Reform of the House of Lords
False
News & media
Reform of the House of Lords
Debate current medical affairs
First, I have criticised others for raising matters here that are wholly parochial to their own society, so anyone not living in the UK please go back to whatever they were doing. Mov
0
Cat:OffDutyForum:NewsMedia
Cat:OffDutyForum:NewsMediaDiscussion:fff874cc-0736-4100-a19b-d685afa4dd6a
Forums » Off duty » News & media » Reform of the House of Lords
|
Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 30/6/2012 10:19 AM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 2139
First: 12/3/2010 Last: 19/6/2013 |
First, I have criticised others for raising matters here that are wholly parochial to their own society, so anyone not living in the UK please go back to whatever they were doing. Move along now, nothing to see here! The House of Lords is to be reformed, reduced in size and mainly elected. The current draft plan is for 'Lords' representing a geographical area the size of a European Parliament constituency, much bigger than a Commons one, for a fixed, fifteen year term. Many criticise that as perpetuating the current problems of a House that is in political hock to Government or Opposition and will be composed exclusively of politicians. So, we need a more radical solution, and there is precedent for my proposal. Did you know that the 26 Bishops of the Church of England have seats in the House? And that until 2009, up to twelve Law Lords also could sit there - they have now become the judges of the UK Supreme Court. Until the 1950s, Oxford, Cambridge, London, Belfast, 'the combined Scottish' and other universities were allowed to consider themselves as constituencies and to return members to the Commons. I offer this list as evidence of the precedent of vocational representation in Parliament. I propose that the House of Lords should be composed of members returned to represent professions, vocations, careers and industry workers. The Bishops would not have a shoo-in - any vicar could stand for election. Likewise, the President of the BMA and the General Secretary of UNISON have big enough jobs already, so that their associations would elect 'Lords'. There are about 140,000 BMA members and ten times as many in UNISON, so the seats should be allocated on the basis of membership, just as Commons constituencies are modelled to include approximately the same number of people. What would be the effect of this? It would ensure that the 'Lords' were composed of people who had no debt to pay to the political parties of the Commons. Moreover, that they were already prominent in their own workplace would ensure that they had a view of the world that extended beyond the Westminster Village to the workplace and to the people who work there. Just as the Law Lords would abstain from any political matter but pronounce and advise the House on the Law, so would, say, the Medical Lords not speak on health in a political sense but only to inform their Lordships' House on Medicine. This would cleanse Parliament, introducing a gale of fresh air, ideas and ability, and removing the air of time-serving and expense collecting that infects Parliament. I commend it to this house! JOhn |
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 30/6/2012 1:02 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 3009
First: 10/3/2009 Last: 20/6/2013 |
The House of Lords and this whole system is a 19th century anachronism. As for bishops holding seats in the Upper House we call the Senate, our people would break down in guffaws of laughter. As for calling someone, Lord, we reserve this for Jesus. Why not catch up with the rest of the Commonwealth viz former colonies and have an elected Senate of men and women who are equal to all citizens rather than this system of Patricians? Our Senate overlaps in terms of elections with the House of Representatives as this provides stability in a continual democracy since 1901 (some states earlier) when women had the vote then unlike France which was until after WW2 and long before the UK. We have had no civil wars, no invasions and no dictators. It seems to work. We have fought long for freedom. Of ten thousand Australian airmen in RAF Bomber Command, 4,000 died. There was a ceremony in London this week after 67 years of silence. The German Volk who benefited ultimately from our/your striving for democracy must think that the transparency of the Bundestag far greater than that of the House of Lords. |
|
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 30/6/2012 1:26 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 2139
First: 12/3/2010 Last: 19/6/2013 |
Oddyseus, Did you read the title of this thread? Or note the first paragraph? That you are Down There is enough excuse not to know, but "Reform of the House of Lords" is Hot News here in the UK. All parties are committed to it; it is only the new constitution of M'Lord's House that is to be settled. No need to come the Raw Prawn, mate! We're way ahead of you! But while you're here, doctor, tell us about the Australian Senate. How are your Senators elected? For what sort of constituency? How long is their tenure? Do they exert an effective influence on legislation? Or are they seen a load of useless drongos? John |
|
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 30/6/2012 9:54 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 3009
First: 10/3/2009 Last: 20/6/2013 |
As a raw prawn and quasi-colonial hick/drongo, I note your first statement in para 2 "mainly elected". This may be OK for a third world dictatorship but for the UK? For Mother England? Magna Britannica herself? No wonder the colonies sought independence both here and in America. Too much inequality, M'Lord. Look how Welsh miners were treated (1880-1946) by the Old School tie magnates. Just sit in a job for fifteen years and you get stagnation.
