[gladders]

(Original post by Wilko1900)
OK, fair point. I agree that government policy is performed in a predominantly secularist manner. However, I think it is going a bit far to say that the United Kingdom is secular state. Indeed, I can't agree that all government policies are conducted in a secular manner. A great consideration for the role of the church in our society is made and churches continue to have a highly influential role in policy making. Naturally, the position of the Lords spiritual and temporal in the House of Lords is an example of this continuing influence. That is not to say that politicians abide entirely to the doctrine of the church. As you rightly cited, the forthcoming gay marriage legislation is evidence that politicians can, and do, take their own stands, both personally and on behalf of the electorate.

I don't deny that the Church of England has an influence on public legislation - the degree of the influence is debatable, but I'd argue negligible - but I think there is a place for faith in lawmaking - speaking as an atheist myself.

As I pointed out, the official position is that the government receives authority to govern from the monarch, not the people. Therefore, all government legislation must pass before the Queen, the head of the CoE, before it can be enacted. This we all know. I believe I am right in saying that, theoretically, the monarch retains the power to refuse to pass acts of parliament and dissolve government at his/her discretion. Technically speaking, therefore, the church of England actually runs the United Kingdom! Therefore, we cannot possibly say that this country is secular, even if government performs in a secular manner, for it is the CoE that retains the ultimate authority in this country. Nevertheless, I'm sure you could argue that the monarch is merely a figurehead and that these powers are purely vestigial and play no actual or useful role in modern society.

That's exactly what I'll argue officially the constitution is as you say - the god-given monarch ruling through Parliament - but no government ever lays claim to govern through such a basis, but in fact exists due to public consent. In the end, the two 'claims' (divine right and popular will) coincide.

Perhaps, in this regard, the argument is that the Bishops should be removed from the House of Lords, not because the government is secular, but because it should be?

Possibly; there's an equally valid point of view to include other faiths in the House. I know, however, that many other faiths - Dissenters and Jews for example - like the Church of England's position in the House, while ironically the strongest advocates of its removal from the House are some Anglican clergy!

[Teaddict]

I find it incredibly ironic that the Commons, the least efficient and effective chamber, is trying to castrate the effective Chamber. The simple fact of the matter is that the House of Lords is the only legislative check on the Executive - the Commons is the supreme chamber, but it is equally the weakest chamber given the governments stranglehold.

If you want to reform the House of Lords try the following:

1. Abolish the Prime Ministers powers of patronage and place all powers in the hands of an independent Royal Appointments Commission.
2. Enact some degree of retirement procedure based on attendance and participation.
3. Remove the political alignments within the chamber - the parties should have no formal presence.
4. Ban on former politicians becoming Lords for 5 years. We want an expert chamber not a political chamber
5. Partially repeal the Parliament Acts to give the House of Lords greater strength in challenging the executive.
6. Restore the Law Lords with full voting and participation rights on criminal legislation (makes a mockery of separation of powers but I am not all that interested)

[Will Lucky]

(Original post by Teaddict)
I find it incredibly ironic that the Commons, the least efficient and effective chamber, is trying to castrate the effective Chamber. The simple fact of the matter is that the House of Lords is the only legislative check on the Executive - the Commons is the supreme chamber, but it is equally the weakest chamber given the governments stranglehold.

If you want to reform the House of Lords try the following:

1. Abolish the Prime Ministers powers of patronage and place all powers in the hands of an independent Royal Appointments Commission.
2. Enact some degree of retirement procedure based on attendance and participation.
3. Remove the political alignments within the chamber - the parties should have no formal presence.
4. Ban on former politicians becoming Lords for 5 years. We want an expert chamber not a political chamber
5. Partially repeal the Parliament Acts to give the House of Lords greater strength in challenging the executive.
6. Restore the Law Lords with full voting and participation rights on criminal legislation (makes a mockery of separation of powers but I am not all that interested)

Its inevitable it would become Political. As for the Law Lords, I'd never bring them back. I'd create a Supreme Court that can actually challenge Legislature.

But I do agree with repealing the Parliament Acts, but I'd completely repeal them.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by Will Lucky)
Its inevitable it would become Political. As for the Law Lords, I'd never bring them back. I'd create a Supreme Court that can actually challenge Legislature.

But I do agree with repealing the Parliament Acts, but I'd completely repeal them.

You want unelected judges to strike down laws made by Parliament? Not exactly a British tradition but if you can argue your case?



Here is a nicer way of stating my position XD

The problem with House of Lords reform is that politicians are too focused on democratic legitimacy rather than effective governance, with adequate strength to hold the executive to account. The beauty, and biggest benefit of the House of Lords, in my view, is the fact that it is unelected - its biggest virtue is its unelected nature. It would be absurd to suggest that we elect our doctors, dentists and judges, we want experts in their fields... why should an element of our legislature be any different? I am more interested in effective governance when it comes to the House of Lords.

Do not mistake me, I am not suggesting we completely ignore the need for democratic legitimacy, I absolutely recognise the need for it but that is why the House of Commons exists. There are many reasonable and acceptable arguments to be had for constitutional reform, perhaps electoral reform and the localisation of policy.

