|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Oct 20, 2024 14:45:36 GMT
It’s a bit ironic really. Those hereditary peers elected in by-elections arguably have a bigger mandate to sit in the Lords than anyone else at present.
People will look back with curious fascination in years to come at this oddity you wouldn’t find in any other country. I note the late Lord Greaves created this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 20, 2024 15:56:41 GMT
It’s a bit ironic really. Those hereditary peers elected in by-elections arguably have a bigger mandate to sit in the Lords than anyone else at present. Bollocks do they. The 'elections' never created any wider mandate than one within the Peerage, and create no mandate after July 2024 because a government achieved a majority in the House of Commons on a pledge to remove all hereditary peers. Arguably any mandate the winners of byelections held was compromised in recent years anyway, because Lord Grocott's Bill to end the system might have been enacted but for procedural devices used to defeat it. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 20, 2024 15:57:29 GMT
It’s a bit ironic really. Those hereditary peers elected in by-elections arguably have a bigger mandate to sit in the Lords than anyone else at present. People will look back with curious fascination in years to come at this oddity you wouldn’t find in any other country. I note the late Lord Greaves created this thread. People will look back and wonder why we had an unelected upper house at all. Indeed, wasn't there talk of Starmer abolishing it, rather than tinkering? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 20, 2024 20:44:47 GMT
It’s a bit ironic really. Those hereditary peers elected in by-elections arguably have a bigger mandate to sit in the Lords than anyone else at present. People will look back with curious fascination in years to come at this oddity you wouldn’t find in any other country. I note the late Lord Greaves created this thread. People will look back and wonder why we had an unelected upper house at all. Indeed, wasn't there talk of Starmer abolishing it, rather than tinkering? Going to a unicameral legislature is rather on the extremes of radicalism. I think there's less than a dozen countries in the world with only one chamber. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 20, 2024 20:54:13 GMT
In a crowded field, Unicameralism is about the most bonkers constitutional reform proposal in contemporary Britain. Don't know what problem it's intended to solve but it would ensure terrible faulty legislation and extremely patchy scrutiny of government.
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 20, 2024 21:02:46 GMT
Unicameralism is too far the other way. We've got too ridiculous a situation at the moment ("set up" even). It's beyond pantomime to have so much flim-flam and privilege on a flimsy premise of checking the work of the Commons when the Lords includes Bishops, various failed politicians, numerous flunkies, and the son of an alleged KGB operative.
Switching that to a single house would be just as perverse. Too much power, in too few hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 20, 2024 21:06:56 GMT
Unicameralism is too far the other way. We've got too ridiculous a situation at the moment ("set up" even). It's beyond pantomime to have so much flim-flam and privilege on a flimsy premise of checking the work of the Commons when the Lords includes Bishops, various failed politicians, numerous flunkies, and the son of an alleged KGB operative. Switching that to a single house would be just as perverse. Too much power, in too few hands. "There is no living in a perfect world". |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Oct 20, 2024 21:11:14 GMT
People will look back and wonder why we had an unelected upper house at all. Indeed, wasn't there talk of Starmer abolishing it, rather than tinkering? Going to a unicameral legislature is rather on the extremes of radicalism. I think there's less than a dozen countries in the world with only one chamber. Starmer didn’t advocate for unicameralism anyway; he wanted to abolish the Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber; although that idea seems to have been shelved for now. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 21, 2024 0:52:18 GMT
Going to a unicameral legislature is rather on the extremes of radicalism. I think there's less than a dozen countries in the world with only one chamber. Starmer didn’t advocate for unicameralism anyway; he wanted to abolish the Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber; although that idea seems to have been shelved for now. Starmer pledged a House of Nations and Regions in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Oct 21, 2024 7:58:45 GMT
Starmer didn’t advocate for unicameralism anyway; he wanted to abolish the Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber; although that idea seems to have been shelved for now. Starmer pledged a House of Nations and Regions in 2020. Are we really going to balance one house based on geographic representation with another based on slightly less local geographic representation. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 21, 2024 8:15:03 GMT
Unicameralism is too far the other way. We've got too ridiculous a situation at the moment ("set up" even). It's beyond pantomime to have so much flim-flam and privilege on a flimsy premise of checking the work of the Commons when the Lords includes Bishops, various failed politicians, numerous flunkies, and the son of an alleged KGB operative. Switching that to a single house would be just as perverse. Too much power, in too few hands. "There is no living in a perfect world". "But I'm in Lancashire, which is close enough" |
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,265
|
Post by WJ on Oct 21, 2024 8:22:50 GMT
People will look back and wonder why we had an unelected upper house at all. Indeed, wasn't there talk of Starmer abolishing it, rather than tinkering? Going to a unicameral legislature is rather on the extremes of radicalism. I think there's less than a dozen countries in the world with only one chamber. It's far more than that. About half of the world's sovereign states are unicameral according to the Wiki article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnicameralismIn Europe, all the Nordics and Baltics, most of the Balkans, the microstates and a few others are unicameral. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Oct 21, 2024 8:47:07 GMT
Starmer pledged a House of Nations and Regions in 2020. Are we really going to balance one house based on geographic representation with another based on slightly less local geographic representation. Yes and it’s called “levelling up”. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 22, 2024 4:14:06 GMT
It’s a bit ironic really. Those hereditary peers elected in by-elections arguably have a bigger mandate to sit in the Lords than anyone else at present. Arguable (at a pinch) but that's a ridiculously low bar. |
|
