Tony Blair should be remembered as the charlatan who wrecked the British constitution. His speech in the video shows how fundamentally ignorant he was of the role of the Lords, and proves his desire to rig it by stuffing it with his own cronies. If Cameron and Clegg have any sense they will repeal Blair's House of Lords Reform Act
@ToaJoe I used to think that, then I grew up. I recognise that the Lords serves a vital role in checking the power of the government, eg, on 42 days detention. Since a government with a large majority is so powerful, it's vital that there is a Chamber with greater independence to check on it and limit its power. If it is made an elected chamber, it simply serves as another House full of political cronies and party loyalists.
Regarding right-wing bias? There are more Labour peers than Tory.
@MrToadful I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. You talk about party political cronies... the lords is already composed almost entirely of people who have been mass produced by the government of the day in order to ship through their bills.
There are more Labour peers than the Tories, but you will find that most Labour peers are the same fox hunting twats as the Tory ones.
Here's my take on it- a fully elected House of lords, but you are only allowed to stand as an independant candidate.
@ToaJoe 'Tis a fair point. I supported the previous hereditary system because it meant the greatest independence from party lines, though I would have preferred the party system removed from the Lords entirely. The reason I don't support an elected house is because it will simply get filled with the same party loyalists that we have in the Commons, and we'll lose all the experience of the experts. The type of people who stand for election are often not experienced nor have expertise in anything.
@MrToadful The people who are experienced and experts in their area of work will seek election as independant MPs if they want. If they want the peerage enough to accept it from the government, they should seek it from the electorate. There's no reason why the independant lords would side with a particular party. Instead, the two sides of the house could represent political alignment, the more left wing lords could sit on the left and vice versa. That isn't necessarily party politics.
@ToaJoe I think neither the elderly, committed, hard-working gentlemen we see throughout this video, nor the appointed members who are not political cronies, will want to involve themselves in the grubby world of elections and electioneering. Especially if the Lords elections are held under Party List PR (this is what is proposed in the Coalition Agreement), the parties will be dominant, squeezing out independent candidates because it's hard for them to get support in a (continued in next post.)
@ToaJoe larger area without party machinery and funding. That will make it even more difficult for independents to get elected than it already is in general elections to the Commons. A Lords elected on PR just allows parties to stick their most loyal, unquestioning members at the top, giving them near-guaranteed election. And under a FPTP constituency system, the Lords would effectively mirror the Commons and parties would still remain dominant.
@MrToadful Hang on a second. Why is it such a bad thing for the Lords to reflect the commons? Can't you see that the Lords is already like that? A new government comes in, and then swamps the Lords with their own party peers. Another party comes in, and vice versa.
The truth is, the conservatives want an unelected Lords chamber because it is the one thing that would stop a radical left wing government from passing legislation- they know that the country is naturally liberal.
@ToaJoe Because the point of the Lords is to act as a balance on the Commons and counter-balance the trend towards increasingly dominant Governments in recent years. I know Governments appoint peers - I would rather the process of appointment was done completely independently, or it was simply left as hereditary.
"Radical left-wing governments" can still get their legislation through by invoking the Parliament Act, which asserts the supremacy of the Commons. They either compromise or wait.
@ToaJoe And the Conservative party doesn't want an unelected Chamber. Read their manifesto: "We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords". And the Coalition Agreement commits the government to much the same. "...bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation." Clegg's going for 80% elected, I believe.
@ToaJoe Furthermore on the "radical left wing governments", I firmly believe one of the points of the Lords is to slow down radical change. It's there to act as a counter-balance with years of experience behind it. What's the point in having a second Chamber if it simply sits there and allows the Government to trample all over the Constitution whilst it enacts its ideology and tramples upon centuries of past experience? The short-term whims of career politicians do not trump the Constitution.
@MrToadful I hate everything the Lords has done in it's history. Look at the Liberal reforms of 1906- that was not 'slowing down' radical change, it was straight up denying democracy! The Lords are anti democratic by country miles. You talked about the constitutional preservation- the lords can't block legislations forever. MPs are not stupid animals who don't care for the past. But there is something called progress, and the lords trying to block the AV referndum was pathetic.
Tony Blair should be remembered as the charlatan who wrecked the British constitution. His speech in the video shows how fundamentally ignorant he was of the role of the Lords, and proves his desire to rig it by stuffing it with his own cronies. If Cameron and Clegg have any sense they will repeal Blair's House of Lords Reform Act
Hilarious documentary. They seem to have thought of the House as their neighborhood hen cluster rather than a legislative body for four nations which they dictated their personal whims through. The nation can only eagerly anticipate the permanent resignation of the rest of them. That's too bad for the poor benighted lace curtains and sycophantic gaggle of Conservative neurotics. It's inevitable though.
I find it outragous that B.liars commoner government would throw a law that would destroy the Lord's right to be a member of the House of Lords through.
@kanenkitten I agree. The House of Lords is integral to the UK's Constitution. A constitution is a rulebook by which a government has to play by. What is the point of a constitution if any Government can just come along and change it as they like?
Purging legitimate members of the legislature is better known to military dictatorships, not Britain.
I got an idea. Make the Lords something like an 'Imperial Senate' whereby the Lords are equally distributed between the UK's component countries. Give Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland equal number of members in the Lords. Go even one step better and give all the overseas territories a fifth of the seats. That's right, each country gets 20% of the seats and the colonies the last 20%. Equal representation in the Lords, with proportional representation in the Commons.
That's ridiculous, almost nine in ten Britons live in England, to expect them to be reduced to having just one fifth of the representation in the House of Lords, while Scotland already has a parliament, Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies, and each overseas territory has a legislature of its own, would be intolerable. If the House of Lords is to be elected, it ought to be proportional to the entire population.
@Apachecatdog The principle would work like the US Senate which divides representation equally amongst all 50 constituent states of the US. California sends two senators just as small states such as Rhode Island or Delaware. With representation proportionate to population in the Commons (where all real power is exercised) the House of Lords (a branch regulated to revising and tweeking bills) would be a place where the constituent nations of the UK all have equal say.
Yes I understand the proposal, but it would be of no tangible benefit, and only serve to increase the overrepresentation of Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland. This would obviously just increase the 'petty nationalism' which we can see today in the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the English Democrats. The old system worked well, it should not be impossible for us to contemplate going back to that system.
@Apachecatdog Over-representation is the idea. Proportional representation is in the House of Commons. Since the Lords is only there for legislative tweaking and approval of constitutional issues, it only makes sense to treat the constituent countries of the United Kingdom as equals. Scotland, Wales, and Ulster are nations in of themselves that choose to be united with England. To treat them as just percentages of the population is exactly what gives fuel to the separatist parties.
How could the Hereditaries be considered clinging to the furniture when they were/are part of the furniture?
kanenkitten 10 months ago 2
Tony Blair should be remembered as the charlatan who wrecked the British constitution. His speech in the video shows how fundamentally ignorant he was of the role of the Lords, and proves his desire to rig it by stuffing it with his own cronies. If Cameron and Clegg have any sense they will repeal Blair's House of Lords Reform Act
HighTory 11 months ago 2
@HighTory What role of the lords? Their 'unique' perspective on incredibly important issues like fox hunting?
There's nothing ignorant about wanting to rid ourselves of this incredibly (and permanently) right wing upper house.
ToaJoe 10 months ago
@ToaJoe I used to think that, then I grew up. I recognise that the Lords serves a vital role in checking the power of the government, eg, on 42 days detention. Since a government with a large majority is so powerful, it's vital that there is a Chamber with greater independence to check on it and limit its power. If it is made an elected chamber, it simply serves as another House full of political cronies and party loyalists.
Regarding right-wing bias? There are more Labour peers than Tory.
MrToadful 10 months ago
@MrToadful I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. You talk about party political cronies... the lords is already composed almost entirely of people who have been mass produced by the government of the day in order to ship through their bills.
There are more Labour peers than the Tories, but you will find that most Labour peers are the same fox hunting twats as the Tory ones.
Here's my take on it- a fully elected House of lords, but you are only allowed to stand as an independant candidate.
ToaJoe 10 months ago
@ToaJoe 'Tis a fair point. I supported the previous hereditary system because it meant the greatest independence from party lines, though I would have preferred the party system removed from the Lords entirely. The reason I don't support an elected house is because it will simply get filled with the same party loyalists that we have in the Commons, and we'll lose all the experience of the experts. The type of people who stand for election are often not experienced nor have expertise in anything.
MrToadful 10 months ago
@MrToadful The people who are experienced and experts in their area of work will seek election as independant MPs if they want. If they want the peerage enough to accept it from the government, they should seek it from the electorate. There's no reason why the independant lords would side with a particular party. Instead, the two sides of the house could represent political alignment, the more left wing lords could sit on the left and vice versa. That isn't necessarily party politics.
ToaJoe 10 months ago
@ToaJoe I think neither the elderly, committed, hard-working gentlemen we see throughout this video, nor the appointed members who are not political cronies, will want to involve themselves in the grubby world of elections and electioneering. Especially if the Lords elections are held under Party List PR (this is what is proposed in the Coalition Agreement), the parties will be dominant, squeezing out independent candidates because it's hard for them to get support in a (continued in next post.)
MrToadful 10 months ago
@ToaJoe larger area without party machinery and funding. That will make it even more difficult for independents to get elected than it already is in general elections to the Commons. A Lords elected on PR just allows parties to stick their most loyal, unquestioning members at the top, giving them near-guaranteed election. And under a FPTP constituency system, the Lords would effectively mirror the Commons and parties would still remain dominant.
MrToadful 10 months ago
@MrToadful Hang on a second. Why is it such a bad thing for the Lords to reflect the commons? Can't you see that the Lords is already like that? A new government comes in, and then swamps the Lords with their own party peers. Another party comes in, and vice versa.
