The House of Lords: The biggest quango of them all Watch

lesbionic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#41
(Original post by Teaddict)
I think you misunderstand. The Queen won't practically be on the committee. Practically, she won't have a say. Just like the Royal Assent is usually done by someone on behalf of the Queen.
The Royal Assent is a rather automatic approval when the bill has been approved by both Houses; by convention Royal Assent is always granted - I think the last time it was denied was to the Scottish Militia Bill in the 1800s.

Royal Assent is rather a different set of affairs to having the Monarchy appointing the legislature... Whether or not it is someone 'on behalf' of the Queen or not does not really matter - most people of sound mind would take objection to a system where someone who is Head of State by accident of birth goes on to appoint the legislature. It's too freaky an idea.
0
reply
lesbionic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#42
(Original post by Teaddict)
How so? A great amount of our criminal legislation was created by the Judiciary. Even if they were given the powers to "create law" during a case, I personally don't have an issue with the Judiciary making law.
Er, no. Common law is not legislation.
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
(Original post by lesbionic)
The Royal Assent is a rather automatic approval when the bill has been approved by both Houses; by convention Royal Assent is always granted - I think the last time it was denied was to the Scottish Militia Bill in the 1800s.

Royal Assent is rather a different set of affairs to having the Monarchy appointing the legislature... Whether or not it is someone 'on behalf' of the Queen or not does not really matter - most people of sound mind would take objection to a system where someone who is Head of State by accident of birth goes on to appoint the legislature. It's too freaky an idea.
Evidently I am not explaining this clearly so I will put it very simply and hopefully clearly.

In practical terms, the Monarch would have NO involvement in the appointment of appears as that would be the job of the Royal Appointments Commission. However, like many things in our system, they act on behalf of the Monarch.

(Original post by lesbionic)
Er, no. Common law is not legislation.
Don't be so ****ing pedantic.

If one were to define legislation as the act of making or enacting laws... hmm perhaps your pedantic comment is wrong when taking this definition.
0
reply
Invictus_88
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
(Original post by lesbionic)
Can you give some academic arguments for why we need the House of Lords? Are you aware of what the House actually does? The fact it's rather impotent as far as its legislative veto goes? The fact it's wholly unrepresentative, costly and that many, many successful and developed Western countries do just fine with a unicameral system?
Because the Commons is a lax legislator and has shown itself to work much better when the Lords operates between it and Crown sanction.

The answer to the flaws of the Lords is (obviously) not to abolish it entirely, but to give greatest strength to that of it that works well, and to cut out that which does not.

There are a lot of fundamental errors in your view, and you're right that it was a waste of time for me to just take the piss without actually telling you what they were, but with such a cretinously stupid title, frankly you were asking for it.


"But the old(ii) peers of our famous upper house will once again return for another year of, well... does the average person really know what a peer does(ia)?
And will the peers really be returning? The average age of a peer of the House of Lords is 64(ii) and attendance is often so low(ib) as to beg the question as to why we still have this circus of an upper house.
"

"The Lords needs to be abolished. Let me outline why, and suggest its replacement.

1) The Commons has become supreme in the last century. It is clearly the dominant house and since the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, it can more or less have its way. These Acts allow the Commons to pass on a bill for royal assent, should the upper chamber reject it more than three times (in summary - the real situation is a little more intricate than that). See the case of Pickin v. British Railways Board(ic)
"

"Please consider your vote in the future; constitutional and Lords reform has been at the forefront of Labour policy for over 13 years; with your help and the right vote, we can make this change a real possibility!(iii)"


i. Irrelevant; it is/would be the same as the Commons.
a) Ditto what an MP does.
b) Ditto were MPs still on an antiquated pay system.
c) Ditto would apply if the Lords had become supreme - it would not follow that the Commons ought to be dissolved.

ii. Irrelevant; ageism. The Lords is intended to be composed of individuals who have acquired special depths of experience in life, so inevitably many will be toward or beyond the end of their principal career.

iii. After establishing some of the real problems with the HoL, problems which were caused by, exacerbated by, or were inadequately tackled by 13yrs of Labour Government, it shows some serious front on your part to suggest that Labour has anything useful to say about HoL reform.

0
reply
lesbionic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#45
(Original post by Teaddict)
Don't be so ****ing pedantic.

