House of Lords

[peterl]

Nov 20, 2022 0:01:17 GMT riccimarsh said:

Nov 19, 2022 20:33:49 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

I can’t see how electing the Lords would “help restore trust in politics” when you look at the utter dross people elect to the Commons. Wasn’t most of this “loss of trust” caused by elected politicians in the first place??

Only problem with the Lords is its full of political cronies these days. Throw out the political appointees and everything would be fine. Last thing we need is even more politicians.

[Forfarshire Conservative]

Nov 19, 2022 20:33:49 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Yet more constitutional and historical vandalism by a Labour government🙄.

[timmullen1]

Nov 20, 2022 0:01:17 GMT riccimarsh said:

Nov 19, 2022 20:33:49 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

I can’t see how electing the Lords would “help restore trust in politics” when you look at the utter dross people elect to the Commons. Wasn’t most of this “loss of trust” caused by elected politicians in the first place??

Whilst tending to oppose making the Lords wholly elected, I think reform is needed to prevent the abuse of patronage that we’ve seen recently becoming more prevalent - two apparently on Johnson’s Resignation List are aged under 35, one isn’t 30, and their only work experience is with Johnson himself. The very obvious cash for honours with Tory megadonors being ennobled brings the system into disrepute. There’s apparently, according to unnamed sources speaking to the press, an argument as to whether Cressida Dick gets the peerage that seems to be automatic for ex-Commissioners, despite her being deemed a failure by a Conservative Home Secretary, a Labour Mayor of London, and the nominally independent Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services that saw fit to put her Met into special measures.

There’s obviously a wholly separate argument over the fundamental principle of an unelected legislative chamber; personally I rather like the idea that because they’re not looking over their shoulders at reselection/reelection they have a degree of independent thought the Commons largely lacks.

[yellowperil]

Nov 20, 2022 0:23:22 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Nov 19, 2022 20:33:49 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Yet more constitutional and historical vandalism by a Labour government🙄.

Long overdue. But then you woud have viewd every parliamentary reform from 1832 onwards as a yet more constitutional vandalism,

[LDCaerdydd]

Hopefully Starmer’s plans are part of a wider political reform package.

Creating an elected second chamber on its own won’t solve the problem.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2022 0:23:22 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Nov 19, 2022 20:33:49 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Yet more constitutional and historical vandalism by a Labour government🙄.

I think successive Conservative PMs stuffing the place with their friends, donors, and shadowy Russian businessmen is fairly vandalistic, if I'm allowed to mangle the language. We can't carry on pretending that the Lords is acceptable as an ever-growing dumping ground for everybody a PM has ever shaken hands with.

In my idealistic days I wanted 100% elected second chamber. Stepped back from that now. There are figures in Lords whose wisdom and expertise are undeniably useful. An independent panel could choose 50-100 of them as a cross-party "council of elders". The rest - 350-450 - would be elected.

[Crimson King]

I refer the forum to my previous suggestion. 75% elected in thirds by STV from the regions an nations for single 15 year terms (elecions every 5 years). The remainder ex officio (eg retiring heads of certain institutions if they want it) topped up with nominees from an independent panel.

[matureleft]

The composition of a second chamber and how it is chosen and renewed should follow from a clear definition of its purpose, not the other way round.

If we seek an expert revising chamber with no powers to substantially delay, let alone thwart legislation than we need to ensure that we have a membership that can do that job. If it’s intended to reflect the nations and regions of the UK then some thought on how that works in a more devolved state is required. The establishment of the Supreme Court valuably simplified the definitions of purpose.

[neilm]

A personal view. I am generally against 'independent panels.' They are often stuffed with the groups of people I do not like or rate or have time for, and are just another tool for establishment inertia. I am a smash things up and be radical type. If I ended up on such a panel I would take a good look at myself in case I had turned into Napoleon from Animal Farm

However. There are people who can bring a lot to the table and there are various perspectives on what is and isn't valuable: I didn't see the point in appointing Doreen Lawrence but the issues and concerns she focuses on are valid and she is relatively active with generally well thought through contributions. In retrospect I wonder if she would have got elected or made it through an independent panel of the type envisaged by some if we were to have an elected upper house.

