Turn on thread page Beta

Tories enrage Labour with bid to save last hereditary peers in Lords watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Either you support an elected second chamber (which is a position I respect, but don't agree with) or you support an appointed chamber. There is no justification for removing the last hereditaries - you can't have it both ways.
    How about someone not arguing on democratic terms?

    I would argue that chucking the hereditaries and replacing them with appointments who are knowledgable in areas of policy is a more worthwhile method of ensuring policy is relevant and effective.

    And it is possible to support a partly-appointed, partly-elected chamber. Appointees there to ensure legislation is relevant, elected officials there to be held accountable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Why not?

    You're arguing that there should be no more elitist structures (irrespective of whether or not they work) ~ then we not get rid of the Monarchy?
    What about the bishops?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redanator)
    For myself, the idea of someone being a good politician just because their dad was doesn't really hold weight; it's also a bit elitist.
    Those in the house of Lords aren't politicians though thats why it works. They are generally all at the top of their field and extremely accomplished people which in itself means they must be intelligent, atleast a little creative, knowledgable and good at making desisions.

    That is why the House of Lords works. Becasue they don't care about votes or about what a huge amount of very often ignorant people think as politicians do. They make desisions for what they think is best. And being all extremely accomplished people what they think is best very often is, and at the least is more often best than what the politicians think!

    As to the question of hereditary Lords well If you have been brought up by someone who is extremely accomplished basic genetics say they themselves will likely be more accomplished. Whether that warents a place in the House of Lords i'm unsure but its definatly true.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Should we remove the Queen, then?

    What is wrong with someone being born into a political position?
    If the Queen were to start blocking pieces of government legislation, then yes. As it stands, the Queen is a symbolic figure rather than a political one. I would have no problem with hereditary Lords if they were symbolic like the Queen. If they want to ponce around in their robes saying "I'm the Earl of Sandwich, bwhaahah" that's fine with me.

    My problem is with their political influence. In my view, Britain should be a democracy and a meritocracy. People in the House of Lords approva legislation, can block it and can amend it. To be put in that position based on birth is abhorrent to me, and goes completely against any ideas of democracy or meritocracy.

    If some hereditary peers are doing an excellent job, then fine. They can be made life peers on the basis of merit, but they shouldn't be there on the basis of birth.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    How silly some people are. Why should we get rid of the last remaining hereditary peers? In fact, why did we get rid of the bulk of them in the first place?

    Just think about it. It will not make the Lords any more "democratic" by kicking the hereditaries out. Instead of these hereditary peers who have been elected by other hereditary peers, we'll have a Lords which is entirely appointed (by the PM).

    Either you support an elected second chamber (which is a position I respect, but don't agree with) or you support an appointed chamber. There is no justification for removing the last hereditaries - you can't have it both ways.
    At least if they oust them and appoint new ones, then prospective experts in certain areas of legislation can be put in... and anyway, who are these hereditaries? Do they actually show up to legislate in the Lords, or do they just take the allowance and sleep? Might as well kick them out if they're not doing anything productive.

    (I want an elected upper chamber, just saying though).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJ99)
    Those in the house of Lords aren't politicians though thats why it works. They are generally all at the top of their field and extremely accomplished people which in itself means they must be intelligent, atleast a little creative, knowledgable and good at making desisions.

    That is why the House of Lords works. Becasue they don't care about votes or about what a huge amount of very often ignorant people think as politicians do. They make desisions for what they think is best. And being all extremely accomplished people what they think is best very often is, and at the least is more often best than what the politicians think!
    Okay; but I'm confused as to where there's disagreement between us. I'm aware of their importance but said that the hereditary peers should go, not all of them. Okay, they're not politicians - sorry for the error!
    Offline

    14
    There are 3 options

    1) Keep the Hereditarys
    2) Have an elected 2nd chamber
    3) Scrap the Lords

    Scraping the hereditarys while the rest are still unelected is just class bias. I respect if you want option 2 or 3 but the inbetween option makes no sense.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Why not?

