The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5261
Report 4 years ago
#5261
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Giving a veto to an elected Lords would be pointless as it would be a smaller House of Commons with the veto. There would be an infestation of party politics in the Lords detracting from the debate which would be bad for the country. The problem with democracy is that the dictates of wisdom and experience tend to be ignored because the views of the well-educated, experienced minority tend to be swamped by those of the less well-educated who have no understanding of how the world works. Being committed to the principle of political equality, democracy cannot cope with the fact that the majority are not always right and do not always know what is best for them. This is evident in economic policy where cutting taxes for job creators and cutting government spending, which may best promote long-term economic development, may be rules out as it is not simply politically popular.

An unelected Lords with controlled vetoes allows power to be accumulate in the hands of those with knowledge without completely freezing out the thoughts and ideas of the wide population. Some people do not know what the Prime Minister is, we can forget knowing who the Prime Minister is, however, these people still vote when they are told to do so by a political party knocking on their door or their friend at the pub. People like this should not have a say on the running of the country but issuing an exam to people before voting is unreasonable, hence the need to have a group of mostly-apolitical, knowledgeable people with a large amount of say on the direction the country takes.
But although I agree there are other chambers and committees in the house who's function is to scrutinise bills which pertain to their expertise. So I don't see the scrutiny argument.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5262
Report 4 years ago
#5262
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Giving a veto to an elected Lords would be pointless as it would be a smaller House of Commons with the veto. There would be an infestation of party politics in the Lords detracting from the debate which would be bad for the country. The problem with democracy is that the dictates of wisdom and experience tend to be ignored because the views of the well-educated, experienced minority tend to be swamped by those of the less well-educated who have no understanding of how the world works. Being committed to the principle of political equality, democracy cannot cope with the fact that the majority are not always right and do not always know what is best for them. This is evident in economic policy where cutting taxes for job creators and cutting government spending, which may best promote long-term economic development, may be rules out as it is not simply politically popular.

An unelected Lords with controlled vetoes allows power to be accumulate in the hands of those with knowledge without completely freezing out the thoughts and ideas of the wide population. Some people do not know what the Prime Minister is, we can forget knowing who the Prime Minister is, however, these people still vote when they are told to do so by a political party knocking on their door or their friend at the pub. People like this should not have a say on the running of the country but issuing an exam to people before voting is unreasonable, hence the need to have a group of mostly-apolitical, knowledgeable people with a large amount of say on the direction the country takes.
Of course cuts to government spending are very rarely the best way to promote long-term economic growth.

Isn't UKIP largely relying on the 'less well-educated who have no understanding of how the world works' and would put their trust in a pint holding, fag smoking 'man of the people' who encourages them to blame the outside world for the problems caused be the deregulation of the banking sector?

Not that this detracts from your point on the importance of the Upper House which is valid. Its just strange to see a Kipper argue against populism.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5263
Report 4 years ago
#5263
(Original post by bun)
Just want to echo what Rakas said about the left (and UKIP to be fair) on here responding very rationally and in a dignified manner.
Elsewhere on social media, Tory voters are accused of being heartless, purposefully trying to kill off poor people (I accept there'll always be different attitudes to how to help the poorer in society, and the Tory approach may seem harsher at first glance, but to accuse millions of people of actively trying to kill / wish people dead is frankly disgusting), throwing their toys out of the pram because their party didn't win and then columnists in te Guardian and Indepedent accusing the electorate as being 'evil'.
Is it any wonder the 'shy Tory' thing exists when the left are so vitriolic!?
So yes, I think a big thank you and well done to people on here (not trying to sound patronising, I do mean this) for reacting in the way you have.

Feel free to rant and rave when we Tories storm to another majority victory tonight
I'm sure some idiot Twitter user said something along those lines, but in response to what you seem to be implying: Katie Hopkins.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5264
Report 4 years ago
#5264
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
With the backbenchers, what you have to remember is that the government majority was massive last time, around about 100 was it not, not 12. With such a massive majority you can afford to have backbenchers ignore the whips while you can't take it for granted now.

What you explain in the Lords I suppose is a good refelction of the purpose. A house full of experts that are there to scrutinise the content shouldn't be arguing on partisan points the "you're wrong and stupid because you're from the other party", they should be arguing the content, and where there are issues, which does still happen in the Commons, just not on a busy day. The problem you get though is that if you're to bring along another Parliament act so that the Lords can, in certain cases, reject a bill indefinitely you would run into issues with defining when exactly they can do that, which would be a VERY difficult task.
Well perhaps they will take whipping more seriously this time around.

