House of Lords

[Hacker Khan]

I'd agree with you but for the fact the HoL has become politicised and, in the case of Brexit, its acting on the basis of the 'party' biased members.

The Liberals have been particularly active as the anti-Brexit lobby which has led to, IMO, an aim to disrupt the Government who has (in the unique case of Brexit) a clear referendum vote to follow through.

That's part of the whole problem here though, there is no defined way for dealing with this in our current Commmons and Lords system. All the Lords are doing is their job of holding the government to account.

Whether they should not do that to the same level as this is a result if a referendum is not clear. Some may argue that the referendum was non-binding and it is probably the most important decision Parliament will make in decades, so the Lords should do their role as normal. Some may argue that it is undemocratic to do so.

I suppose this should have been considered before we/Cameron blundered into the whole process with little thought of the potential consequences, but it's a bit late for that now.

And the HOL may well be more politicised, but I'd argue apart from the Lib Dems then Brexit is not straight down party lines with the other 2 parties, there were some Tory Lords that voted against the government.

 

[Hacker Khan]

The best thing the Government could do is flood the Lords with a mass of Tory Peers so they have a majority, vote down everything the Labour/Lib Dems propose such that it becomes a laughing stock and has to be dissolved. It's not fit for purpose.

It was Viscount Hailsham, a former Tory minister who tabled the amendment to the withdrawal bill to kill off the prospect of us exiting with no deal and to ensure parliament, not the government decide the next steps if the exit deal is rejected.

He said his amendment was aimed at ensuring “that the future of our country is determined by parliament and not by ministers. In democracies, both parliament and the electorate have the right to change their minds. Unchangeable decisions have no place in a democracy. Whatever our party affiliation, our duty as parliamentarians is to our country and our conscience."

Pretty wise words for a Tory, feel free to flood the Lords with those types.

 

[Old Skier]

How many countries have a 'first past the post' system for the main chamber?

I'm sure we could find an alternative also.

I appreciate your not keen on it but already been voted on by this country and the majority wish to stay as it is.

 

[Foxholer]

So they are exercising their muscles again - mostly against the Government and, the latest vote's anti-Brexit, could be anti-democratic!

Should they be restructured / abolished as being out of kilter in a modern society?

Both Houses should be shrunk - to about half to two-thirds of what they currently are imo. But that's purely on a 'practical' basis - and there's 'practical' contrary arguments against that too!

However, the HOL is a valuable health and sanity (common sense) check that prevents what could otherwise be a 'runaway' government from being very undemocratic indeed!

Lets just consider how 'democratic' government via The Commons actually is!

As it is, 'The Electorate' gets a chance every 5 years - or less at the PM's whim! - to decide which from a number of candidates IN THEIR AREA should represent them as MP! As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of actual 'democracy'! 'The System' now takes over - with the party with the most number of MPs is invited to form a government.

It's entirely possible that that party actually polled fewer votes overall (but targetted key seats better), so there's an example of how 'democracy' no longer applies! Likewise, coalitions or 'deals' are made and the general populous (thems what make up 'democracy') don't get to have a say! Would anyone on here have approved the 'deal' made with the DUP? Likewise, the Lib-Dems achieved certain concessions when they went into coalition with Cameron - they did a very bad job of publicising their 'tempering' effect imo!

Now 'Government'! Well, that's actually done by Cabinet - who are appointed by the PM - the leader of the 'winning' party! The electorate has no say in who that actually is, and the method each Party uses to select their leader is arguably undemocratic!

Each (appointed) Minister now 'rules' over their department! Civil servants obediently apply their masters policy or notify them that their desires/whims cannot be applied within current 'law'! So the Minister gets new laws drafted, approved by Cabinet and forced through Parliament using the Whip procedure! There's damn-all 'democracy' in that process as while HM's Opposition - whose normal role is to oppose everything the government proposes - can highlight glaring blunders etc. it really has little power to stop any legislation being forced through the Commons!