Our Senate blocked Supply (the Budget) and this let to a double dissolution of parliament. Half the Senate are elected every four years so there is continuity of the House. The Senators are States representatives so each state has the same number of senators. It does a good job as a house of review and very effective at sorting out drongoes and for cooking raw prawns. Our Constitution was drafted well by wise men. This colony is in front of its former master not only politically but economically; nay even in sport....even the Tour de France last year. Our parliament is robust but the populace is awaiting the next election (2013) to rid ourselves of its current arguably effete incumbents. Imagine waiting for fifteen years to get rid of a crook Lord. Oysters grow in two or three and an olive tree bears fruit in seven. Now, I must get back to the barbie. Would you pass me another raw prawn, Mate. |
|
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 1/7/2012 1:19 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1343
First: 13/4/2010 Last: 19/6/2013 |
The Lords is an out-dated anachronism. We only need a second house because the way MPs are elected is so grossly unfair (how many Governments in the last 100 years have effectively had absolute power with only a minority fo the votes?). But given there is no appetite to have the Westminster Parliament elected on a more proportionate basis we do need a second chamber to act as a balance. My own view, for what it's worth, is that this second chamber, as Oddyseus points out, is elected 50% of the seats at a time and that each member is there for a fixed 4 year period. Lastly, no member is allowed to represent any political party (naive I know but that's what I would like). The idea in a 21st century democracy of having a second chamber full of landed gentry, church leaders (and, note, only Church of England) and party nominees is, frankly, utterly backward and retarded. Thank goodness I live in Scotland - one Parliament, elected on a proportionate basis (although even here some MSPs are drawn from lists cobbled together by their parties and don't actually represent any voters because no-one has voted for them directly - so wrong). |
|
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 1/7/2012 4:26 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 2139
First: 12/3/2010 Last: 19/6/2013 |
Didn't want to interrupt the barbie, Odysseus! But you, and Steve, and anyone else with out-of-date news about the Lords', come on guys, stop flogging the dead donkey. We can all see the anachronism of a heriditary HoL, BUT do it a little justice by a little research. There are 750 odd Lords, about 600 of which, since 1999, are only life peers. But they are still the in-hock-to-politicals, old politicians, who with some exceptions are Westmonster Village old-lags, who may go on drawing a daily allowance as long as they turn up. Alreday a long way from the image you have, but not good enough, I cry. And cry ALL the current Westminster political parties! So, please, put your thoughts of corduroy and tweed-clad earls who, on ascening onto a omnibus ask the driver for White's Club, to one side. It's not like that at all, anymore. The question is, HOW shall they be reformed? And my question is, shouild they be elected (for elected they shall be) for vocational constituencies, insetad of the conventional geographic areas? John |
|
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 1/7/2012 10:28 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 3009
First: 10/3/2009 Last: 20/6/2013 |
Our senators still come from political parties but quite often there may be a hostile senate as there is a lag period with only half elected at each four years. It still works ok and senators seem to be a more sensible lot than the barnyard boys and girls in the lower house. I am amazed that the British put up with this nonsense when the rest of the world moved on long ago. You are a nation of inequality run by an aristocracy and the church under the guise of a democracy. Just say a vowel and you are classed like an apple in a barrel. It is funny to see criticisms of administrations like China and Moslem theocracies when the UK is not so different underneath it all. Power is still invested in the hands of the privileged; the barons of Runnymede and the Bishop of Wakefield. The vox populi is only a whimper.
|
|
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 2/7/2012 7:56 AM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 2139
First: 12/3/2010 Last: 19/6/2013 |
So the UK is run by an aristocracy, which if true is one of the aristocracy of wealth. So I give you one new name, Odysseus, and one old, that dominated or are seeking to dominate the Australian State's media. Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdock. But thank you for your view of the Australian Senate's function Steve? How does the Scottish Parliament work? Doe sit even hav an Upper House? John |
|
|
Re: Reform of the House of Lords
posted at 2/7/2012 9:01 AM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 1343
First: 13/4/2010 Last: 19/6/2013 |
Hi John D - I've already said how I think the "Lord" should be reformed - ideally abolish it, but failing that canditates standing to represent areas on a non-party basis for fixed term of 4 years. I am not sure how my view of the Lords is out of date - it still contains landed gentry, church reps and party nominees - nothing has changed in that respect. The Scottsh Parliament is single-chambered and elected of a PR basis designed to avoid one party rule and ensure coalition and compromise (although the most recent election gave us a single party in power becasue the vote for the Scottish National Party was so over-whelming). The Parliament is elected for a fixed 4 year term. |
Forums » Off duty » News & media » Reform of the House of Lords
