Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jreengus]

Well I wouldn't advocate just outright handing them to them but if the overall vote each party got was used to bias the polls you would end up with a fairer system.

[Shades]

Well I wouldn't advocate just outright handing them to them but if the overall vote each party got was used to bias the polls you would end up with a fairer system.

Maybe fairer cross country, but not locally. Which is the problem there.

There are a couple of variations of the proportional representation system that might working better. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation

[Leafsnail]

One idea is to have a locally represented chamber and a second chamber elected by proportional representation (this idea also has the advantage of chucking out all the hereditary peers, bishops, party financers, ex-MPs and friends of the Prime Minister currently sitting around in the House of Lords).

[Shades]

chucking out ... House of Lords

Although I should agree with this, and in fact my principles (whats left of them) are screaming at me to, there are been a number of bills the house of commons has tried to pass that where stopped by the house of lords. I hate the fact I trust them more than I do our elected guys. This makes me sad.

[Leafsnail]

Proportional representation would also chuck them out due to the fact that noone would have a majority there.

I would also totally support a jury system in the House of Lords (ie random people are picked to go in there and vote on whether bills should be passed or not.  Means bills actually have to get public support in order to be passed).

[de5me7]

i dislike the idea of an elected house of lords. If it was democratic, it would likley to become a retirement home for older commons mps (it sort of is in some cases, Thatcher, Mandy), and it would give the commons parties greater influence over the house of lords. Also like the mep  elections there would probably be a low turnout allowing parties like the BNP, and UKIP to take seats.

By having lords and Bishops, you have unelected people that have no survival or loyalty interests in helping the parties. This allows them to look at laws from the commons for what they are, and hopfully reduce political bias.

Having said this i cant say that the lords are totally unbaised, or uninfluenced by the parties. I think perhaps the Lords needs restructuring, but a democratic system wont work imo.

im not sure what would work, ideally you would want the house of lords to be filled by people with no party, (or any other large body with self interests) affiliantions, people of ,mixed professionalisims (not all lawyers like the commons), and people with the patience and discernment to look over laws and ask questions of them, will they work, what repercussions will they have? are they realistic etc, and then make ammendments.

[Vattic]

That's the problem with the house of lords. Having them unelected is undemocratic but changing it so they are elected means they would be influenced by party politics and the ever changing public opinion. Sometimes it can be useful to have them outside of this process. They have been quite useful recently limiting certain laws that, while limiting our freedom, protect us from terrorists. Otherwise known as the suspension of Habeas corpus which the house of lords was not happy with, doing us all a favour.

[Shades]

I would also totally support a jury system in the House of Lords (ie random people are picked to go in there and vote on whether bills should be passed or not.  Means bills actually have to get public support in order to be passed).

This I would support, but most people already look down on jury duty (despite the fact our criminal system doesn't work if people avoid doing it, the phrase "too stupid to avoid jury duty" should not exist) so I imagine than a similar situation would be true of a house of lords version (House of Peers?)

[RedKing]

I rather like the House of Lords. I wish we had something similar. Indeed, John Adams advocated for a third chamber of Congress composed of academics and scholars that would be appointed rather than elected, as a check against demogoguery and mob opinion. Jefferson thought he was underestimating the American people, and that the people would see through such cheap tactics.

Jefferson was a dumbass some times. And sadly, he won out in that argument.



 

[Leafsnail]

I rather like the House of Lords. I wish we had something similar. Indeed, John Adams advocated for a third chamber of Congress composed of academics and scholars that would be appointed rather than elected

Yep.  That's exactly what we've got here... the idea that they are a combination of idiots who inherited their seats from parents, bishops who get seats automatically, party backers, ex-politicians and people the PM wants to shove into the government is a total lie.

[RedKing]

I rather like the House of Lords. I wish we had something similar. Indeed, John Adams advocated for a third chamber of Congress composed of academics and scholars that would be appointed rather than elected

Yep.  That's exactly what we've got here... the idea that they are a combination of idiots who inherited their seats from parents, bishops who get seats automatically, party backers, ex-politicians and people the PM wants to shove into the government is a total lie.

Okay, so Lord Neville Whittington-Smythe, Baron of Wigglybottom may not be the brightest crumpet in the basket. But he is at least unaffected by the bulls**t parade that is electoral politics. And a fair chunk of the Lords are unaffiliated, certainly something you'll never see in any large numbers in an elected assembly--it simply costs too much to effectively run for elected office to do so without the support of a political party.

[Leafsnail]

So if the advantage is "They aren't affiliated with any party" wouldn't it make more sense just to have a jury system?  In our current system, much of the lords is affiliated with the party that originally gave them the peerage.

[RedKing]

Except that I don't think you want a true random jury. The problem has always been that you want to pick the best and brightest, but choosing *who* gets to pick them becomes a political football in itself.

[Jreengus]

So a Jury of random Phds?

Note: That fact that I intend to get a Phd in maths has nothing to do with my suggestion, honest.

[Shades]

Except that I don't think you want a true random jury. The problem has always been that you want to pick the best and brightest, but choosing *who* gets to pick them becomes a political football in itself.

Actually I think a true random jury would be better. The best and the brightest often don't know whats best for the people. I don't think the average person does either but the spread should be better.