Once an Act has had its 3rd reading and been 'approved' in the Commons, it's passed to the House of Lords for 'approval'! To me, it's only here that truly independent, consideration of the sensibility of legislation exists! It's their 'independence' (even though there is nominal 'whipping') that allows HoL to suggest changes, or even a rethink! The folk appointed to that body are, generally, very clued up! The (quite small number) of hereditary peers are, generally, also folk who are (equivalent to) running significant businesses, so are pretty clued up types. I'm not sure whether Bishops should be there, but their voting only has only a tiny effect (there's normally only 1!)

And, of course, The Parliament Act, means that The Commons (run by a couple of dozen folk) can always reject any changes the HoL suggests and get its own way in the end!

So where's the 'democracy' in all this!

The closest we've had to 'true' democracy' we've had is the referendums on Brexit and Scottish independence (at least in Scotland)! And look at the trouble either/both of those events caused!

Is it worth questioning whether (our version of) 'democracy' actually works? Should we adopt the Swiss 'direct democracy' system? Or could that be 'the tyranny of the majority'!

Oh! And just in case I may be perceived as too critical of 'our' 'democratic' system....there have been, and still are, many regimes deemed 'democratic' where that term has been significantly corrupted - all imo of course!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Both Houses should be shrunk - to about half to two-thirds of what they currently are imo. But that's purely on a 'practical' basis - and there's 'practical' contrary arguments against that too!

However, the HOL is a valuable health and sanity (common sense) check that prevents what could otherwise be a 'runaway' government from being very undemocratic indeed!

Lets just consider how 'democratic' government via The Commons actually is!

As it is, 'The Electorate' gets a chance every 5 years - or less at the PM's whim! - to decide which from a number of candidates IN THEIR AREA should represent them as MP! As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of actual 'democracy'! 'The System' now takes over - with the party with the most number of MPs is invited to form a government.

It's entirely possible that that party actually polled fewer votes overall (but targetted key seats better), so there's an example of how 'democracy' no longer applies! Likewise, coalitions or 'deals' are made and the general populous (thems what make up 'democracy') don't get to have a say! Would anyone on here have approved the 'deal' made with the DUP? Likewise, the Lib-Dems achieved certain concessions when they went into coalition with Cameron - they did a very bad job of publicising their 'tempering' effect imo!

Now 'Government'! Well, that's actually done by Cabinet - who are appointed by the PM - the leader of the 'winning' party! The electorate has no say in who that actually is, and the method each Party uses to select their leader is arguably undemocratic!

Each (appointed) Minister now 'rules' over their department! Civil servants obediently apply their masters policy or notify them that their desires/whims cannot be applied within current 'law'! So the Minister gets new laws drafted, approved by Cabinet and forced through Parliament using the Whip procedure! There's damn-all 'democracy' in that process as while HM's Opposition - whose normal role is to oppose everything the government proposes - can highlight glaring blunders etc. it really has little power to stop any legislation being forced through the Commons!

Once an Act has had its 3rd reading and been 'approved' in the Commons, it's passed to the House of Lords for 'approval'! To me, it's only here that truly independent, consideration of the sensibility of legislation exists! It's their 'independence' (even though there is nominal 'whipping') that allows HoL to suggest changes, or even a rethink! The folk appointed to that body are, generally, very clued up! The (quite small number) of hereditary peers are, generally, also folk who are (equivalent to) running significant businesses, so are pretty clued up types. I'm not sure whether Bishops should be there, but their voting only has only a tiny effect (there's normally only 1!)

And, of course, The Parliament Act, means that The Commons (run by a couple of dozen folk) can always reject any changes the HoL suggests and get its own way in the end!

So where's the 'democracy' in all this!

The closest we've had to 'true' democracy' we've had is the referendums on Brexit and Scottish independence (at least in Scotland)! And look at the trouble either/both of those events caused!

Is it worth questioning whether (our version of) 'democracy' actually works? Should we adopt the Swiss 'direct democracy' system? Or could that be 'the tyranny of the majority'!

