|
|
Post by robert1 on Jul 29, 2020 10:45:41 GMT
The Burns Report was initiated to obviate the need for primary legislation which would have taken an eternity (If it were ever completed). I can assure ilerda that the Lords were aware of the specific issue to which he refers. (see the debate on the report) There were discussions with Number 10. TM both wrote to the Burns Committee and kept to its principles. It was settling in well as johnloony identifies, then along came resignation honours and the upcoming prospective list.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jul 29, 2020 11:58:51 GMT
Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there. and why should he? It is the not for the House of Lords to decide its own size or composition on the basis of backroom deals brokered by dubious individuals like Lord Burns. If Parliament wishes to change the manner or number of appointments it can do so by the normal legislative process. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 29, 2020 12:54:24 GMT
Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there. and why should he? It is the not for the House of Lords to decide its own size or composition on the basis of backroom deals brokered by dubious individuals like Lord Burns. If Parliament wishes to change the manner or number of appointments it can do so by the normal legislative process. Well quite, the clue's in the title, Convention, the single word which most clearly signifies that our institution of parliament is not fit for purpose. If it's so important (and this goes for Commons 'conventions' too) then make it a hard and fast rule or even better legislate for it. Those 'conventions' are broken all the time by the Government in particular when it suits their purposes (and I'm talking Government as an institution here, not necessarily just this one) and leads to some of the worst abuses of power, which of course under our ridiculous uncodified system, aren't abuses at all they're just avenues left over from our pre-democratic past. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 13:11:46 GMT
Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there. and why should he? It is the not for the House of Lords to decide its own size or composition on the basis of backroom deals brokered by dubious individuals like Lord Burns. If Parliament wishes to change the manner or number of appointments it can do so by the normal legislative process. The current government has smashed convention into pieces so your little rant doesn't stand for much. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 29, 2020 13:24:31 GMT
Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there. and why should he? It is the not for the House of Lords to decide its own size or composition on the basis of backroom deals brokered by dubious individuals like Lord Burns. If Parliament wishes to change the manner or number of appointments it can do so by the normal legislative process. Well since he has no interest in sorting out anything sensibly, none at all. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jul 29, 2020 15:58:14 GMT
Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there. and why should he? It is the not for the House of Lords to decide its own size or composition on the basis of backroom deals brokered by dubious individuals like Lord Burns. If Parliament wishes to change the manner or number of appointments it can do so by the normal legislative process. Indeed. Additionally this 'convention' existed for a matter of a few years. It's not like the Salisbury Convention, and I'd argue that it shouldn't be considered a convention. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jul 29, 2020 15:58:56 GMT
and why should he? It is the not for the House of Lords to decide its own size or composition on the basis of backroom deals brokered by dubious individuals like Lord Burns. If Parliament wishes to change the manner or number of appointments it can do so by the normal legislative process. The current government has smashed convention into pieces so your little rant doesn't stand for much. What conventions has the current government smashed into pieces? |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Jul 30, 2020 11:47:01 GMT
Well apart from Burns there is the little matter of the relationship between ministers and the civil service, the role of Cummings, Cabinet government, making major announcements first in Parliament not the media, relations with devolved administrations (notably Scotland), and no doubt lots more than those...
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jul 30, 2020 12:35:58 GMT
Well apart from Burns there is the little matter of the relationship between ministers and the civil service, the role of Cummings, Cabinet government, making major announcements first in Parliament not the media, relations with devolved administrations (notably Scotland), and no doubt lots more than those... A lot of this was levied at Blair, though. I don't think it's convention smashing. The role of Cummings, maybe, but PMs of the past have had advisors with supposedly oversized influence (Joseph Ball springs to mind). The key thing here is that a convention has to exist for a period of time, relevant to it's field, to be considered a convention. Something proposed in the recent past by a committee, and agreed by one PM with no obligation for anyone to carry that on, and that only operated for a few years, is not a convention. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jul 31, 2020 14:50:10 GMT
36 new peers.
David has the list in the honours thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Aug 2, 2020 20:38:19 GMT
36 new peers. David has the list in the honours thread. Sorry to be thick but where is that? |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 2, 2020 20:47:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 2, 2020 20:56:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Aug 3, 2020 21:16:13 GMT
Ta. I have put comment there.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 13, 2020 10:27:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Aug 13, 2020 18:23:47 GMT
The changes to the Lords in 1999 (removal of all but 92 hereds) was of course the "phase one" or "interim House" of the changes to a mainly elected House which the Cook-Maclennan report proposed and which was the basis of hte constitutional proposals of the new Labour Government. It was also included in the Coalition Agreement in 2010 and was the proposal in the House of Lords Reform Bill that got a huge majority at Second Reading in the Commons (about 350 from memory?) but was scuppered by an unholy alliance of backbench rightwing Tories and the Labour Party front bench which refused to allow a timetable motion in the Commons to allow the legislation to pass. House of Shame in PE's terminology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 13, 2020 19:24:53 GMT
Lords Reform will never happen until there's a sensible compromise in favour of an indirect election and appointment system.
A second directly-elected House is a really dumb idea. Diehard reformers insisting on it has been the main reason why reform hasn't got off the starting blocks.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,431
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 13, 2020 19:34:04 GMT
Lords Reform will never happen until there's a sensible compromise in favour of an indirect election and appointment system. A second directly-elected House is a really dumb idea. Diehard reformers insisting on it has been the main reason why reform hasn't got off the starting blocks. Agreed I think I'm still a unicameralist at heart but anything entirely elected particularly by pure PR would exclude those with expertise who are not party affilates |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,547
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 14, 2020 17:37:12 GMT
Lords Reform will never happen until there's a sensible compromise in favour of an indirect election and appointment system.... Do you have any ideas or suggestions about how elections could be "indirect"? In Ireland they have weird "functional constituencies" for professions and whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 14, 2020 17:48:43 GMT
Lords Reform will never happen until there's a sensible compromise in favour of an indirect election and appointment system.... Do you have any ideas or suggestions about how elections could be "indirect"? In Ireland they have weird "functional constituencies" for professions and whatever. I've always pondered whether a range of organisations (professional bodies and the like) should have rights to nominate. |
|