I see your point, although a clause where the decision to veto a Bill would have to be agreed on by ~90% of the Lords would solve that issue, as it rules out the possibility of rejection of Bills just because they do not suit the Lords (for example the fox hunting ban rejection was never agreed by 90% of the Lords; many saw it as their duty to pass the Bill as it was the public's wishes).
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5265
Report 4 years ago
#5265
(Original post by Aph)
Aye... I think if we want to persist on FPTP, the main argument for such being that it's a local MP, then we should have truly local MP's. It would completely change the nature of government too.

not really... A senate system for the upper house and a PR for the lower with elections taking place in the mid-points of the others term
In truth, there is no electoral system that will suit the UK perfectly, and this debate will rage on indefinitely.

I dislike the idea of a senate, too open to party politics, which will make the Lords a whole lot more partisan and destroy the merit of having them.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5266
Report 4 years ago
#5266
(Original post by thehistorybore)
Well perhaps they will take whipping more seriously this time around.

I see your point, although a clause where the decision to veto a Bill would have to be agreed on by ~90% of the Lords would solve that issue, as it rules out the possibility of rejection of Bills just because they do not suit the Lords (for example the fox hunting ban rejection was never agreed by 90% of the Lords; many saw it as their duty to pass the Bill as it was the public's wishes).
There would it be 90% of those voting or 90% of the entire house, because if it's the latter you're never going to have anything vetoed
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5267
Report 4 years ago
#5267
(Original post by thehistorybore)
In truth, there is no electoral system that will suit the UK perfectly, and this debate will rage on indefinitely.

I dislike the idea of a senate, too open to party politics, which will make the Lords a whole lot more partisan and destroy the merit of having them.
The problem with an elected second chamber is less that it will be more partisan, although that is a bad thing, it's more that it will be two chambers of career politicians and nobody that can really scrutinise well what passes through. We have enough career politicians in the Lords as it is!
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5268
Report 4 years ago
#5268
(Original post by thehistorybore)
In truth, there is no electoral system that will suit the UK perfectly, and this debate will rage on indefinitely.

I dislike the idea of a senate, too open to party politics, which will make the Lords a whole lot more partisan and destroy the merit of having them.
There is no perfect electoral system... But PR in my mind has more legitimacy.

but should unelected people be allowed to directly change the law of the country?
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5269
Report 4 years ago
#5269
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It hasn't confused us in Wales or the Scots who use the system for our devolved institutions, and nor does it appear to have confused the Germans.

What it would possibly mean is no more Portillo (or Balls) moments as the top brass in the big parties would probably be elected as top-up members to ensure they kept their seats.

I'm planning to put a bill forward during the next MHoC session to introduce the additional-member system with either FPTP or AV (the choice here is less important given the top-up).
Is it not an advantage to have Portillo moments? I have a feeling that Balls was unseated because he's a disgusting slimy man as well as because of the swing to the Tories. You'd also have to change the system for getting the Speaker a seat also (poor show with UKIP/Greens contesting the Speaker this year, don't you think?).

I'd be interested to see how that is mooted.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5270
Report 4 years ago
#5270
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
There would it be 90% of those voting or 90% of the entire house, because if it's the latter you're never going to have anything vetoed
90% of voters would be more effective. The idea is to avoid vetoing dangerous Bills proposed on an ideological basis, not to allow them to veto whatever they like.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5271
Report 4 years ago
#5271
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The problem with an elected second chamber is less that it will be more partisan, although that is a bad thing, it's more that it will be two chambers of career politicians and nobody that can really scrutinise well what passes through. We have enough career politicians in the Lords as it is!
Here here. This is my point entirely.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5272
Report 4 years ago
#5272
(Original post by Aph)
There is no perfect electoral system... But PR in my mind has more legitimacy.

but should unelected people be allowed to directly change the law of the country?
Perhaps, but it is open to flaws in decision making in my mind. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree.

I don't see why not, so long as those people are learned and not mindless oafs that make up a pretty large proportion of the electorate/the Commons.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5273
Report 4 years ago
#5273
(Original post by Aph)
There is no perfect electoral system... But PR in my mind has more legitimacy.

but should unelected people be allowed to directly change the law of the country?
Try thinking of the Lords as advisors. The Commons sends through their bill, the Lords look at it and say "this looks fine" or "this bit looks a bit iffy, you should do this". It's down to the commons as to whether they accept the proposed amendments, they aren't automatically put in.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5274
Report 4 years ago
#5274
(Original post by RayApparently)
Of course cuts to government spending are very rarely the best way to promote long-term economic growth.

Isn't UKIP largely relying on the 'less well-educated who have no understanding of how the world works' and would put their trust in a pint holding, fag smoking 'man of the people' who encourages them to blame the outside world for the problems caused be the deregulation of the banking sector?

Not that this detracts from your point on the importance of the Upper House which is valid. Its just strange to see a Kipper argue against populism.
Cuts to government spending in agricultural subsidies is the best way to promote long-term growth in the international agricultural sector, and long-term economic growth in the third world countries. UKIP proposing to leave the EU and with it the CAP will do more for third world development than Labour's proposed foreign aid budget which is largely a moral thing crusade making no long-lasting difference to the developing world. Few parties will cut foreign aid and agricultural subsidies as it is not seen as politically good, but in the long-term it is the best move to make.