At this stage, I don't see the point in changing how the House of Lords is appointed although I am itching for constitutional adjustments, and a lot of what I envisage is so radical that I would be in a tiny minority in promoting it. Need to play the long game on this one.

[yellowperil]

Nov 20, 2022 9:42:30 GMT Crimson King said:

I refer the forum to my previous suggestion. 75% elected in thirds by STV from the regions an nations for single 15 year terms (elecions every 5 years). The remainder ex officio (eg retiring heads of certain institutions if they want it) topped up with nominees from an independent panel.

I think that's about right in principle and a good starting point for discussion.

[Forfarshire Conservative]

Nov 20, 2022 9:22:19 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 20, 2022 0:23:22 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Yet more constitutional and historical vandalism by a Labour government🙄.

Long overdue. But then you woud have viewd every parliamentary reform from 1832 onwards as a yet more constitutional vandalism,

Err, no. I'm in favour of political reform but I also support the continuation of the unelected revising chamber. When I look at Holyrood and how the SNP can ram through half baked legislation its value becomes apparent. I'm also a small c conservative so I am opposed to change simply for the sake of it.

[Deleted]

I’m sure no one here would be hypocritical and suggest it’s only the recent Tory governments that have appointed allies, donors and controversial politicians to the Lords. You may think the system is abused, but anyone who gets a chance abuses it. That includes Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t begrudge *that*, I begrudge the holier than though attitude.
Regardless of that, Labour only have themselves to blames here. They introduced the 1999 reforms which pleased no one.
Perhaps we should go back to all elected?
If Starmer wants to restore trust in politics he needs to abolish politicians, full stop, not appointed peers.
Anyway, if he wants to tie himself up in chains getting this sorted, so be it. I suppose he’s hoping it will be his legacy, but it’ll take years and it could end up making devolution look like an act of unifying genius.
What I would be dead set against is election years alternate to the Commons. Divided government with a second chamber holding its own electoral mandate would be a disaster. I’d rather have just the one chamber.

[neilm]

Nov 20, 2022 11:05:47 GMT @johnyorks said:

I’m sure no one here would be hypocritical and suggest it’s only the recent Tory governments that have appointed allies, donors and controversial politicians to the Lords. You may think the system is abused, but anyone who gets a chance abuses it. That includes Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t begrudge *that*, I begrudge the holier than though attitude.

Well, quite. Starmer has complained of 'lackeys and donors' being appointed. Glass houses, stones etc.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2022 11:13:36 GMT neilm said:

Nov 20, 2022 11:05:47 GMT @johnyorks said:

I’m sure no one here would be hypocritical and suggest it’s only the recent Tory governments that have appointed allies, donors and controversial politicians to the Lords. You may think the system is abused, but anyone who gets a chance abuses it. That includes Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t begrudge *that*, I begrudge the holier than though attitude.

Well, quite. Starmer has complained of 'lackeys and donors' being appointed. Glass houses, stones etc.

It just reminds me how parties to the left seem the most hostile to political honours in general. That hasn’t stopped them nominating (or accepting) their knighthoods and damehoods since David Cameron reintroduced them as a regular inclusion in the lists.
Actually, much as I despise Sinn Fein, I can admire them sticking to their principles in this regard.

[Merseymike]

Nov 20, 2022 11:17:52 GMT @johnyorks said:

Nov 20, 2022 11:13:36 GMT neilm said:

Well, quite. Starmer has complained of 'lackeys and donors' being appointed. Glass houses, stones etc.

It just reminds me how parties to the left seem the most hostile to political honours in general. That hasn’t stopped them nominating (or accepting) their knighthoods and damehoods since David Cameron reintroduced them as a regular inclusion in the lists.
Actually, much as I despise Sinn Fein, I can admire them sticking to their principles in this regard.