    You're arguing that there should be no more elitist structures (irrespective of whether or not they work) ~ then we not get rid of the Monarchy?
    I didn't argue that at all. I commented on one aspect of the argument here, any inference from that is your own.

    Elitist structures that work, clearly, better than their (non) conterparts should be kept. This does not extend to the point in question in this thread though.

    =]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redanator)
    Okay; but I'm confused as to where there's disagreement between us. I'm aware of their importance but said that the hereditary peers should go, not all of them. Okay, they're not politicians - sorry for the error!
    Yeah I realized i forgot to reply to the hereditary point and then edited my answer. So yeah thats not my full answer. I don't agree or entirely disagree with you.
    But it is an important distinction that they are not politicians (atleast they don't need to be). And I thought a few people here needed reminded why Lords works - not you just ended up saying it in that post!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turdburger)
    There are 3 options

    1) Keep the Hereditarys
    2) Have an elected 2nd chamber
    3) Scrap the Lords

    Scraping the hereditarys while the rest are still unelected is just class bias. I respect if you want option 2 or 3 but the inbetween option makes no sense.
    What is wrong with Life peers?
    Its perfectly possible to have an unelected second chamber, but there is surely a better way to choose who goes in it than birth...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    house of lords should be abolished, there is no need for a second house, it is a waste of money.

    I personally think that all noble titles should be axed, and that the monarchy should end when the queen dies, she'll probably live for another ten years though.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    If the Queen were to start blocking pieces of government legislation, then yes. As it stands, the Queen is a symbolic figure rather than a political one. I would have no problem with hereditary Lords if they were symbolic like the Queen. If they want to ponce around in their robes saying "I'm the Earl of Sandwich, bwhaahah" that's fine with me.
    But the Queen isn't exactly symbolic, since she signs pieces of legislation. She is positively involved in the process, and isn't restricted to her Parliamentary speeches "I am the Queen, bwhaahh".

    My problem is with their political influence. In my view, Britain should be a democracy and a meritocracy. People in the House of Lords approva legislation, can block it and can amend it. To be put in that position based on birth is abhorrent to me, and goes completely against any ideas of democracy or meritocracy.

    If some hereditary peers are doing an excellent job, then fine. They can be made life peers on the basis of merit, but they shouldn't be there on the basis of birth.
    The Queen goes against meritocracy & democracy. Period. Now, you either are against it (in which case you'd want to remove the Monarchy) OR you're not.

    In any case, I also feel that this is mirrored in the CRA 2003, in that t attempts to level out some of these issues, despite the fact that they work out fine on a day-to-day basis.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    How about someone not arguing on democratic terms?

    I would argue that chucking the hereditaries and replacing them with appointments who are knowledgable in areas of policy is a more worthwhile method of ensuring policy is relevant and effective.

    And it is possible to support a partly-appointed, partly-elected chamber. Appointees there to ensure legislation is relevant, elected officials there to be held accountable.
    That's a jolly nice idea, and indeed that's why the Lords is effective - it has people who actually know what they're talking about. Believe it or not the 90 remaining hereditaries do have skills, and when a new hereditary slot needs filling those skills are judged by other hereditary peers, not by the Prime Minister (who is just one person, and is who is bound to prefer people with "skills" who also happen to be totally loyal to him). Of course there is also an Appointments commission for cross-bench peers.

    My point is this: the 90 remaining, elected, hereditaries have just as much right to sit there than life-appointees do. In fact, one could argue they have more right to because they are actually elected in some form.

    For what it's worth I said elected, not necessarily wholly elected.

    (Original post by Muffinz)
    At least if they oust them and appoint new ones, then prospective experts in certain areas of legislation can be put in... and anyway, who are these hereditaries? Do they actually show up to legislate in the Lords, or do they just take the allowance and sleep? Might as well kick them out if they're not doing anything productive.

