| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Milliband to abolish the house of Lords? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 1 2014, 09:01 PM (331 Views) | |
| Tigger | Nov 1 2014, 09:01 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good idea or not? It'll be replaced by an elected senate type body, personally I'd just get rid of it and not bother replacing it at all I can't see the point of a second chamber it just looks like overmanning to me. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 1 2014, 09:02 PM Post #2 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Makes you wonder why the Tories haven't abolished it; they seem hell bent on reducing over-staffing in the public sector. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 1 2014, 09:07 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I like it! I'm in favour of just about anything that upsets the establishment apple cart, things are way too cosy as things stand. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Nov 1 2014, 09:39 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not particularly the Lords that need reforming, though true enough some reductions in numbers is a must. Parliament needs reforming, PR, and then allow the Lords to be the censure it purports to be. Party politics ruins democracy when FPTP decides the outcome. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Nov 1 2014, 10:25 PM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Seems an excellent idea! Yes agreed get rid of the HOL altogether, save us some money and get rid of a tier of red tape and establishment hangers on. |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Nov 1 2014, 10:31 PM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We've been here before haven't we? I'd like to see it reformed, but the HoL is part of British culture and heritage and it also serves as a reminder to certain religious communities that the UK maybe tolerant but is not secular. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 1 2014, 10:34 PM Post #7 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am a person of a faith group; I'd prefer it if the government and establishment of the UK were secular. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Nov 1 2014, 10:36 PM Post #8 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
and I am catholic, personally I feel safer if the UK remained Anglican. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 1 2014, 10:38 PM Post #9 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Culture changes and one persons heritage is another's well past it's sell by date. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Nov 1 2014, 11:01 PM Post #10 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It has to go, it is a powerful symbol of social divisions and power held by perceived upper classes. That in fact it really isn't such is unimportant, it symbolises inequality and non democratic traditions The problem is how to replace it with something the population will see as better. But replace it we will have to do. Constitutionally a second chamber gives us great stability and is also a significant mechanism to ensure manifestoes are committed to. |
![]() |
|
| Boxter | Nov 2 2014, 12:02 AM Post #11 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Seeing that his incompetence has all but abolished his party in Scotland to near the levels of the Tories I would have imagined Red Ed would have more pressing concerns but then hes such a plank his aides havn't the wit to tell him or worse they probably have & its still working its way towards his one useful brain cell!
Edited by Boxter, Nov 2 2014, 12:04 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 2 2014, 10:27 AM Post #12 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Miliband's problem is not that he's incompetent. He, like 99% of all politicians in this country, is hopelessly out of touch with the real world and the lives of real people beyond the Westminster Bubble. I'd like to see legislation passed that requires ALL prospective MPs to have held a real job (outside of the political sphere) for at least 5 years. Far too many of the "political class" think that politics is a career path rather than a vocation. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Nov 2 2014, 10:57 AM Post #13 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think some sort of second chamber is a necessity, I believe Mrs Thatcher got more knock-backs from the HoL than any other PM. IIRC Tony Blair got rid of 100 hereditary peers and began the equalisation of political representation in the House. For me that is the way to go until a workable alternative is found. As an extra thought, an elected HoL would, sooner or later hold too much power which would create extra work and conflict. |
![]() |
|
| Marconi | Nov 2 2014, 10:58 AM Post #14 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ed Milliband probably means it too, like Blair and Prescott did before him. But once they are in power, they become part of that same establishment. The allure of the affluent After-Dinner Speech circuit or a Peerage is too strong to resist compared to the will to reform. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 2 2014, 11:11 AM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Upsetting the apple cart just spoils the load of apples. Before upsetting it it is best to decide what should replace it. Most democratic countries have a second house on the lines of our HOL, and for the same purpose, that is to oversee the legislation and to correct or modify it for the common good. Its a good idea to remeber that many of the Lords were commoners before receiving their knighthood and the HOL is less party political than the HOC, giving the more ballanced view. The HOC can always get its own way in the end, no matter what the HOL decides. If it ai'n't broke dont try to mend it. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 2 2014, 11:29 AM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here is the list for the mebership of the HOC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_House_of_Lords Many of them are not hereditary, and many are commoners with outside work experience and experience in many other fields of politics bringing to the parliamentry system a great deal of experience in buisiness and other fields of work experience. Some I believe were ex Union leaders.. Many identify themselves as cross benchers, not affiliated to any political party. Its about as good as you can get. for ballance and fairness. Just imagine an upper house composed with a majority of elected politicians of the same stamp as the Government of the day. creating a party and political dictatorship. Those to the left of politics would just love that if it could be acheived. |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Nov 2 2014, 11:37 AM Post #17 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