If one were to define legislation as the act of making or enacting laws... hmm perhaps your pedantic comment is wrong when taking this definition.
No, you're still wrong. Legislation is law as enacted by a legislative body and is also known as 'statutory law'. First instance courts, The Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court are not legislative bodies - their duty is statutory interpretation.

The judiciary have never created legislation. Hence why your other idea about letting the Supreme Court Justices legislate in the criminal law is such an odd concept as that would be a first in the history of English law...
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#46
Report 8 years ago
#46
(Original post by lesbionic)
No, you're still wrong. Legislation is law as enacted by a legislative body and is also known as 'statutory law'. First instance courts, The Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court are not legislative bodies - their duty is statutory interpretation.

The judiciary have never created legislation. Hence why your other idea about letting the Supreme Court Justices legislate in the criminal law is such an odd concept as that would be a first in the history of English law...
Legislation noun
the act of making or enacting laws

Under that very simple definition, common law is what I said it was. The judiciary, through cases, created law.

I understand the point you are trying to make; even if you are being pedantic. I have studied law and am thus well aware of the point you are trying to make. Now, on the basis of the definition I gave above, the judiciary historically created legislation [law].

I personally believe the judiciary should have greater autonomy in legislation especially in this day and age. Parliament cannot practically account for every possibility and thus we must look to the Judiciary to ensure that criminals are punished even if under the strict definition of the law they are innocent; due to technicality or over sight.
0
reply
lesbionic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#47
(Original post by Teaddict)
Legislation noun
the act of making or enacting laws

Under that very simple definition, common law is what I said it was. The judiciary, through cases, created law.

I understand the point you are trying to make; even if you are being pedantic. I have studied law and am thus well aware of the point you are trying to make. Now, on the basis of the definition I gave above, the judiciary historically created legislation [law].

I personally believe the judiciary should have greater autonomy in legislation especially in this day and age. Parliament cannot practically account for every possibility and thus we must look to the Judiciary to ensure that criminals are punished even if under the strict definition of the law they are innocent; due to technicality or over sight.
You've studied law and you're 19? A Level law is really basic, compared to what you will learn if you embark on a law degree. Anyway, this isn't just about law; it's historic too.

You said the judiciary had created legislation - that's the only exception I take to your point. Just be more precise and say the judiciary has created the common law of England.
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
(Original post by lesbionic)
You've studied law and you're 19? A Level law is really basic, compared to what you will learn if you embark on a law degree. Anyway, this isn't just about law; it's historic too.
I had no interest in beyond basic understanding of law so unless the definitions of words change when you go to degree, then my comment stands.

You said the judiciary had created legislation - that's the only exception I take to your point. Just be more precise and say the judiciary has created the common law of England
With the definition I used it was precise enough - anyway, no need to be pedantic.
0
reply
lesbionic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#49
(Original post by Teaddict)
I had no interest in beyond basic understanding of law so unless the definitions of words change when you go to degree, then my comment stands.
Well clearly you weren't able to grasp even a 'basic' understanding of A Level Law if you can't tell the difference between common and statute law :borat: Isn't that like, the first thing anyone doing law learns :confused:
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
(Original post by lesbionic)
Well clearly you weren't able to grasp even a 'basic' understanding of A Level Law if you can't tell the difference between common and statute law :borat: Isn't that like, the first thing anyone doing law learns :confused:
How did you work that out?

I used the word legislation, and I gave you the definition I used. If you can't put two and two together that's your problem.
0
reply
lesbionic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#51
(Original post by Teaddict)
How did you work that out?

I used the word legislation, and I gave you the definition I used. If you can't put two and two together that's your problem.
A great amount of our criminal legislation was created by the Judiciary.
Sound familiar? lol look not going to labour this anymore as I've got acid reflux.
0
reply
Crimsonchilli
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
what I was thinking..

1)Remove the remaining 92 or so hereditary titles..
2) Establish an a-political appointment panel
3) From then on all appointments to the HoL will be done on the basis of merit only, and will not represent any particular party.
4) Those elected will be solely "experts" in their respective fields: Doctors, lawyers, diplomats, ambassadors, old/retired politicians with experience, scientists, academics, religious figures, economists, businessmen etc etc.

Effectively transform the Lords into an appointed "committee of everything" with experts from all fields.

