The house of lords shouldn't exist in a democratic society?

Why is the house of lords there?

So the conservatives are allowed yo pick random people they like to make our laws and get paid £300 s day even though the British public didn't vote for them.

We are living under s dictatorship I tell you.

Reply 1

username1264573

5

Original post by ngb9320

Why is the house of lords there?

So the conservatives are allowed yo pick random people they like to make our laws and get paid £300 s day even though the British public didn't vote for them.

We are living under s dictatorship I tell you.

The House of Lords has no say on Financial stuff and they can't put a block on things forever, only delay bills by 2 years. They are there for their expertise in a certain field and most of their time is spend scutinising bills because they have more time than even select committees in the Commons have.

I can see where you're coming from but it's not like they are the only people in Parliament. Even 49/50 of the American states have bi-cameral chambers to run the state. It's a form of holding the other accountable. It's debatable to how efficient this is, but if only 38% of Britain voted for Tories in the 2015 election, it's also debatable that technically they weren't chosen to lead our country in a fully democratic way either (i.e. through a system of PR).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

Te346

8

Expertise? Expertise on what exactly? It's factual that it wasn't only until very recently that nearly all members inherited their places. You make it seem as if being placed in such prominent positions of power is a meritocratic one and whilst this wouldn't make it democratic either it would still be a far better option than having some 'black hand' or 'shadow government' that apoints public leaders and other people in positions of power through elitist family ties, I think most Britishers would feel.

What is it that says who are appointed were really any more qualified than others? It all appears to be at at a decision-makers discretion and judgement.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 3

william walker

3

To protect and defend the power and influence of Aristocracy. That is why the House of Lords exists and should continue to do so. Indeed many of us believe the House of Lords should be restored to a hereditary house once again based on legacy.

Reply 4

username1264573

5

Original post by Te346

Expertise? Expertise on what exactly? It's factual that it wasn't only until very recently that nearly all members inherited their places. You make it seem as if being placed in such prominent positions of power is a meritocratic one and whilst this wouldn't make it democratic either it would still be a far better option than having some 'black hand' or 'shadow government' that apoints public leaders and other people in positions of power through elitist family ties, I think most Britishers would feel.

What is it that says who are appointed were really any more qualified than others? It all appears to be at at a decision-makers discretion and judgement.

They are experts in the sense they've been in their field for a lengthy time and/or made some influential contributions e.g. Lord Sugar was chosen for his impact on British business.

Well I'm not talking about the Lords in the past when it was 100% hereditary peers, now there's 92 (fact) out of 912 members (give or take) hereditary, the rest were made life peers and new appointees are life peerages.

I simply pointed out that it's not a dictatorship as OP said they felt, doesn't mean I'm for or against it. I stated the way in which it works, never said whether it's right or not for larger society as that's not what was asked. But I would like to emphasise the accountability - especially with removal of majority hereditary peerage, any gains they make are only for the given length of their lifetime, not the legacy of their family (& the 92 that do remain were voted for by the other members). Again, I'm not saying I'm for or against it, that's just the way it works though. Personally, I don't know if it's a good thing to have HoL or not, but it means that the entire Commons is kept in check by others seeing as the people of Britain will never be able to do that themselves, so better a body of people than no one, as it's not just the Government that needs checked, but the shadow Gov and all the backbenchers.

Reply 5

Te346

8

Original post by william walker

To protect and defend the power and influence of Aristocracy. That is why the House of Lords exists and should continue to do so. Indeed many of us believe the House of Lords should be restored to a hereditary house once again based on legacy.

And if this would be the case then what would stop the families in power from making descisions that may severly restric freedom of expression? It's bad enough as it is right now with people suspecting foul play in the voting system.

Reply 6

william walker

3

Original post by Te346

And if this would be the case then what would stop the families in power from making descisions that may severly restric freedom of expression? It's bad enough as it is right now with people suspecting foul play in the voting system.

Well you know the government, house of commons, media, monarchy, church and courts are meant to block each others power.

Reply 7

1732757

16

Original post by ngb9320

Why is the house of lords there?

So the conservatives are allowed yo pick random people they like to make our laws and get paid £300 s day even though the British public didn't vote for them.

We are living under s dictatorship I tell you.

Don't be silly...my grandfather is in THL and doesn't suppprt the Tories nor does he get paid £300 a day!...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

Te346

8

Original post by iEssArrAy

They are experts in the sense they've been in their field for a lengthy time and/or made some influential contributions e.g. Lord Sugar was chosen for his impact on British business.

Well I'm not talking about the Lords in the past when it was 100% hereditary peers, now there's 92 (fact) out of 912 members (give or take) hereditary, the rest were made life peers and new appointees are life peerages.