The truth is, the conservatives want an unelected Lords chamber because it is the one thing that would stop a radical left wing government from passing legislation- they know that the country is naturally liberal.
ToaJoe 10 months ago
@ToaJoe Because the point of the Lords is to act as a balance on the Commons and counter-balance the trend towards increasingly dominant Governments in recent years. I know Governments appoint peers - I would rather the process of appointment was done completely independently, or it was simply left as hereditary.
"Radical left-wing governments" can still get their legislation through by invoking the Parliament Act, which asserts the supremacy of the Commons. They either compromise or wait.
MrToadful 10 months ago
@ToaJoe And the Conservative party doesn't want an unelected Chamber. Read their manifesto: "We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords". And the Coalition Agreement commits the government to much the same. "...bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation." Clegg's going for 80% elected, I believe.
MrToadful 10 months ago
@ToaJoe Furthermore on the "radical left wing governments", I firmly believe one of the points of the Lords is to slow down radical change. It's there to act as a counter-balance with years of experience behind it. What's the point in having a second Chamber if it simply sits there and allows the Government to trample all over the Constitution whilst it enacts its ideology and tramples upon centuries of past experience? The short-term whims of career politicians do not trump the Constitution.
MrToadful 10 months ago 2
@MrToadful I hate everything the Lords has done in it's history. Look at the Liberal reforms of 1906- that was not 'slowing down' radical change, it was straight up denying democracy! The Lords are anti democratic by country miles. You talked about the constitutional preservation- the lords can't block legislations forever. MPs are not stupid animals who don't care for the past. But there is something called progress, and the lords trying to block the AV referndum was pathetic.
ToaJoe 10 months ago
Tony Blair should be remembered as the charlatan who wrecked the British constitution. His speech in the video shows how fundamentally ignorant he was of the role of the Lords, and proves his desire to rig it by stuffing it with his own cronies. If Cameron and Clegg have any sense they will repeal Blair's House of Lords Reform Act
HighTory 11 months ago 2
Hilarious documentary. They seem to have thought of the House as their neighborhood hen cluster rather than a legislative body for four nations which they dictated their personal whims through. The nation can only eagerly anticipate the permanent resignation of the rest of them. That's too bad for the poor benighted lace curtains and sycophantic gaggle of Conservative neurotics. It's inevitable though.
NigraHerder 1 year ago
So basically Labour were asking the Lords to sack themselves. Completly disgraceful i nevery sense of the word.
gangstamillion 1 year ago 2
I find it outragous that B.liars commoner government would throw a law that would destroy the Lord's right to be a member of the House of Lords through.
kanenkitten 1 year ago 8
@kanenkitten I agree. The House of Lords is integral to the UK's Constitution. A constitution is a rulebook by which a government has to play by. What is the point of a constitution if any Government can just come along and change it as they like?
Purging legitimate members of the legislature is better known to military dictatorships, not Britain.
desiretheright 1 year ago 6
I got an idea. Make the Lords something like an 'Imperial Senate' whereby the Lords are equally distributed between the UK's component countries. Give Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland equal number of members in the Lords. Go even one step better and give all the overseas territories a fifth of the seats. That's right, each country gets 20% of the seats and the colonies the last 20%. Equal representation in the Lords, with proportional representation in the Commons.
LightYearsFromHere 1 year ago
@LightYearsFromHere
That's ridiculous, almost nine in ten Britons live in England, to expect them to be reduced to having just one fifth of the representation in the House of Lords, while Scotland already has a parliament, Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies, and each overseas territory has a legislature of its own, would be intolerable. If the House of Lords is to be elected, it ought to be proportional to the entire population.
Apachecatdog 1 year ago 2
@Apachecatdog The principle would work like the US Senate which divides representation equally amongst all 50 constituent states of the US. California sends two senators just as small states such as Rhode Island or Delaware. With representation proportionate to population in the Commons (where all real power is exercised) the House of Lords (a branch regulated to revising and tweeking bills) would be a place where the constituent nations of the UK all have equal say.
LightYearsFromHere 1 year ago
@LightYearsFromHere
Yes I understand the proposal, but it would be of no tangible benefit, and only serve to increase the overrepresentation of Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland. This would obviously just increase the 'petty nationalism' which we can see today in the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the English Democrats. The old system worked well, it should not be impossible for us to contemplate going back to that system.
Apachecatdog 1 year ago
@Apachecatdog Over-representation is the idea. Proportional representation is in the House of Commons. Since the Lords is only there for legislative tweaking and approval of constitutional issues, it only makes sense to treat the constituent countries of the United Kingdom as equals. Scotland, Wales, and Ulster are nations in of themselves that choose to be united with England. To treat them as just percentages of the population is exactly what gives fuel to the separatist parties.
LightYearsFromHere 4 months ago
Thank you for posting this.
borjon23 1 year ago 4
Thank you very much for posting this.
borjon23 1 year ago 2