The reforms I would like to see is the depoliticisation of the House of Lords; I believe the Prime Minister should be stripped of all his powers in relation to the appointment of peers, they should be given entirely to the House of Lords Appointments Commissions; which incidentally I would like to be renamed to the Royal Appointments Commission with a framework of the House of Commons to veto certain individuals assuming they have evidence to suggest they are unfit; evidently within a strong framework.

The House of Lords should be a model of meritocratic governance; the Parliament Act 1949 should be partially repealed to strength this chamber against the Commons - not enough to have it challenge its power, but enough to cause it grief over certain issues. Take the current Judges of the Supreme Court - why can they not vote on criminal legislation? Some might response with the separation of powers argument, but quite frankly I do not see the problem, our executive and legislature are not separate and having experts in law voting and debating on criminal legislation seems quite sensible.

[Clumsy_Chemist]

(Original post by Teaddict)
I find it incredibly ironic that the Commons, the least efficient and effective chamber, is trying to castrate the effective Chamber. The simple fact of the matter is that the House of Lords is the only legislative check on the Executive - the Commons is the supreme chamber, but it is equally the weakest chamber given the governments stranglehold.

If you want to reform the House of Lords try the following:

1. Abolish the Prime Ministers powers of patronage and place all powers in the hands of an independent Royal Appointments Commission.
2. Enact some degree of retirement procedure based on attendance and participation.
3. Remove the political alignments within the chamber - the parties should have no formal presence.
4. Ban on former politicians becoming Lords for 5 years. We want an expert chamber not a political chamber
5. Partially repeal the Parliament Acts to give the House of Lords greater strength in challenging the executive.
6. Restore the Law Lords with full voting and participation rights on criminal legislation (makes a mockery of separation of powers but I am not all that interested)

Which parts of the Parliaments Acts would you repeal?

[Teaddict]

(Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
Which parts of the Parliaments Acts would you repeal?

Merely extending the time in which Lords can delay bills. Perhaps if they were able to delay bills for two or three years, Labour governments will be more willing to ensure their legislation is better constructed (It has only been used by the Conservatives once in 1991 (I believe)).

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by Teaddict)
You want unelected judges to strike down laws made by Parliament? Not exactly a British tradition but if you can argue your case?

I don't see an issue with this per se. It's not like the Commons are using a decent electoral system to be voted in so they can't cry foul of "undemocratic" procedures. That said, judges aren't really representative of society but you could say the same with MPs.

[gladders]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
I don't see an issue with this per se. It's not like the Commons are using a decent electoral system to be voted in so they can't cry foul of "undemocratic" procedures. That said, judges aren't really representative of society but you could say the same with MPs.

Aren't you being contradictory here, though? Saying the Lords ought to be elected but thinking it's perfectly fine for appointed judges to hold even greater sway over our elected House than the present Lords does. If you think the Lords having a delaying power is undemocratic, then surely a powerful Supreme Court is even less democratic.

And the Commons' electoral system is perfectly democratic; it's a different kind of democratic expression, but no less democratic than any other system.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by gladders)
Aren't you being contradictory here, though? Saying the Lords ought to be elected but thinking it's perfectly fine for appointed judges to hold even greater sway over our elected House than the present Lords does. If you think the Lords having a delaying power is undemocratic, then surely a powerful Supreme Court is even less democratic.

Probably worded it wrong. I just don't see the fuss in reforming the weaker chamber. The Lords are just an expensive dust pan and brush so if people wish for greater constitutional change, then reform the Commons.

(Original post by gladders)
And the Commons' electoral system is perfectly democratic; it's a different kind of democratic expression, but no less democratic than any other system.

I disagree. Not everyone can vote who are subject to the Laws of the land (suggestive that real democracy does not exist), and the system produced garbage results where the party with the most votes may win the election (yes, I know why). If a system roughly gave seats more or less equivalent with votes cast then, for me, it will have greater legitimacy in legislating on behalf of society. And then have fixed terms of four years to throw in the mix.

[gladders]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Probably worded it wrong. I just don't see the fuss in reforming the weaker chamber. The Lords are just an expensive dust pan and brush so if people wish for greater constitutional change, then reform the Commons.

I agree in part: I totally agree that the Commons needs reform to make it work better (although I don't believe the electoral system is the issue); I do disagree in your assessment of the Lords though: it is an excellent chamber that produces a lot of good work in improving our laws, all of which are subject to the final sanction of our elected chamber.

I disagree. Not everyone can vote who are subject to the Laws of the land (suggestive that real democracy does not exist),...

How do you mean? You want toddlers to vote?

...and the system produced garbage results where the party with the most votes may win the election (yes, I know why). If a system roughly gave seats more or less equivalent with votes cast then, for me, it will have greater legitimacy in legislating on behalf of society. And then have fixed terms of four years to throw in the mix.