Oh! And just in case I may be perceived as too critical of 'our' 'democratic' system....there have been, and still are, many regimes deemed 'democratic' where that term has been significantly corrupted - all imo of course!

Got to admire the time and effort spent to put that coherent post together.

So what you are saying is democracy is a movable feast that is open to interpretation by anyone. And how they will interpret it will mostly depend on which part of democracy the person wants to adhere to to forward their particular argument?

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not sure I agree with an unelected chamber being able to overturn the policies of an elected govt. I might not like what the Tories are currently doing but I like what the Lords have done even less.

And don't forget, that's just one issue. What happens when a moderate govt has its policies defeated in the Lords, which did happen several times when Blair was in office.

Yes to a second chamber, but along the lines of Congress and Senate in the US. Both houses have separate powers, although I'm not sure of the finer details it does seem to work well most of the time.

You've got your terms mixed up! Congress is the overall body - comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives!

It (Congress) does have advantages (mid-term elections being one of them imo), but also some (partisan) disadvantages - where 'good' legislation is rejected because of 'vested interests'!

 

[Hobbit]

Got to admire the time and effort spent to put that coherent post together.

So what you are saying is democracy is a movable feast that is open to interpretation by anyone. And how they will interpret it will mostly depend on which part of democracy the person wants to adhere to to forward their particular argument?

Exactly!

I think its hilarious that some people are supporting the HoL, almost certainly for the first time, purely because the HoL has been voting against Brexit. Its rare as hen's teeth to hear anyone supporting the unelected HoL but suddenly they are the best thing since sliced bread.

I agree with a second chamber but feel it should be elected, thus accountable to the people. The HoL has virtually no checks and balances.

But hey, crack on looking foolish, especially when some of you have voiced your dislike for the Lords in the past but suddenly go all gooey because of their opposition to Brexit.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Exactly!

I think its hilarious that some people are supporting the HoL, almost certainly for the first time, purely because the HoL has been voting against Brexit. Its rare as hen's teeth to hear anyone supporting the unelected HoL but suddenly they are the best thing since sliced bread.

I agree with a second chamber but feel it should be elected, thus accountable to the people. The HoL has virtually no checks and balances.

But hey, crack on looking foolish, especially when some of you have voiced your dislike for the Lords in the past but suddenly go all gooey because of their opposition to Brexit.

Not 100% sure I have voiced my particular dislike of the HOL before and am looking particularly foolish, but I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. And I may have done, I just can't remember. I am more than sure they have made calls that I do not agree with in the past but I have not resorted to calling for them to be removed, reformed,shut down when they have.

I just see some relatively well argued points of view without resorting to the usual name calling and insults. I'd love to see such a well argued counter argument to Foxholers points as he made, so the debate on why they should be scrapped can continue.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I appreciate your not keen on it but already been voted on by this country and the majority wish to stay as it is.

Well I am glad that they wish our 'first past the post' representative democracy to stay as it is - a representative democracy - not a delegated democracy.

A democracy where elected MPs make their decisions based upon their own best understanding of the objectives of any proposed legislation; and their own understanding of benefits and drawbacks of the legislation as proposed. And they vote accordingly (albeit under the close scrutiny of their party whips)

And in our FPTP representative democracy each individual voter of the electorate in any MP's constituency can decide whether their MP voted as they'd have wanted him/her to - and if they don't like how their MP has voted they can elect a new MP in the next election. Because that is what our FPTP representative democracy allows and enables us to do.

 

[Hobbit]

[TABLE="width: 780"]
[TR]
[TH="class: party, bgcolor: #A1050D"]Party/group[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A1050D, align: center"]Life peers*[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A1050D, align: center"]Excepted
hereditary peers**[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A1050D, align: center"]Bishops[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #A1050D, align: center"]Total[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: #F7F7F7"]
[TD="class: party"]Bishops[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]26[/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: party"]Conservative[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]195[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]49[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]244[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: #F7F7F7"]
[TD="class: party"]Crossbench[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]150[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]182[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: party"]Labour[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]184[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]188[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: #F7F7F7"]
[TD="class: party"]Liberal Democrat[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]94[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]98[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: party"]Lord Speaker[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: #F7F7F7"]
[TD="class: party"]Non-affiliated[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]27[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]28[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: party"]Other[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]14[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[TD="class: total, align: center"]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The above is the make up of the HoL, plus another 15 from the very small political parties, e.g. Plaid Cymru and the Green Party. The HoL is, in the main, 'staffed' by unelected politicians affiliated to the political parties you see in the HoC. Unlike the make up of the HoC, which is dependant on the voting patterns at the last election, the HoL doesn't represent the current political preferences of the electorate.

I agree with Foxy's appraisal of democracy in the HoC but don't agree that the current HoL is representative of the people.

On the Brexit issue you'd almost expect a hung vote if each House represented the electorate. Its not even close, and in my opinion will further disenfranchise an electorate that doesn't exactly dash to the polling stations whenever there's an election.

 

[Foxholer]

... but don't agree that the current HoL is representative of the people.
...

Why does it need to be - in UK's version of democracy? It's not the elected portion and has only as much 'power' as its position 'deserves'! It does, however, have 'sufficient' power/status to keep The Commons under as much control as 'UK Democracy' deems it should!

...
On the Brexit issue you'd almost expect a hung vote if each House represented the electorate. Its not even close, and in my opinion will further disenfranchise an electorate that doesn't exactly dash to the polling stations whenever there's an election.

Well, that's a (sad, but probably correct) reflection of 'the electorate'!

That's why, as a 'remain' voter', I'm ok with May's approach - the electorate has 'decided', so that's what we do, making the best deal we can - and it might even turn out to be a good thing anyway!

 

[SocketRocket]

Well I am glad that they wish our 'first past the post' representative democracy to stay as it is - a representative democracy - not a delegated democracy.

A democracy where elected MPs make their decisions based upon their own best understanding of the objectives of any proposed legislation; and their own understanding of benefits and drawbacks of the legislation as proposed. And they vote accordingly (albeit under the close scrutiny of their party whips)

And in our FPTP representative democracy each individual voter of the electorate in any MP's constituency can decide whether their MP voted as they'd have wanted him/her to - and if they don't like how their MP has voted they can elect a new MP in the next election. Because that is what our FPTP representative democracy allows and enables us to do.

All well and good in some instances but! In this case the Government of the day that was elected on a manifesto of giving the electorate a vote to decide whether the UK should stay or leave the EU had passed responsibility from MPs to the public. All the pros and cons were debated and it was made very clear that if we voted to leave we would indeed leave the Single Market and Customs Union, OK there were some questionable statements made by both sides but I think people were wise enough to understand the terms on which we would leave if leave was the result.

The current attempts to undermine the referendum result are IMO disgusting and anti democratic. Parliament had abdicated responsibility on whether we leave the EU or not so these slimy, slithering, creatures that are trying to play silly games with the electorate are acting in a shameful manner, it's not their place to suggest they know what is better for us.

The HOL in my opinion are also undermining the electorate in suggesting that it should be Parliament that decides on how we leave the EU. It would be madness to create a situation whereby the Government could be sent back to the EU to renegotiate if MPs decide the deal is not what they want. Can you picture that: Dear EU, please can you give us a better deal as our Parliament isn't happy with the one we have negotiated. That one worked a treat last time when Cameron tried it.

If the referendum vote had gone the other way by a similar percentage then there would not have been any consideration given to those that had voted to leave, Parliamentary democracy would have moved on fortified by the electorates backing, no suggestion that the referendum was only advisory. Regarding the HOL, it has no place in Brexit and due to the fact it's unrepresentative is not fit for purpose.

 

[Dellboy]

Get rid of the coffin dodgers, waste of time and money.

As to them stopping brexit, that will not happen and remember just because they have made amendments, none of it is binding, so a few 3 line whips and a couple of confidence votes and all will be back on track, to carry out the wishes of the whole country and for us to dump the EU.