I simply pointed out that it's not a dictatorship as OP said they felt, doesn't mean I'm for or against it. I stated the way in which it works, never said whether it's right or not for larger society as that's not what was asked. But I would like to emphasise the accountability - especially with removal of majority hereditary peerage, any gains they make are only for the given length of their lifetime, not the legacy of their family (& the 92 that do remain were voted for by the other members). Again, I'm not saying I'm for or against it, that's just the way it works though. Personally, I don't know if it's a good thing to have HoL or not, but it means that the entire Commons is kept in check by others seeing as the people of Britain will never be able to do that themselves, so better a body of people than no one, as it's not just the Government that needs checked, but the shadow Gov and all the backbenchers.

lol sorry didn't mean to make it sound like I was having a go at you.

Well, it's the lack of transparency in decision-making that appears to be an issue too.
It's well and good to say that there's another body that can keep another in check (theoretically) but how much can the public trust influences of third party stakeholders of somekind that may occur behind closed doors have a greater say in decision making.
Though I get your point, you're not for or against. Neither am I, really.

Reply 9

username1264573

5

Original post by Te346

lol sorry didn't mean to make it sound like I was having a go at you.

Well, it's the lack of transparency in decision-making that appears to be an issue too.
It's well and good to say that there's another body that can keep another in check (theoretically) but how much can the public trust influences of third party stakeholders of somekind that may occur behind closed doors have a greater say in decision making.
Though I get your point, you're not for or against. Neither am I, really.

Ahh, apologies I thought you were lol. :redface:

Yeah, I totally get what you're saying - it's a huge issue to trust them to do their job in practice, just because it's a good idea theoretically doesn't mean it actually works. I think if the info was more readily available the public would hugely appreciate it! Just so you know we're not being screwed over as much as we all think lol.

In regards to accountability, the public can only hold the Gov accountable via election, FPTP actually hinders that accountability as it's majority seats in consistencies meaning there's no second places - whereas PR reflects public opinion better - and so we do need a body to hold them accountable during 5 years of Parliament during the creation of Bills that impact us as the public. The problem is you can't use random members of the public because a lot of people live by speculation or thoughts, but understanding and facts are needed. That'd be unfair to pick better educated members as well. So thus, maybe we should get a say in who gets voted into HoL by accepting/rejecting requests, not a similar system to FPTP in more than one candidate (being compared).

Reply 10

Retired_Messiah

21

Original post by william walker

Well you know the government, house of commons, media, monarchy, church and courts are meant to block each others power.

Ha

Reply 11

NJA

20

The idea of peerages is good. If my understanding is correct, historically they were men of renown who set the best example before being given the title.
Men of principle and experience and the bravery to uphold it even if their life was threatened by powerful men of less noble character.

Reply 12

vimto-juice

3

House of lords is full of sewer rats.

LORD SEWEL BEING ONE

Abolish it, and have an elected upper chamber

Reply 13

L i b

19

Original post by ngb9320

Why is the house of lords there?

So the conservatives are allowed yo pick random people they like to make our laws and get paid £300 s day even though the British public didn't vote for them.

The Conservatives only pick a certain number of new peers. Others are picked by the other parties. A further group are selected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

The upper chamber is an important part of our constitution and, thanks to the Parliament Acts, fits perfectly rationally within the context of parliamentary democracy. To make it elected would break the balance between the two chambers, providing the Lords or its successor with an additional degree of legitimacy. It would also then do little more than replicate the role of the House of Commons, rather than performing a different, less partisan and more expert-focused revising role.

Reply 14

sleepysnooze

3

1) either have no upper chamber if we are to remain a unitary state; most of the most democratic societies in the world that are unitary are *unicameral*. it makes sense too; why have *another* elected chamber that is formed via a unitary society, as opposed to a federal or heavily devolved one? if there is one manner of electing representatives that is superior to another form, why have two? why not just have one chamber? or a bigger single chambered parliament (more MPs)?
2) or have an *elected* upper chamber if we are to move towards full constitutional federalism. you can't have a federal state without a bicameral separation between the representation of a) the people, and b) the states. if you have states (i.e. hypothetically england, wales, scotland and northern ireland) independent from each other, then to have no "upper government" (the federal government) in that nation to represent those states is to completely destroy the purpose of federalism in the first place if it's just going to be completely trumped by the national parliament each time the biggest state wants x or y. therefore, to have federalism, you must have majoritarianism via the states themselves, not simply the people alone, or else the states of that nation might as well just be strong local councils without the power to be shielded from the interests of other councils.

and to those who might say that the house of lords performs a wise or meritocratic role in legislation: what is the use of standing committees of legislation if the house of lords is just going to potentially block the expertise of that standing committee?! the lords are by about 75% party political yet the people that are called upon in standing committees are meritocratic or represent the interests of the relevant interests of society (i.e. the health trade unions, such as the BMA and the royal colleges, in health legislation). the lords therefore are useless, literally.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 15

L i b

19

Original post by Te346

Expertise? Expertise on what exactly? It's factual that it wasn't only until very recently that nearly all members inherited their places.

Life peerages have been readily available for people with expertise since the mid-19th century. The modern life peerages system was established in 1958.

Defending the House of Lords as a primarily appointed chamber does not mean you have to want to re-fight the political battles of nearly 20 years ago. Having a large section of hereditary peers was not a position I'm sure many of us would support.