House of Lords

[MegaSteve]

Aside from a handful or so of good people the HoL ain't fit for purpose...

Yet, suddenly they've morphed into SuperLords donning capes and wearing their pants outside of their strides...

Hilarious....

Yep, we need a 'second house'...

But not one 'staffed' with silver spooners and flotsam and jetsam from the political classes...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

You can assert this but all it is is an assertion with no basis of fact

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

Aye - it's funny how democracy can become undemocratic.

 

[User62651]

Aside from a handful or so of good people the HoL ain't fit for purpose...

Yet, suddenly they've morphed into SuperLords donning capes and wearing their pants outside of their strides...

Hilarious....

Yep, we need a 'second house'...

But not one 'staffed' with silver spooners and flotsam and jetsam from the political classes...

Never been a problem for decades for most people with HoL scrutinising and amending Govt bill after bill until now as they repeatedly question the recklessness of the Govt position wrt the bill for leaving the EU with a strong possibility of leaving with no deal if left to Govt alone to decide, rather than parliament. Suddenly they're public enemy number one for some Brexiteers - to be done away with because they dare question this split Govt's and weak PMs judgement on Brexit? This talk of HoL are 'unfit' is similar to the 3 judges emblazoned across the tabloids as traitors last year for daring to question the Govt position, a minority government too who are providing little in the way of solutions to major Brexit problems and continue to infight for power with time fast running out on Brexit.
Parliament should decide, hung parliament does make it difficult for Govt but why is there a hung parliament? - because faith in May and Govt is weak, she blew a healthy majority at her choice through her own ineptitude and perhaps a public reflection on the Brexit position. Why would it make sense to back a weak PM and split Govt on this. If the bill was a good one it would get backed cross party, it isn't so it's not getting backed. Govt need to take on board amendments ideas and improve the Brexit bill and move on. Doesn't matter what individuals such as Fox or Rees Mogg think as others think opposite, what parliament (both houses) thinks overall is key. If that means leaving but being in a (or the) customs union with EU so be it.

 

[MegaSteve]

Aye - it's funny how democracy can become undemocratic.

Perhaps if PM Major had applied a bit of 'democracy' when taking us deeper into the bowels of Brussels...
We might not have arrived in the position we currently are...

 

[MegaSteve]

Never been a problem for decades for most people with HoL .

Probably because, for the majority of the inmates, they are aware they on to a good thing and keep their heads well and truly below the parapet...


And, as we are currently witnessing, on the occasions they do raise them they inevitably become heroes or villains depending on your viewpoint...

As I said earlier... Don't have an issue with there being a 'second house'...
Just how it is 'staffed'...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Probably because, for the majority of the inmates, they are aware they on to a good thing and keep their heads well and truly below the parapet...


And, as we are currently witnessing, on the occasions they do raise them they inevitably become heroes or villains depending on your viewpoint...

As I said earlier... Don't have an issue with there being a 'second house'...
Just how it is 'staffed'...

Or perhaps because the HoL has done a good job over the decades reviewing and adjusting legislation - not letting much through that might have been totally barmy or damaging to the country or the electorate.

 

[chrisd]

Or perhaps because the HoL has done a good job over the decades reviewing and adjusting legislation - not letting much through that might have been totally barmy or damaging to the country or the electorate.

Generally I think they do a good job as they spend much more time studying and correcting poorly written legislation, but, they cannot (i know youre not saying they can) stop Bills being passed where a government is determined as, from memory, they can only reject a Bill 3 times before a Goverment has the right to enact it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Generally I think they do a good job as they spend much more time studying and correcting poorly written legislation, but, they cannot (i know youre not saying they can) stop Bills being passed where a government is determined as, from memory, they can only reject a Bill 3 times before a Goverment has the right to enact it.

Indeed - and if the government goes ahead despite and ignoring the advice of the HoL then on their heads be it.

 

[Hobbit]

Never been a problem for decades for most people with HoL scrutinising and amending Govt bill after bill until now as they repeatedly question the recklessness of the Govt position wrt the bill for leaving the EU with a strong possibility of leaving with no deal if left to Govt alone to decide, rather than parliament. Suddenly they're public enemy number one for some Brexiteers - to be done away with because they dare question this split Govt's and weak PMs judgement on Brexit? This talk of HoL are 'unfit' is similar to the 3 judges emblazoned across the tabloids as traitors last year for daring to question the Govt position, a minority government too who are providing little in the way of solutions to major Brexit problems and continue to infight for power with time fast running out on Brexit.
Parliament should decide, hung parliament does make it difficult for Govt but why is there a hung parliament? - because faith in May and Govt is weak, she blew a healthy majority at her choice through her own ineptitude and perhaps a public reflection on the Brexit position. Why would it make sense to back a weak PM and split Govt on this. If the bill was a good one it would get backed cross party, it isn't so it's not getting backed. Govt need to take on board amendments ideas and improve the Brexit bill and move on. Doesn't matter what individuals such as Fox or Rees Mogg think as others think opposite, what parliament (both houses) thinks overall is key. If that means leaving but being in a (or the) customs union with EU so be it.

Strange that its "never been a problem" yet there has been several reform bill is in the last 2 decades. And if you want to go back "decades" you'll find that there's even more. The 3x submission to the HoL before it can't be further blocked by the Lords is relatively new.

As for cross party backing, I find its rare that you will see cross party backing for laws and bills. In most cases the opposition party opposes whatever is put before the House. Yes there's often cross party backing when it comes to things like the Falklands and Salisbury.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I would dispute that people have been happy with the HoL for years. There have been grumblings for years from people about it, Labour have long had it as a policy to reform it, but the political will has ultimately not been there. Plenty of people want rid of it, unfortunately not enough people in the right places.

