Clegg's Lords proposals are made of fail
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:02:43 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Clegg's Lords proposals are made of fail
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Clegg's Lords proposals are made of fail  (Read 13232 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 18, 2011, 09:17:01 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.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2011, 09:34:42 AM »

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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: 4,326
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2011, 09:47:09 AM »

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 the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,961
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2011, 10:49:04 AM »

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

This.

And indeed, 15 years is just insane.
Logged
SmokingCricket
Rookie
**
Posts: 107


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2011, 10:52:23 AM »

Is there any real reason to keep the House of Lords at all?
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2011, 10:56:13 AM »

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
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2011, 11:11:51 AM »


Unless they're actaully given some form of power... no.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2011, 12:54:23 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2011, 12:58:50 PM »

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
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2011, 08:23:52 AM »


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
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2011, 08:27:41 AM »

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
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2012, 02:26:28 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2012, 04:14:07 PM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2012, 05:11:03 PM »

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
Peeperkorn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,987
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 0.65, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2012, 06:42:06 PM »

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

Tradition.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2012, 06:59:36 PM »
« Edited: June 27, 2012, 07:58:26 PM by Nathan »

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.
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2012, 07:55:48 PM »
« Edited: June 27, 2012, 08:00:08 PM by 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.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2012, 05:17:39 AM »

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
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2012, 06:32:09 AM »

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
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2012, 06:39:22 AM »

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
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2012, 11:43:41 AM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2012, 12:33:16 PM »

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
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2012, 10:32:49 AM »

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
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2012, 10:39:40 AM »

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  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 13 queries.