 

[Wilson]

Get rid of the coffin dodgers, waste of time and money.

As to them stopping brexit, that will not happen and remember just because they have made amendments, none of it is binding, so a few 3 line whips and a couple of confidence votes and all will be back on track, to carry out the wishes of the whole country and for us to dump the EU.

Good effort, maybe bit a bit more subtle next time.

 

[Tashyboy]

Joe public was given a vote as was promised by the governing party in its manifesto. It went the way it went, against many people's expectations and wishes. It then went to the HOP who supported and endorsed the people's vote, again against many people's expectations and wishes.
Yet the HOL, seems fit to stop Brexit. An unelected group of people who spend half the time asleep vote against it. Can someone explain to me how that is supposed to be right.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Joe public was given a vote as was promised by the governing party in its manifesto. It went the way it went, against many people's expectations and wishes. It then went to the HOP who supported and endorsed the people's vote, again against many people's expectations and wishes.
Yet the HOL, seems fit to stop Brexit. An unelected group of people who spend half the time asleep vote against it. Can someone explain to me how that is supposed to be right.

Please see numerous previous posts about the role of the HOL in holding the government to account in our current parliament system.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Get rid of the coffin dodgers, waste of time and money.

As to them stopping brexit, that will not happen and remember just because they have made amendments, none of it is binding, so a few 3 line whips and a couple of confidence votes and all will be back on track, to carry out the wishes of the whole country and for us to dump the EU.

But it's not is it? And that's the whole bloody point. Yes there was a majority and fair enough. But winning a majority does not suddenly mean the whole country want to do it. It will happen and again fair enough. But a referendum does not mean the HOL have to stop one of their main roles and that the whole country suddenly wants us to leave the EU no matter what the consequences are.

 

[Hacker Khan]

All well and good in some instances but! In this case the Government of the day that was elected on a manifesto of giving the electorate a vote to decide whether the UK should stay or leave the EU had passed responsibility from MPs to the public. All the pros and cons were debated and it was made very clear that if we voted to leave we would indeed leave the Single Market and Customs Union, OK there were some questionable statements made by both sides but I think people were wise enough to understand the terms on which we would leave if leave was the result.

The current attempts to undermine the referendum result are IMO disgusting and anti democratic. Parliament had abdicated responsibility on whether we leave the EU or not so these slimy, slithering, creatures that are trying to play silly games with the electorate are acting in a shameful manner, it's not their place to suggest they know what is better for us.

The HOL in my opinion are also undermining the electorate in suggesting that it should be Parliament that decides on how we leave the EU. It would be madness to create a situation whereby the Government could be sent back to the EU to renegotiate if MPs decide the deal is not what they want. Can you picture that: Dear EU, please can you give us a better deal as our Parliament isn't happy with the one we have negotiated. That one worked a treat last time when Cameron tried it.

If the referendum vote had gone the other way by a similar percentage then there would not have been any consideration given to those that had voted to leave, Parliamentary democracy would have moved on fortified by the electorates backing, no suggestion that the referendum was only advisory. Regarding the HOL, it has no place in Brexit and due to the fact it's unrepresentative is not fit for purpose.

I would argue very few people had a clue and still don't as we still do not know.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Get rid of the coffin dodgers, waste of time and money.

As to them stopping brexit, that will not happen and remember just because they have made amendments, none of it is binding, so a few 3 line whips and a couple of confidence votes and all will be back on track, to carry out the wishes of the whole country and for us to dump the EU.

Which country?
52% of the UK, 34% of the country of Scotland hardly makes a 'whole'.

I remember one of your leaders Farage stating just before the referendum that if they lost 52/48 it would be unfinished business.
Does his views still apply to the stay campaign

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I don't understand how insisting that parliament votes on something is suddenly un-democratic?
We vote for our MPs, they vote on our behalf, as such asking them to vote on this is surely the very definition of democracy