You are not logged in.


There're many behind me...but still some ahead

  • "LHTB" started this thread

Posts: 1,290

Date of registration: Dec 4th 2008

  • Send private message


Tuesday, May 17th 2011, 10:42pm

House of Lords Reform…form-nick-clegg…-and-peers.html

Mysteriously since AV got buried by the electorate, Lords Reform has suddenly sprung out of thin air, though it was in the Coalition agreement

The idea is to replace the appointed/hereditary peers with a majority (80%) or completely elected second chamber, whilst keeping the Bishops

What are people's opinions on this, the key points I see are:

-We already have one elected House, do we really need another, the apolitical nature of the Lords is one of its greatest strength to me

-If changing the way the Commons was elected was subject to a referendum, will this much greater change be put to the British people?
-At the moment the elected Commons takes precedence, if we have two elected houses, which one, if any, has greater authority?
-Will the Parliament Act still apply? (the ability of the Commons to push laws through the Lords, if the Lords reject it three times)
-Could the broad nature of people in the Lords be reproduced if they all had to seek the support of the electorate?
-Would people be bothered to vote for this?
-Is this just a present to the LDs for losing their precious AV vote?

Personally I'm generally happy with the way the Lords works atm, but then again I was happy with the hereditary peers, so I may not be in the majority
"Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are God. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realise that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods." -Christopher Hitchens