I disagree; I have sympathy with the desire for PR, but once again I think reformers have their priorities back-to-front. FPTP is more likely to bring about a single party in power which is more directly accountable for their policies. Say what you like about Labour in 2005 with a majority backed by a third of the vote, that's still 33 points more people voting for it than the current coalition, which has 0% voting for it. Anyway, that's for another thread.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by gladders)
How do you mean? You want toddlers to vote?

I have nothing inherently against lowering the voting age to even at toddler level. The reason for having it at 18 lacks philosophical foundation and I've seen some unfortunate ageist views held even by fellow youngsters (though I'm 28) in reasoning why the vote should not be lowered. For example, "intelligence" is used to prohibit decreasing the age of enfranchisement but cognitive reasons are never used to prohibit the elderly from voting in my experience. You can have a politically aware 16 year old and a 70 year old suffering from dementia who has grave understandings on which political parties stand for seriously mixed up.

(Original post by gladders)
I disagree; I have sympathy with the desire for PR, but once again I think reformers have their priorities back-to-front. FPTP is more likely to bring about a single party in power which is more directly accountable for their policies. Say what you like about Labour in 2005 with a majority backed by a third of the vote, that's still 33 points more people voting for it than the current coalition, which has 0% voting for it. Anyway, that's for another thread.

Well I wasn't thinking of that election in particular. It may have been one in February 1974 when the Tories won more votes but lost the election due to too many votes wasted. I just find majoritarian systems absurd. We'll probably be the last country to use them in the EU if we aren't already.

[gladders]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
I have nothing inherently against lowering the voting age to even at toddler level. The reason for having it at 18 lacks philosophical foundation and I've seen some unfortunate ageist views held even by fellow youngsters (though I'm 28) in reasoning why the vote should not be lowered. For example, "intelligence" is used to prohibit decreasing the age of enfranchisement but cognitive reasons are never used to prohibit the elderly from voting in my experience. You can have a politically aware 16 year old and a 70 year old suffering from dementia who has grave understandings on which political parties stand for seriously mixed up.

You can indeed; but then the line has to be drawn somewhere, and the alternative is introducing some kind of examination procedure to determine if you're mature/knowledgeable enough to use your vote thoughtfully. I don't find that idea comforting.

Well I wasn't thinking of that election in particular. It may have been one in February 1974 when the Tories won more votes but lost the election due to too many votes wasted. I just find majoritarian systems absurd. We'll probably be the last country to use them in the EU if we aren't already.

They're not absurd from other perspectives - I find coalitions absurd myself, and prefer to avoid them - and if you consider the wider world, majoritarian systems are actually more widespread than PR: USA, India, Australia and so on.

Secondly, even PR has arbitrary stoppages, such as a 5% minimum threshold to secure representation. They're not, really, terribly proportional if that's the case.

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by meenu89)
Am I the only one who would leave it as it is?

Nope!

<3 x

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by Teaddict)
Merely extending the time in which Lords can delay bills. Perhaps if they were able to delay bills for two or three years, Labour governments will be more willing to ensure their legislation is better constructed (It has only been used by the Conservatives once in 1991 (I believe)).

Why not go the whole way and give them the power to block badly written bills altogether? If you're going to go all the way, might as well go full hog.

<3 x

[gladders]

(Original post by LETSJaM)
Why not go the whole way and give them the power to block badly written bills altogether? If you're going to go all the way, might as well go full hog.

<3 x

I think that would be self-defeating; assuming they would use these powers to the fullest, they would cease to be working with the Commons and instead be working in competition with it - which is my problem with an elected House.

In reality, however, the present House refrains from using its full range of powers as it is, out of deference to the elected House. If you gave it full veto powers, I doubt they would use them - much like how the Canadian Senate very, very rarely vetos bills.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by LETSJaM)
Why not go the whole way and give them the power to block badly written bills altogether? If you're going to go all the way, might as well go full hog.

<3 x

As Gladders mentions quite wisely, because they would begin to challenge the supremacy of the Commons. I want a strong House of Lords based on meritocratic principles, however, it must be subservient to the democratically elected element: the Commons.

[Onearmedbandit]

I've been thinking and debating about this issue for about 6 years now, and I have yet to hear any convincing argument for making the lords elected... and I don't believe the government really believes it's doing a particularly good thing either. As with the LASPO bill, they're simply pandering to popular opinion (and, ironically, demonstrating thereby why we NEED a politically disinterested second chamber!!)

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by gladders)
I think that would be self-defeating; assuming they would use these powers to the fullest, they would cease to be working with the Commons and instead be working in competition with it - which is my problem with an elected House.

In reality, however, the present House refrains from using its full range of powers as it is, out of deference to the elected House. If you gave it full veto powers, I doubt they would use them - much like how the Canadian Senate very, very rarely vetos bills.

(Original post by Teaddict)
As Gladders mentions quite wisely, because they would begin to challenge the supremacy of the Commons. I want a strong House of Lords based on meritocratic principles, however, it must be subservient to the democratically elected element: the Commons.

Thank you to both of you for your opinions. It is very interesting to hear what other people think about such issues.

<3 x