Elected House of Lords

[~~~Tides~~~]

There are many people who say frequently that the House of Lords should be 100% elected. If any of those people are amongst those here just now, could I ask what your arguments for this are? I am yet to hear one argument, let alone a good one, other than "we are a democracy, it should be elected", "it's a joke", "it’s arcane/old fashioned", etc.

Personally I think it would be much less democratic, to have a second chamber mirroring the first: full of career politicians with very little life experience outside politics, nor independent thought, towing the party line, simply rubber-stamping the government's contentious laws. There would be no increased scrutiny of the House of Commons, and the increase in democratic legitimacy would be an illusion, as the same party would be likely to have a majority in both houses.

I think people that advocate a 100% elected House of Lords miss what the point of that chamber is: to scrutinise legislation. They don't realise that it is actually very good at this, primarily because it is populated by scientists, business-people, teachers, judges, people that have achieved good things, etc. i.e. people that know what they are talking about and who do not pander to populism nor the party-line. The business of the House of Lords doesn't make the news often, but anyone who has a look at similar debates in the Commons and then the Lords, it will be immediately clear to them which is of better quality (the current Scotland Bill is an excellent case in point). Obviously, our elected House is still the most important, and legislatively supreme. But the balance of the current system is correct for the purpose it serves.

No I'm not a Tory. But if there is a better argument for why it should be 100% elected, and why we should vote for a councillor, MSP, MP, Lord, MEP, and then still feel like nobody listens to us, I’d be keen to hear it.

[spurtle]

I agree with you completely

[Corrie 3]

Don't worry about it, after Independence we wont have to pay for them sleeping on the job any longer......Elected or Unelected!!

C3......................:eek::roll:

[~~~Tides~~~]

Don't worry about it, after Independence we wont have to pay for them sleeping on the job any longer......Elected or Unelected!

Nah, we'll just have to pay for Eck's mob railroading through legislation with no opposition, scrutiny or thought to the consequences (the public entertainment licences fiasco one of many examples). Democracy is a great thing.

[pmcd]

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Winston Churchill, 1947

At least democracy gives everyone the impression their opinion, or vote, means something.

Sadly, we know it doesn't. People vote according to their low-level, visceral, and even tribal imperatives. Including people who are uncaught criminals, borderline cretins or psychopaths, sex offenders, embezzlers, wife/husband beaters, narcissists, bullies, feral scum with the IQ of a carrot - as well as honest Joe and Jessie Yeoman and the educated upper echelons of the gene pool. At this level "one man one vote" as a concept stinks to high heaven. The idea that a surgeon's vote means as much as that of a bottom-feeding, brain-dead, knuckle-trailing, slack-jawed sociopath really hurts like hell. But we're not allowed, in this "open" society, to think like that. We continue, lemming-like, our PC pursuit of the idea of "an equality of misery", and anyone diverting from this "liberal" mantra is treated with contempt.

So we're stuck with it. And thus with the House of Commons, or, as the late Spike Milligan so eloquently renamed it "The biggest political asylum in the world". I feel he would have been similarly impressed by Holyrood and its inmates.

However, all this pales into insignificance when we propose to duplicate this folly and entertain the idea of an elected Upper House. A SECOND batch of cradle-to-grave politicians who leech from the society they purportedly represent, and give nothing of extra value to their electorate? Perhaps not.

Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster, best sums up for me the spirit of the House of Lords. Yes, he is one of the richest men in Great Britain. But, as he says, he is nothing more than a steward of his lands and businesses: thousands rely on him NOT wasting it all on fast horses and faster women: his duty is to continue his prosperity: to grow the capital to provide greater interest: to do what every businessman of principle does. And then to give both time and money outwith the tight circle of commerce to the greater benefit of all. Noblesse oblige. Grosvenor spent a huge amount of time with the Territorial Army, rising to become Major-General. Inspection of his military career shows he took every step to reach the rank he did: no silver spoon aided or hindered him. He has, of course, an impeccable record of philanthropy.

I like the idea of a disinterested House of Lords, populated by the Great and the Good. Yes, disinterested, which doesn't mean UNinterested, but even-handed, non partisan, capable of seeing both sides of an argument, and a million miles away from the vacuous pudding of a voter who votes for X or Y because "we've always voted for X or Y in this house", the voter who carries a huge chip on his shoulder that some people have more than he does: some people are "luckier" than he is; and that some people actually make a huge effort to dig themselves out of the humdrum.

The British could do a lot worse than to think more highly of the status quo. The idea of breaking up a fine institution because it is unfashionable is both petty and demeaning, and unfortunately, if it proceeds, will add greatly to the confusion of a great nation.

But hey, what do I know? - i'm scarcely a regular guy like that Tony Blair...........

[ducati]

Apparently, according to surveys, 100% of the public don't care.

[Corrie 3]

Apparently, according to surveys, 100% of the public don't care.
Thats funny Duke, I am one of those 100%..... :roll: , well I never!!!

C3..............:lol:

[Rheghead]

Nah, we'll just have to pay for Eck's mob railroading through legislation with no opposition, scrutiny or thought to the consequences (the public entertainment licences fiasco one of many examples). Democracy is a great thing.

That's a really funny description, 'mob railroading'.

By 'mob' are you referring to the democratically elected majority? Do you feel worthy enough to comment that a democratically elected majority is not entitled to push through its own legislation?

That is pretty feeble view of democracy you've got there but I guess you only think they are mob railroading legislation because you just happen to disagree with it.

[gleeber]

I like the British system and the Lords are a good safety valve. They shouldnt be elected but I would give lordships to more ordinary people and cut their expenses to an absolute minimum in case they started living like Lords.

[~~~Tides~~~]

Fair enough the SNP are the democratically elected majority, that's fine. However, what happens in a well functioning democracy is there is debate, scrutiny and effective opposition. These things are sorely lacking at Holyrood, due to the feeble state of opposition parties.

The elected majority are very much allowed to push through their own legislation, but it shouldn't be as easy for them as it currently is.

[~~~Tides~~~]

I like the British system and the Lords are a good safety valve. They shouldnt be elected but I would give lordships to more ordinary people and cut their expenses to an absolute minimum in case they started living like Lords.

But surely if you cut their expenses to the bone, then only very well-off people could afford to take time off to come into Westminster all the time to debate and vote etc.?

[_Ju_]

I am yet to hear one argument, let alone a good one, other than "we are a democracy, it should be elected", "it's a joke", "it’s arcane/old fashioned", etc.


The government IS elected. It's called the Parliament. Other countries elect Presidents because they are not Monarchies but Republics. The house of Lords for me is dispensable. Historically interesting and I suppose with a role as the monarch is not elected and so decisions are not made by the birth right of just one individual (rule by birth right is not what I would choose for myself, given the choice, but it is the choice of this country). Election of a house of lords would dilute the efficacy of the parliament and make legislature more expensive.
Could it be that this wanting to elect a House of Lords has to do with the fact that England does not have it's own devolved parliament the way Wales and Scotland have?

[Humerous Vegetable]

The House of Lords is like Broadband in Caithness......an expensive, out of date and totally ineffectual anachronism. It appears to be jam-packed (nearly 800 of them) with people like the Earl of Caithness, who lives in Oxfordshire, retired trades union officials whose socialist principles seem to have fled at the prospect of a comfy seat to sleep in and subsidised food and drink and Church of England bishops. It should be abolished, not "reformed".
There is no need for a second chamber, only an informed and effective opposition.
The Lib-Dems are proposing that these parasites are given a salary of £50,000 a year and (after election) left in place for 15 years. Well, that secures a place at the trough for all the MPs we manage to shed in the future.