I despise populism as a lot of populism is based on a fantasy and not something that is achievable. Populism could be lots of Aphs calling for a world government and the abolition of money, it would be popular but it is not achievable; this is where knowledge is needed. I see populism and knowledge as two different things with both needing to be present in a country. Populism could call for stricter immigration controls but knowledge will determine what controls should be put in place and how the controls will work. On bigger issues, for instance the European Union, populism will call for an in or out position with knowledge determining the type of relationship in the position.

I am 100% Conservative but my beliefs that there should be grammar schools, tougher immigration controls, a fair referendum on the EU, a scale back of the NHS, and no inheritance tax put me in UKIP. I would happily be part of a Conservative party which is heading right with a more right-wing leader like Jacob Rees-Mogg.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5275
Report 4 years ago
#5275
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
Cuts to government spending in agricultural subsidies is the best way to promote long-term growth in the international agricultural sector, and long-term economic growth in the third world countries. UKIP proposing to leave the EU and with it the CAP will do more for third world development than Labour's proposed foreign aid budget which is largely a moral thing crusade making no long-lasting difference to the developing world. Few parties will cut foreign aid and agricultural subsidies as it is not seen as politically good, but in the long-term it is the best move to make.

I see populism and knowledge as two different things with both needing to be present in a country. Populism could call for stricter immigration controls but knowledge will determine what controls should be put in place and how the controls will work. On bigger issues, for instance the European Union, populism will call for an in or out position with knowledge determining the type of relationship in the position.

I am 100% Conservative but my beliefs that there should be grammar schools, tougher immigration controls, a fair referendum on the EU, a scale back of the NHS, and no inheritance tax put me in UKIP. I would happily be part of a Conservative party which is heading right with a more right-wing leader like Jacob Rees-Mogg.
All this gets away from the fact that UKIP relies on votes from the less politically aware.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5276
Report 4 years ago
#5276
(Original post by thehistorybore)
Perhaps, but it is open to flaws in decision making in my mind. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree.

I don't see why not, so long as those people are learned and not mindless oafs that make up a pretty large proportion of the electorate/the Commons.
See the issue I have is that they are appointed, like each year the government appoints them. Also as I recall when fees when up the lords were saying that they'd have veto' it but didn't feel that they had the mandate to do such. Maybe a better way would be to have a list of 'approved people' and then vote out of them to give them more of a mandate?
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Try thinking of the Lords as advisors. The Commons sends through their bill, the Lords look at it and say "this looks fine" or "this bit looks a bit iffy, you should do this". It's down to the commons as to whether they accept the proposed amendments, they aren't automatically put in.
I know, but there are already advisors and scrutiny panels in the house already...
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5277
Report 4 years ago
#5277
(Original post by Aph)
See the issue I have is that they are appointed, like each year the government appoints them. Also as I recall when fees when up the lords were saying that they'd have veto' it but didn't feel that they had the mandate to do such. Maybe a better way would be to have a list of 'approved people' and then vote out of them to give them more of a mandate?

I know, but there are already advisors and scrutiny panels in the house already...
Have they spent decades in their respective industries?
And surely they don't do their job too well if the Lords have to do anything.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5278
Report 4 years ago
#5278
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Have they spent decades in their respective industries?
And surely they don't do their job too well if the Lords have to do anything.
There are lists of the people if you wanna look them up...
Can you show things the lords have done this term?
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5279
Report 4 years ago
#5279
(Original post by RayApparently)
All this gets away from the fact that UKIP relies on votes from the less politically aware.
This I cannot deny and reading research reports all parties apart from the Conservatives rely on support from the less well-educated and less-wealthy. The cause is personal philosophies changing depending on your social situation. Through education comes wealth and political influence so it is easy to see why big business, bankers, and the wealthy support a party promising not to use them as scapegoats.

I do not see anything wrong with relying on populism or the less well-educated to be elected provided their popular opinions do not make decisions on the micro level.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5280
Report 4 years ago
#5280
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
This I cannot deny and reading research reports all parties apart from the Conservatives rely on support from the less well-educated and less-wealthy. The cause is personal philosophies changing depending on your social situation. Through education comes wealth and political influence so it is easy to see why big business, bankers, and the wealthy support a party promising not to use them as scapegoats.

I do not see anything wrong with relying on populism or the less well-educated to be elected provided their popular opinions do not make decisions on the micro level.
I do agree with a lot of the points you make - which is why I can't imagine myself ever supporting true PR elections for the Commons, however I disagree that an empowered HoL is the answer.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (23)
6.82%
They might tell the bully (33)
9.79%
I don't think they'd understand (51)
15.13%
It might lead to more bullying (128)
37.98%
There's nothing they could do (102)
30.27%

Watched Threads

View All