 

[User62651]

Strange that its "never been a problem" yet there has been several reform bill is in the last 2 decades. And if you want to go back "decades" you'll find that there's even more. The 3x submission to the HoL before it can't be further blocked by the Lords is relatively new.

As for cross party backing, I find its rare that you will see cross party backing for laws and bills. In most cases the opposition party opposes whatever is put before the House. Yes there's often cross party backing when it comes to things like the Falklands and Salisbury.

Make up of the HoL may be an issue for some but not what function it carries out unless you're saying we dont need any second chamber. Brexit is not split on party lines, just like the country isn't - just look at the cabinet.

 

[MegaSteve]

Or perhaps because the HoL has done a good job over the decades reviewing and adjusting legislation - not letting much through that might have been totally barmy or damaging to the country or the electorate.

I would suggest their 'work' doesn't represent as being good 'value for money'...

As I've said many times before we are top heavy with expensive un-necessary bureaucracy...
And, much of it is in need of a top down clear out...

And, we've started with Brussels :thup:...


When bureaucracy gets [as stated by Macron] too complicated for 'the people' to understand...
It almost certainly means it's not required...
Other than too feed the 'gravy train'...

 

[Hobbit]

Make up of the HoL may be an issue for some but not what function it carries out unless you're saying we dont need any second chamber. Brexit is not split on party lines, just like the country isn't - just look at the cabinet.

I'm not disputing the function, nor the need for a second chamber. I am saying it isn't representative of the electorate, especially as once you're in there, you're in there for good. The political party that promoted an individual to the HoL, especially if its a long time MP, Lord Tebbit or Lord Steel, has gained permanent influence by adding to its number in the HoL. And as a number of failed politicians, who have lost the seat as an MP, seem to suddenly end up in the Lords its rewarding failure. Brilliant, a politician no longer 'loved' by the constituency is suddenly good enough to continue their political career!

And then there's the political party that is very much on the wane, e.g. the current version of the LibDems, who have virtually no MP's having a disproportionate number of Lords. Again, a body of people with a political slant with more influence than is representative of the thoughts of the general populace. Lord Steel proposed a 15 year limit to members of the HoL for this very reason.

I'm all for a second chamber, just not the current one. And, for me, its got nothing to do with any current issues, I just feel it needs to be an elected body and more representative of the people.

 

[SocketRocket]

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

But in the case of Brexit this no longer applies. Parliament made a decision to leave the decision to stay or leave the EU to the electorate so they gave up their right to decide. The majority voted to leave and this means breaking away completely, we all should understand the difference between leaving something and not leaving. If you leave your golf club you don't keep your clubs in the locker room.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm all for a second chamber, just not the current one. And, for me, its got nothing to do with any current issues, I just feel it needs to be an elected body and more representative of the people.

But here's a thought... why do we need a second chamber? We have already voted in an election, and a government was formed based on the result. Who wins a subsequent election will be based on the performance of the current government. In effect, the quality of a government is self policing, i.e. get it wrong and they're in opposition next time round.

I wonder how many people who voted Remain are unhappy with the Lords bouncing the Bill as much as they have done 'v' how many Leave are happy. Forget the issue, should an elected parliament be overturned by an unelected body? Its that simple a question.

 

[User62651]

But in the case of Brexit this no longer applies. Parliament made a decision to leave the decision to stay or leave the EU to the electorate so they gave up their right to decide. The majority voted to leave and this means breaking away completely, we all should understand the difference between leaving something and not leaving. If you leave your golf club you don't keep your clubs in the locker room.

Don't think that's is technically the case. They offered a referendum on it, nowhere in the parliamentary bill did it say any result must be enacted upon. Parliament ultimately decides if we leave or not as it is doing now. Wee bit of unbiased background here (had to research a little)-
https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

I do agree however we the public believed the result would be honoured and therefore probably should leave (even though I dont want to leave) given the result, but we do not absolutely have to leave. A cop out or get out clause yes but it may turn out practically impossible to leave or be the better call for the country if we stay or at least have a trading agreement of some kind in place before we leave. That's what MPs and peers have to weigh up.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But here's a thought... why do we need a second chamber? We have already voted in an election, and a government was formed based on the result. Who wins a subsequent election will be based on the performance of the current government. In effect, the quality of a government is self policing, i.e. get it wrong and they're in opposition next time round.

I wonder how many people who voted Remain are unhappy with the Lords bouncing the Bill as much as they have done 'v' how many Leave are happy. Forget the issue, should an elected parliament be overturned by an unelected body? Its that simple a question.

The second chamber refines policy, knocks it into shape. Often good ideas are badly worded and the 2nd chamber can look at it from, theoretically, a neutral view. They can remove the rough edges and make it fit for purpose away from public scrutiny and political games. It can do a good job but unfortunately the wrong people are currently doing it.

 

[Tashyboy]

But here's a thought... why do we need a second chamber? We have already voted in an election, and a government was formed based on the result. Who wins a subsequent election will be based on the performance of the current government. In effect, the quality of a government is self policing, i.e. get it wrong and they're in opposition next time round.

I wonder how many people who voted Remain are unhappy with the Lords bouncing the Bill as much as they have done 'v' how many Leave are happy. Forget the issue, should an elected parliament be overturned by an unelected body? Its that simple a question.

Last sentance, exactly what I was saying 👍. It seems the remainers are happy about anything that is done to try and derail a democratic decision taken by Joe Public. Even more so when an unelected bunch of fossils does it.

 

[User62651]

Last sentance, exactly what I was saying 👍. It seems the remainers are happy about anything that is done to try and derail a democratic decision taken by Joe Public. Even more so when an unelected bunch of fossils does it.

Before you knock the oldies, remember the older generation voted with a high turnout and strongly for out so they swung the result for you!