England is so class-conscious that there will be no support for abolishing the House of "Lords" among middle class Tory voters and working class people who are indoctrinated into believing that an aristocracy grounded in the Monarchy represents wise government by their betters. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 2 2014, 11:49 AM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Dont knock it for one day you may be a member of it. The opportunity is there for everyone..I would think that anyone that brings class into the discusion must be class conscious themselves. Its all in the mind. |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Nov 2 2014, 11:56 AM Post #19 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are quite mistaken if you think class has nothing to do with a House of "Lords". |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Nov 2 2014, 11:57 AM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
True enough and for a change I would agree with you, it applies to all the main political parties. Implementing such a thing would more than likely rid us of Scameron, Giddy and most of the other deadwood from all sides of the HOC. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Nov 2 2014, 02:08 PM Post #21 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Those to the right of politics enjoyed exactly that for long enough. |
![]() |
|
| Alberich | Nov 2 2014, 03:17 PM Post #22 |
|
Alberich
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Abolishing the H.of L and replacing it with an elected senate type chamber sounds fine in theory; but a lot would depend on what is envisaged by this move, and what Milliband has in mind. First off, an elected second chamber, voted into office by the electorate, would have as much legitimacy as the House of Commons, and the present system which allows the lower chamber to have its way on contentious legislation might well come under pressure. Is that what Ed. has in mind; for he doesn't say so? Personally,I think that we might be better off retaining the present system, continuing to use the upper house as a revising forum, and leaving the primacy of legislative powers where they lie at the moment. However, some reform is long overdue. First off, the number of peers with voting rights in the upper house has to be revised downwards...drastically. I would limit membership to no more than (say) 400. Secondly, the present system of Party leader patronage, where members are appointed on a personal whim, has to go. Far be it from me to suggest that many peerages are granted as a direct result of bunging one of the main parties a few thousand quid......... well, alright, they clearly are, and this cannot be right. So the present system of sending members to the upper chamber has to go. Either replace it with a non political selection system of some kind (which will not be easy) where peerages are granted to worthy citizens on merit; divorced from the party system, or go for publicly elected members, with nominations for office again divorced from the main party machines, and selected by public nomination. There are considerable difficulties, whichever method is decided upon. But simply stating one's intention of abolishing the House of Lords, and replacing it with an elected senate; while sounding fine in theory, must be followed by detailed plans of what is intended, and how those intentions are to be carried out. An all-party working group, Ed? Or is this just another back of a fagpacket "policy" decison????? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Nov 2 2014, 03:45 PM Post #23 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It would be a mistake. The HofL is not a Chamber to be in competition for political ideas but to moderate and improve the Laws of those who are elected to do so. As such it should not be either the repository of clapped out Party Hacks or a means of ennobling turds. I do not object to 100% elected, but we should understand the job description and ban Party political interference in such selection processes. The HofL should be much smaller, maybe around 250, and designed to benefit us from wisdom and experience. If it cannot do that then maybe we should get rid. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Nov 2 2014, 07:28 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
People in all walks of life can have class, be they rich or poor , with blue blood or the default red. When you see it you recognise it, and even admire it, and it doesnt have to come with a title. It has to come from within. If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; |
![]() |
|
| RoofGardener | Nov 2 2014, 08:21 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Lord of Plantpots
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All Salute Citizen Heinrich !dvl! |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Nov 2 2014, 08:26 PM Post #26 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The House of "Lords" is undemocratic and cherished by the English for this reason. |
![]() |
|
| Boxter | Nov 2 2014, 08:27 PM Post #27 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Most governments in this country are not elected by the majority of the people. More people in other words dont bother to vote at all than those who do turn out, so their own credibility to state they want rid of a house of hereditary peers is nearly as shakey as those they want rid of. The real silent majority are so turned off by politicians they cant be ar**d to even bother voting so a bunch of venal politicians who want no scrutiny of any kind of the things they impose on the rest of us is a very bad idea. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 2 2014, 08:30 PM Post #28 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Get rid of it it's an anachronism. Backward nations like Norway, New Zealand, Singapore and I believe even Switzerland get by without some vaguely legitimate second chamber. |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Nov 2 2014, 08:34 PM Post #29 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You want Swiss style democracy? Be careful what you wish for. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 2 2014, 08:34 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But whatever you do don't get into a Merc driven by a pisshead and try and take an underpass at 90mph.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Nov 2 2014, 08:38 PM Post #31 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't recall saying I did, is your imagination getting ahead of you again? We do not need a second chamber in the 21st century it is anti democratic and an insult to a nation proclaiming itself a democracy, I don't fall into the trap of considering tradition to be of actual real worth. |
![]() |
|
| scorpio | Nov 2 2014, 08:39 PM Post #32 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hence the need for a Proportional Representation, electoral structure. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





7:33 PM Jul 11