    (I want an elected upper chamber, just saying though).
    Yes they do show up. And they are very active because they feel obliged to be. The few one who abuse allowances and sleep seem to be mostly those life peers from party-political/civil service backgrounds who are used to getting something for nothing.

    Just to reiterate, the remaining hereditaries are not there by "birthright" - they are de facto life peers who are chosen on merit (and not by the Prime Minister). When they snuff it, their kids are not automatically allowed in to the Lords. The hereditary peers to all intents and purposes no longer exist.

    If one supports an elected Second Chamber, then get on with doing that. You lose the argument if you support purging certain groups from the Lords in the mean time.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turdburger)
    There are 3 options

    Scraping the hereditarys while the rest are still unelected is just class bias. I respect if you want option 2 or 3 but the inbetween option makes no sense.
    The rest are indirectly democratic as they have been appointed by an elected representative. Surly its class bias to keep hereditary peers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Believe it or not the 90 remaining hereditaries do have skills,
    I am definately in the NOT camp then..

    and when a new hereditary slot needs filling those skills are judged by other hereditary peers, not by the Prime Minister (who is just one person, and is who is bound to prefer people with "skills" who also happen to be totally loyal to him). Of course there is also an Appointments commission for cross-bench peers.
    So hereditary peers, who may or may not have skills (or who were left by the Labour government on account of the fact that they are suited to their cause..) get to decide whether a new hereditary peer gets to sit?

    Mmmmm.. doesn't that sound just dandy? Peers protecting their own?

    The appointments process means nothing, it's not even relevant. Fact is, those hereditaries are there because their great x 50 grandfather gave some money to someone very important.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of the arguments used in favour of keeping hereditary peers seem to be very similar to the arguments used against universal suffrage
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    I am definitely in the NOT camp then..

    So hereditary peers, who may or may not have skills (or who were left by the Labour government on account of the fact that they are suited to their cause..) get to decide whether a new hereditary peer gets to sit?

    Mmmmm.. doesn't that sound just dandy? Peers protecting their own?
    If the Labour government had got their way in 1999 they would have removed the lot of them. While the House of Lords Bill was going through Parliament, the Lords was being flooded with new Labour Life peers. It is quite absurd to suggest that that is better than having Hereditaries in the House.

    They completely lost the moral argument. Removing the hereditaries did nothing to legitimise the Lords because they were replaced with cronies. If they were serious about electing the Lords, then why even care about the few remaining hereditaries?

    The appointments process means nothing, it's not even relevant. Fact is, those hereditaries are there because their great x 50 grandfather gave some money to someone very important.
    No, they are de facto Life Peers. When they snuff it, their eldest son won't get in.

    Surely you should be more horrified that people are getting Life peerages for doing "favours" to our present PM/party in government?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Good for the Tories. THe hereditary peers have served this country brilliantly. They are born with a sense of duty and pride in their country. I might interest you to know that the hereditaries are the cheapest of the Lords and also the best attendees (The Earl Onslow has a 100% attendence record). Them or some of the jokes that labour have put into the Lords? Not a difficult choice really is it.

    The current lords are also the most democratic (being elected) and represent an important link with this nations past. The hereditary peers also are not tied to political party. For example Clement Atlee was made the Earl Atlee but his son (and the third earl after him) was/were/are COnservative Lord(s).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My impression of the people in the house of lords is much higher than of the people in the house of commons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Good for the Tories. THe hereditary peers have served this country brilliantly. They are born with a sense of duty and pride in their country. I might interest you to know that the hereditaries are the cheapest of the Lords and also the best attendees (The Earl Onslow has a 100% attendence record). Them or some of the jokes that labour have put into the Lords? Not a difficult choice really is it.

    The current lords are also the most democratic (being elected) and represent an important link with this nations past. The hereditary peers also are not tied to political party. For example Clement Atlee was made the Earl Atlee but his son (and the third earl after him) was/were/are COnservative Lord(s).
    Born with a sense of duty? What on earth are you talking about?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 10, 2010
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.