image combined with the suppose need to prove we aren't racist by electing a black man (with a white mother, we always fforget) and his oh so inspirational tlak of hope and chnage.


I'm sorry but elections do not ensure our freedom, and inf act are ofte the road to totolitarian disasters. "The people" can form lynch mobs, and be utterly irrational.

I do not favour electing representitves to all levels of Government because its absurd.