The current make up of the Lords is pointless, as that bunch of aristocratic peers are neither representative or especially knowledgeable anyway ( bar the few more recent additions)

Yet an elected second chamber is perhaps even worse. Look at the US Senate. All (most) are still aged millionaire white lawyers. You cannot be a full time politician and expert in other fields, so that is why I advocate fully differentiating between the commons and lords by having the lords as appointed but only on the basis of merit it certain fields, removing careerists etc from their ranks.

The commons does the "politics" while the Lords does the expert analysis.

Effectively its a form of direct democracy. People from non political careers get a stint in government.
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#53
Report 8 years ago
#53
(Original post by Crimsonchilli)
what I was thinking..

1)Remove the remaining 92 or so hereditary titles..
2) Establish an a-political appointment panel
3) From then on all appointments to the HoL will be done on the basis of merit only, and will not represent any particular party.
4) Those elected will be solely "experts" in their respective fields: Doctors, lawyers, diplomats, ambassadors, old/retired politicians with experience, scientists, academics, religious figures, economists, businessmen etc etc.

Effectively transform the Lords into an appointed "committee of everything" with experts from all fields.

The current make up of the Lords is pointless, as that bunch of aristocratic peers are neither representative or especially knowledgeable anyway ( bar the few more recent additions)

Yet an elected second chamber is perhaps even worse. Look at the US Senate. All (most) are still aged millionaire white lawyers. You cannot be a full time politician and expert in other fields, so that is why I advocate fully differentiating between the commons and lords by having the lords as appointed but only on the basis of merit it certain fields, removing careerists etc from their ranks.

The commons does the "politics" while the Lords does the expert analysis.

Effectively its a form of direct democracy. People from non political careers get a stint in government.
Absolutely - I think a few of us have advocated this on this forum. Reform the House of Lords into a chamber of meritocracy so to speak. People with expertise are appointed so as to ensure legislation is of a high quality standard - something the Commons just cannot achieve.

The House of Lords is a fantastic chamber and with a few reforms, could be even better - I just hope we don't have an elected House.
1
reply
baseballfan2010
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
(Original post by Lemons)
I thought that happened in the US, but I wasn't sure so didn't want to say it. I think that's the best way really - the Senators can (in theory) make sure that nothing with crazy consequences in the long run gets turned into law, and the Congressmen can stop bad laws which the Senators don't mind because no one will remember about them when it comes to election time. I guess it means that nothing can get done when the House of representatives is full of Republicans and the Senate is full of Democrats though (or vice versa), but I think that would be less of an issue in the UK purely because our major parties are all fairly central anyway, whereas in the US there's a massive difference between them.
Well it's supposed to be difficult to make laws because you don't want one house or the president being able to completely take over the legislative process. Sometimes the difficulty of making laws, though, means that not much gets done.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
Say what you like about the hereditary peers, they did a good job. The ones who actively participated (around 300) participated because they were experts in certain things. Lots of them were wealthy, well educated and owned large estates which are exactly the sort of people that get life peerages anyway.
2
reply
Invictus_88
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by Teaddict)
Absolutely - I think a few of us have advocated this on this forum. Reform the House of Lords into a chamber of meritocracy so to speak. People with expertise are appointed so as to ensure legislation is of a high quality standard - something the Commons just cannot achieve.

The House of Lords is a fantastic chamber and with a few reforms, could be even better - I just hope we don't have an elected House.
This is one of the more popular proposals I hear from people.

However it doesn't meet the needs of the Commons in shoring up its own unhindered supremacy, so although I hear it a lot from people, it's never seriously proposed by MPs.

Hardly an encouraging state of affairs.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by Crimsonchilli)
The current make up of the Lords is pointless, as that bunch of aristocratic peers are neither representative or especially knowledgeable anyway ( bar the few more recent additions)
The commons does the "politics" while the Lords does the expert analysis.
To me, the whole point of the Lords is that it is more than a consultative body and that it is actively political. In that role, it is a check on the power of the Commons - which of course is almost always dominated by the Government, and is no longer generally well balanced by the Sovereign's power as it was historically.

The Commons is able to get expert analysis already: that's the point of the committee system and indeed the numerous reports which emanate therefrom - not to mention fine work of the excellent researchers at the Parliamentary Libraries.

We don't need a legislative chamber of experts, and I firmly believe that looking at the Lords in that way undermines its political role.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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 (2)
3.85%
They might tell the bully (5)
9.62%
I don't think they'd understand (9)
17.31%
It might lead to more bullying (19)
36.54%
There's nothing they could do (17)
32.69%

Watched Threads

View All