Celebrate Lords Reform Day!

newpoliticsnetwork Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 04:06:37 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

10 August marks the 95th anniversary of the 1911 Parliament Act, the preamble of which declares an intention to replace the House of Lords with a Second Chamber "constituted on a popular basis," and so the Elect the Lords Campaign have decided to mark this day once again in an attempt to speed up the process!



You can help us mark this day in three ways:

Finally, if you haven't yet done so, please do buy one of our Virtual Peerages. These have been selling like hot cakes and help fund the campaign.

For more information, see the Elect the Lords website.


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Celebrate Lords Reform Day! | 9 comments (9 topical)

Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#1)

by Glass House on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 04:19:24 AM GMT

Can anyone tell why, if the Lord was 100% elected, the 'primacy of the Commons, should be maintained?

Why, of two elected houses, should one be more important?


Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#2)

by newpoliticsnetwork on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 04:28:25 AM GMT

I'm only speaking personally here, but it would depend on how the second chamber was comprised.

If, for example, it were elected in "thirds" as has been widely suggested - i.e. a third are up for election at each general election - then it would always have less of an immediate mandate than the Commons. This is because 2/3rds of it would always have been elected BEFORE the Commons was last elected. I can see a case therefore for it having some kind of delaying power but not being able to fully block legislation.

James Graham


[ Parent ]

Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#3)

by Glass House on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 04:51:03 AM GMT

I understand that the 'thirds' argument would be internally logical, but the idea is undemocratic in itself.

If a particular party did something so abhorrent that 100% of the electorate wanted that party completely out of both houses, it could take (with each parliament lasting as much has five years) FIFTEEN years to completely rid the both houses of that particular party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#4)

by newpoliticsnetwork on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 09:55:49 AM GMT

I think your hypothetical situation is stretching the limits of credibility.  100%?!

Even if I were to accept that the fortunes for a political party could transform to quite the degree that you suggest, the fact remains that such a party would find itself in a minority quite quickly even if the second chamber were elected in thirds.  Therefore, its ability to affect legislation would be minimal at best.


[ Parent ]

Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#5)

by Glass House on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 02:58:23 PM GMT

My point was that the electorate would only be able to complete a 'change of mind' every 15 years. That's unacceptably undemocratic.

Yes, a party could be relegated to minority status relatively quickly. But, if the house was elected proportionatly, they could still wield a lot of power, even after even if they hadn't had a more than a handful of votes for years.


[ Parent ]

Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#7)

by steppenwolff on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 06:37:41 PM GMT

So the US Senate is less democratic and has a lesser mandate than the US House?


[ Parent ]

Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#6)

by radical1 on Wed Aug 02, 2006 at 03:45:41 PM GMT

Prior to the setting up of a second elected house, there would have to be a written constitution. The first house would be the 'government' the Prime Minister and the cabinet could only be selected from the first house. The second house would have a scrutiny role, it cannot originate legislation, only subject it to reform and scrutiny. As of now the first house can either accept or reject its changes to law, after a certain period, it would become law.  Even if organised on party lines, there would be no whipping in the second chamber, all votes would be free votes. The chairperson of committees would always come from the second chamber.

Selected by PR, and a party list, it would be a rough form of democracy. A party committee free of any interference from the party leader, would ask for applications for election. If say there were 500 seats up for grabs. Each party would select 250 names on merit. They would then be numbered from 1 to 250, being placed in order by length of party membership. If say Labour received 40% of the vote at the GE, the first 100 would be selected and so on.

     


Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#8)

by Andrea on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 08:08:33 PM GMT

"Selected by PR, and a party list, it would be a rough form of democracy. A party committee free of any interference from the party leader, would ask for applications for election. If say there were 500 seats up for grabs. Each party would select 250 names on merit. They would then be numbered from 1 to 250, being placed in order by length of party membership.If say Labour received 40% of the vote at the GE, the first 100 would be selected and so on. "

why not open lists?


[ Parent ]

Re: Celebrate Lords Reform Day! (#9)

by polo on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 03:31:08 PM GMT

c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 c8 c9 c10 c11 c12 c13 c14 c15 c16 c17 c18 c19 c20 c21 c22 c23 c24 c25 c26 c27 c28 c29 c30 c31


Celebrate Lords Reform Day! | 9 comments (9 topical)