Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2014, 07:33:45 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  Clegg's Lords proposals are made of fail
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Clegg's Lords proposals are made of fail  (Read 3709 times)
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55444
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« on: May 18, 2011, 09:17:01 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21404
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2011, 09:34:42 am »
Ignore

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21377


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2011, 09:43:41 am »

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.
Logged

Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4396
Belgium


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2011, 09:47:09 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28680
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2011, 10:49:04 am »
Ignore

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

This.

And indeed, 15 years is just insane.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
SmokingCricket
Full Member
***
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2011, 10:52:23 am »
Ignore

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

Economic: +1.1
Social: -9.48
Lіef
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30884
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2011, 10:56:13 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

RIP opebo
RIP the jfmtsc
RIP joshgreen
RIP King

Don't get me wrong, I love variety, and get a kick out of all these odors.
Swedish Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3539
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2011, 11:11:51 am »
Ignore

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

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

Tradition is the enemy of progress.

A belief in Progress is now absolutely a traditional value.

YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1014
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -6.70


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2011, 12:54:23 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8441
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2011, 12:58:50 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged

Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55444
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2011, 08:23:52 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55444
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2011, 08:27:41 am »
Ignore

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? Tongue

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



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1014
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -6.70


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2012, 02:26:28 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8441
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2012, 04:14:07 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

doktorb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 951
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2012, 05:11:03 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My blog - http://www.liampennington.blogspot.com

Twitter - @doktorb
Mynheer Peeperkorn
Peeperkorn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1581
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -8.35

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2012, 06:42:06 pm »
Ignore

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

Tradition.
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11217


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2012, 06:59:36 pm »
Ignore

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? Tongue

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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 07:58:26 pm by Nathan »Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Acting like I'm Morrissey w/o the wit
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3187
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2012, 07:55:48 pm »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 08:00:08 pm by Leftbehind »Logged

doktorb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 951
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2012, 05:17:39 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My blog - http://www.liampennington.blogspot.com

Twitter - @doktorb
BritishDixie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 295
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2012, 06:32:09 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Economic score: +6.58
Social score: +5.04
doktorb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 951
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2012, 06:39:22 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My blog - http://www.liampennington.blogspot.com

Twitter - @doktorb
You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8441
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2012, 11:43:41 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

BritishDixie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 295
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2012, 12:33:16 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Economic score: +6.58
Social score: +5.04
doktorb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 951
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2012, 10:32:49 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My blog - http://www.liampennington.blogspot.com

Twitter - @doktorb
The Kingfish
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7996
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2012, 10:39:40 am »
Ignore

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

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines