Clegg's Lords proposals are made of fail

[Sibboleth]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13428909

He doth propose a Lords (or whatever it'd be called) of 300 members, 80% of which would be elected and for which terms would be 15 years. The elected members would be elected by STV and in thirds.

...

I think that's actually far worse than what we have at the moment.

[I left.]

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?

[afleitch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13428909

He doth propose a Lords (or whatever it'd be called) of 300 members, 80% of which would be elected and for which terms would be 15 years. The elected members would be elected by STV and in thirds.

...

I think that's actually far worse than what we have at the moment.

I wouldn't go that far. I think what we have now is an abomination since the abolition of hereditary peers and the now annual ritual of busing in new Lords so one party get's an advantage over the other. Nick Clegg, yet again, is going for a stupid solution to a genuine problem (see AV)

A fully elected PR Upper Chamber would be fine. Simple as that. 4 or 5 year fixed terms.

[Insula Dei]

Why STV? To prove AV wasn't a bad idea after all? And why these hideously long terms? You'd have tons of by-elections.

[Californian Tony]

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?

This.

And indeed, 15 years is just insane.

[SmokingCricket]

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?

[Lief]

Can't we keep the House of Lords around but just make it so that they're forced to approve everything the House of Commons does? Like the Queen, kind of.

[Swedish Cheese]

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?

Unless they're actaully given some form of power... no.

[YL]

I think that's actually far worse than what we have at the moment.

Why, out of interest?

I do wonder why we need a second chamber at all, and unless someone comes up with a convincing argument abolition is the option I'd actually support, but if we are going to have one I think it should be elected (100%, and no bishops either).  Appointment gives too much control to the PM; see afleitch's comment, basically.

I like STV (reasonably proportional but retaining voting for the person rather than the party).  That leaves the election by thirds 15-year thing; I think I can see where they're coming from on this (and it isn't new, is it?) as an attempt to make it a different sort of chamber from the Commons while still being elected, but I'm not convinced.

[You kip if you want to...]

Like with AV, Cameron's only gifted this to Clegg because he knows it'll be voted down.

Any change to the Lords can only be positive, and I support this, but need does need to be 100% elected and those terms need to be MUCH shorter. Why settle for a half-done idea?

[Sibboleth]

Why, out of interest?

Because it would not work. At all. If you must have an upper chamber, then in order for it to work it either has to be a weak revising chamber or a powerful body in its own right (the latter being a very bad idea of course, as the US Senate shows). Clegg's proposals manage to combine aspects of both in a way that's almost impressive in its lack of logic. It would also make certain specific problems that the Lords has worse; you are not going to solve the problem of lobbying by creating posts elected for fifteen year terms! There's a massive corruption scandal - and then a constitutional crisis - just waiting to happen right there.

Or, for that matter, patronage. Who will control the rights to these precious fifteen year terms, exactly? The party leaders.

[Sibboleth]

I wouldn't go that far. I think what we have now is an abomination since the abolition of hereditary peers and the now annual ritual of busing in new Lords so one party get's an advantage over the other.

You mean it was better when it was full (in theory, but almost never in practice) of hereditaries? Is there any reason to think that, beyond partisan interest?

Obviously the current system is a joke, but it's also a comparatively toothless one.

[YL]

Bump, given that the bill has been published today.

STV has been replaced by semi-open lists.  But the main discussion seems to be whether Tory backbenchers will sabotage the bill entirely and whether the Lib Dems will blame Labour for this.

[You kip if you want to...]

It's not quite as bad as what we have now, but it's up there.

He made a crap electoral reform proposal as well. He can't do anything right.

[doktorb]

They are very good proposals

There is a compromise struck between what the Conservatives want (no change at all, see the Bishops still hanging around) and what we've always wanted (elected, accountable members)

As with the AV referendum, which was defeated by Labour, it's up to Ed Miliband to do the right thing.

[Mynheer Peeperkorn von Thurn und Taxis-Hohenlohe]

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?

Tradition.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I wouldn't go that far. I think what we have now is an abomination since the abolition of hereditary peers and the now annual ritual of busing in new Lords so one party get's an advantage over the other.

You mean it was better when it was full (in theory, but almost never in practice) of hereditaries? Is there any reason to think that, beyond partisan interest?

Obviously the current system is a joke, but it's also a comparatively toothless one.

I can think of philosophical reasons to support the system with all the hereditaries beyond partisanship or stodgy traditionalism, but almost none of them are reasons that the fundamental ideologies behind the current political systems of most Western countries would care about.

[Leftbehind]

As with the AV referendum, which was defeated by Labour, it's up to Ed Miliband to do the right thing.

Do you regard Ed Miliband as having done the right thing last time, after all he personally supported it, but could do little to stop most Labour voters using it as a opportunity to kick the Lib Dems given it was an essentially meaningless and self-serving system you'd bargained for?

Of course he has much more control for this, so it'll be interesting to see Labour's response. I'm of the opinion anything's better than the current arrangement, and would prefer a proportionally elected setup although I have some misgivings about the proposals.

[doktorb]

It wasn't meaningless or self-serving, AV would have been a stepping stone towards real reform and the Labour Party bunked off their responsibility by deciding to kick Clegg rather than support it.

[BritishDixie]

Bad proposals. An upper house is usually found in a federal system, like the U.S or Canada. We don't live in a federal state. Unless the idea is we have every county electing Lords, a strange idea in itself, given that counties have no real power unlike states or provinces, the whole idea is totally pointless. One chamber is sufficient, as two equal ones would lead to paralysis and deadlock. Most states with two chambers were created to resolve the conflict between states rights and rep by pop. We don't have that in Britain so why are we creating one. I'll tell you why, because the Lib Dems want to have perpetual kingmaking power, so despite coming third with the support of less than a quarter of the populace, they can still get their policies enacted by blackmailing whoever is in power by threatening to block their proposals. Hardly democratic.

[doktorb]

Utter dribble.

"The LibDems want to have perpetual kingmaking power".

That's not the reason for these  proposals, at all. I'm sure other small parties would like to have a voice in parliament and Government, it would be unusual if that were not the case.

You seem to be under the impression that the Coalition is somehow undemocratic.  Utter dribble, completely wrong.  Labour won with barely a third of the vote and managed to run the country without the Orchestrated Outrage Brigade having a whinge.

These proposals do something no government has done before - drag the country into the 20th century. Maybe it'll be the 21st before I'm pushing up roses.

[You kip if you want to...]

As with the AV referendum, which was defeated by Labour, it's up to Ed Miliband to do the right thing.

The AV referendum which he personally supported, a system that was originally proposed by Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

[BritishDixie]

Utter dribble.

"The LibDems want to have perpetual kingmaking power".

That's not the reason for these  proposals, at all. I'm sure other small parties would like to have a voice in parliament and Government, it would be unusual if that were not the case.

Of course not................Now you keep thinking what honest, wonderful people the Lib-Dems are.

[doktorb]

Utter dribble.

"The LibDems want to have perpetual kingmaking power".

That's not the reason for these  proposals, at all. I'm sure other small parties would like to have a voice in parliament and Government, it would be unusual if that were not the case.

Of course not................Now you keep thinking what honest, wonderful people the Lib-Dems are.

I'm a card carrying LibDem for 12 years strong, you don't need to ask me.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

If the Lords changed it's name to "The Senate" and was fully elected, I would have little problem with it.