|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on May 25, 2018 20:30:44 GMT
For those wanting HoL elections, how would you deal with crossbenchers, or would they just not exist anymore and the entire chamber becomes party political.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 26, 2018 12:40:05 GMT
To be honest I'd much rather see it abolished (with the possibility of something from scratch) than reformed; if the current second chamber is changed, particularly if elected than it could undermine what I would consider to be the legitimacy of the House of Commons. Not necessarily, it depends on what its legally expected to do. I certainly believe we need a second chamber (after all there needs to be some checks and balances on the commons) but equally agree the 2nd chamber shouldn't supersede it.
My preferred option has always been a fully elected Lords by straight PR (with a min threshold) ensuring no single party ever has a majority and a legal mandate that it is a reviewing chamber only aka it can't propose legislation or block things the commons backs indefinitely.
You can do checks and balances with things like legislative scrutiny committees. There's no particular reason a second chamber has to perform that role. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,634 
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on Jun 19, 2018 10:35:09 GMT
Labour pulling an interesting trick this afternoon on an opposition day.
They have a motion permitting the Pat Glass / Afzal Khan bill to go through committee stage without a money resolution. It will still need a money resolution to come back for 3rd reading, but this will allow progress and it sets up a vote that the Government will surely contest this afternoon, so a chance to gauge strength of feeling / rebels.
I didn't know they could do this but it does seem binding. Interesting to see if it progresses.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 19, 2018 19:18:01 GMT
The motion was defeated 284-299.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 19, 2018 20:04:05 GMT
It may be worthy of note that the DUP did not vote in the division (except for Gregory Campbell who voted in both lobbies). Perhaps sending a message that they are not yet decided on the boundary review one way or the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 19, 2018 20:52:50 GMT
The motion was defeated 284-299. Only 15 votes in it. The bill just calls for a more sensible and workable version of the same review without the unnecessary reduction in parliamentary seats, and still with the clause ensuring Welsh and Scottish constituencies are approximately the same size as English ones. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 7:56:22 GMT
The motion was defeated 284-299. Only 15 votes in it. The bill just calls for a more sensible and workable version of the same review without the unnecessary reduction in parliamentary seats, and still with the clause ensuring Welsh and Scottish constituencies are approximately the same size as English ones. There are MPs like Steve Double who support the bill but did not support the motion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 8:41:47 GMT
It may be worthy of note that the DUP did not vote in the division (except for Gregory Campbell who voted in both lobbies). Perhaps sending a message that they are not yet decided on the boundary review one way or the other? Probably more likely that they want to reserve their position on the rules of a future boundary review, waiting for negotiations with the Tories in the event that the current review falls. (though it has been reported that they are indeed not yet decided on the review.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 9:37:39 GMT
Seventh Committee sitting yesterday and inevitably no change to the status quo, except the govt is now citing the rejection of the Tuesday Labour motion as grounds for continuing to refuse progress - as parliament has had its say and decided against it.
|
|