The attitude tends to be that they would prefer not to have them but cannot withdraw participation for working peers as they are required.
However major changes are needed to the Lords. Personally I am a unicameralist but to go down that path would mean MPs doing a lot more scrutiny and governance and dropping the unqualified social work

[matureleft]

Nov 20, 2022 11:05:47 GMT @johnyorks said:

I’m sure no one here would be hypocritical and suggest it’s only the recent Tory governments that have appointed allies, donors and controversial politicians to the Lords. You may think the system is abused, but anyone who gets a chance abuses it. That includes Labour and the Lib Dems. I don’t begrudge *that*, I begrudge the holier than though attitude.
Regardless of that, Labour only have themselves to blames here. They introduced the 1999 reforms which pleased no one.
Perhaps we should go back to all elected?
If Starmer wants to restore trust in politics he needs to abolish politicians, full stop, not appointed peers.
Anyway, if he wants to tie himself up in chains getting this sorted, so be it. I suppose he’s hoping it will be his legacy, but it’ll take years and it could end up making devolution look like an act of unifying genius.
What I would be dead set against is election years alternate to the Commons. Divided government with a second chamber holding its own electoral mandate would be a disaster. I’d rather have just the one chamber.

Since the Lords as constituted has powers and a clear constitutional purpose only a party uninterested in power would decline to nominate members. Doing that as a short-term measure pending proper reform is fine.

But Labour should have pressed ahead with full, properly-considered reform after 1999 when they had the chance, and there have certainly been Labour nominations that are hard to justify even if the Tory use of this entitlement (in part through their longevity in government) has been rather worse. 

[timmullen1]

Nov 20, 2022 11:17:52 GMT @johnyorks said:

Nov 20, 2022 11:13:36 GMT neilm said:

Well, quite. Starmer has complained of 'lackeys and donors' being appointed. Glass houses, stones etc.

It just reminds me how parties to the left seem the most hostile to political honours in general. That hasn’t stopped them nominating (or accepting) their knighthoods and damehoods since David Cameron reintroduced them as a regular inclusion in the lists.
Actually, much as I despise Sinn Fein, I can admire them sticking to their principles in this regard.

I’m not sure Starmer’s appointments have been particularly outside the traditional; mainly ex-MPs, a couple of whom have gone on to other things (Gillian Merron, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Ruth Smeeth (who will be using her maiden name, Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent), Index on Censorship), an outgoing TUC General Secretary which in my memory goes back to Len Murray, and a retired union Gen Sec. There’s nobody who blatantly stands out as outside the norm, for example, as the Downing Street aides appointed by the Conservatives - heck Cameron not only made his Chief of Staff a Peer but also appointed him Ambassador to France - even Peter Jay only got an Ambassadorship out of Callaghan.

[Sibboleth]

I suspect that it might be a little easier to defend the institution without absurdity if 'Lord Lebedev of Siberia' did not exist and if Johnson had not breached the usual conventions with his resignation honours list. Conservative Party toleration of the increasingly open corruption of its leaders - and I note that the only defence ever offered amounts to 'and you are lynching negroes' - is going to result in the destruction of a lot of the things that the average Party member holds dear.

[The Bishop]

Yes, the bottom line is that Johnson in particular has made this course of action seem plausible again - even to somebody naturally risk-averse in the way Starmer is.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2022 12:11:29 GMT Sibboleth said:

I suspect that it might be a little easier to defend the institution without absurdity if 'Lord Lebedev of Siberia' did not exist and if Johnson had not breached the usual conventions with his resignation honours list. Conservative Party toleration of the increasingly open corruption of its leaders - and I note that the only defence ever offered amounts to 'and you are lynching negroes' - is going to result in the destruction of a lot of the things that the average Party member holds dear.

You mean a foreign born press baron for a peerage? Such a thing to happen and drag the place into disrepute. How awful. I’m sure Lord Beaverbrook would be turning in his grave… Oh wait.
No it’s because he’s wealthy isn’t it. I’m sure Lord Sainsbury of Turville would vociferously oppose such a thing… Oh wait.
No it’s because he’s accused of being compromised with a foreign power. I’m sure Lord Bradwell would have campaigned against such a horrific… Oh wait.