Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    80% is pretty insulting, they should have it properly elected (100%)
    Weirdly enough, I'm a Lib Dem but I don't support a fully elected second chamber (not for the moment anyway).

    80% elected makes it democratic enough to stop the need for stuffing by the incumbent Government to push through their legislative agenda, and the 20% appointed allows sufficient recourse for non-political scrutiny of legislation.
    The key thing, I think, is to ensure that 20% are cross bench peers, not party, to ensure the total legitimacy of the second chamber as a democratic (partially or otherwise) body is not compromised completely.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    80% is pretty insulting, they should have it properly elected (100%)
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    So, Lords reform. Predictable mix of people complaining it will undermine legitimacy and decrease accountability. I don't think these plans are anything special but they aren't terrible. And unless the commons really ****s up I don't think there'll be a legitimacy issue.
    Lords reform is unnecessary and unwanted. It's a complete waste of time. The only thing that should happen to the Lords is the Prime Minister should lose ALL powers to appoint peers and there should a process for retirement and removal of peerages (voluntarily)



    (Original post by tehFrance)
    English, Paper B "Poetry"
    Argh...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    the Lords is a disgrace, if people have political power they should do so because they have been elected by the people, I want democracy, the Lords are a bunch of unelected, unaccountable party political supporters and hacks.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Argh...
    You're telling me, I'm hoping that cramming tonight and tomorrow will get me the 'C' I need
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm warming to the idea of Lords reform. The plans look good to me - they should be held accountable to the public as they hold the power to block laws passed by the Commons.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    is this government bend on killing higher education in this country?

    SGUL are really worried they will have a drop in intake for their grad route entry course for medicine, which means less funding for them, which for a small uni will hurt them, because the government thinks lower and middle income families can afford £9,000 a year without question, as these no loan for 2nd degree student

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13387242
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Lords reform is unnecessary and unwanted. It's a complete waste of time. The only thing that should happen to the Lords is the Prime Minister should lose ALL powers to appoint peers and there should a process for retirement and removal of peerages (voluntarily)
    You mean like English devolution?

    As it happens, it is kind of necessary. Parliament is bloated and is only going to get more so. The Lords do not form an effective check and the Commons doesn't do a particularly good job either. Reform is a key part of changing this.

    There should be a method of recalling both MPs and Lords, and of course voluntary retirement should also be there as you say.

    As for whether it's wanted or not, that's very debatable. I'd say it probably isn't decided one way or t'other. But we've established that Cameron doesn't like being told no so whether or not people want it or not is entirely irrelevant at this point.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by robinson999)
    no loan for 2nd degree student
    Why should the government pay for a second Undergraduate degree? they don't even pay for the first one as it is a loan, key word... Loan. It appears people don't understand that there are better repayment terms with £9k rather than £3k.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Why should the government pay for a second Undergraduate degree? they don't even pay for the first one as it is a loan, key word... Loan. It appears people don't understand that there are better repayment terms with £9k rather than £3k.
    it seem you misread the point, where i said they don't even give you a loan for a 2nd degree (ok maybe you didn't/ i missed that)

    who can afford £9,000 a year on fees, plus money to live on, seeing as banks don't give out them type of loans now

    if SGUL, under fill their medicine course by 6 people, they lose a hell of a lot of funding, unis are worried
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    80% elected seems about right to me, provided the other 20% are appointed on a non-partisan basis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I'm warming to the idea of Lords reform. The plans look good to me - they should be held accountable to the public as they hold the power to block laws passed by the Commons.
    Except they don't. They can only delay it, and generally they only do this for good reasons. Plus the commons can entirely bypass the Lords.

    Proper Lords reform should be about making the Lords less a plaything for Prime Ministers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If Royal Mail is supposed to be a public service provider, why the hell does my local delivery office close at lunchtime on the 4 days out of 6 it's open... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    Except they don't. They can only delay it, and generally they only do this for good reasons. Plus the commons can entirely bypass the Lords.

    Proper Lords reform should be about making the Lords less a plaything for Prime Ministers.
    Still, they have the power to send legislation back to the commons. You don't consider that power?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Still, they have the power to send legislation back to the commons. You don't consider that power?
    This is a strange case of it being more powerful in practice than in theory. In theory, it's not a power at all because the Commons can ram through any legislation it likes and the Lords can't do much. See the current police reforms, which are going to go through anyway. In practice, this looks bad on Government (90 days detention providing a good example) so actually the Lords doing this can be a power. We do need a bit more power in the Lords but we don't want too much else nothing gets done.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    the Lords is a disgrace, if people have political power they should do so because they have been elected by the people, I want democracy, the Lords are a bunch of unelected, unaccountable party political supporters and hacks.
    Meritocracy > Democracy.

    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I'm warming to the idea of Lords reform. The plans look good to me - they should be held accountable to the public as they hold the power to block laws passed by the Commons.
    See Above.

    The House of Lords is just far superior to the House of Commons. Unlike the Commons it is; for the most part, no where near as political. It has much expertise in various fields, doesn't suffer from career politicians (to any degree that is experienced in the Commons), doesn't suffer from the Whips, doesn't suffer from the need to be populist.

    If we strip the Prime Minister of ALL his powers in relation to the House of Lords, such as appointing peers and bestow those powers to the Appointments Commission we will have a much better House.

    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    You mean like English devolution?

    As it happens, it is kind of necessary. Parliament is bloated and is only going to get more so. The Lords do not form an effective check and the Commons doesn't do a particularly good job either. Reform is a key part of changing this.
    Electing them will be far worse - it will mean you will have a far more politicised House. If we strip the Prime Minister of his powers and put a ban on ex-MPs entering the House for a period I think we would have a better House.

    The Lords doesn't suffer from the nonsense that exists in the Commons; the only hug download of the Lords is that the Prime Minister fills it with cronnies. Remove the power of the Prime Minister, remove the cronnies and you have a healthier, stronger House.

    There should be a method of recalling both MPs and Lords, and of course voluntary retirement should also be there as you say.
    I agree - in regards to MPs, constituents should have a right to recall their MP for any reason - not just criminal or dodgy behaviour. One recent example - if your MP stands up in front of you with a pledge saying no tuition fees and breaks that pledge, get rid of the *******.

    As for whether it's wanted or not, that's very debatable. I'd say it probably isn't decided one way or t'other. But we've established that Cameron doesn't like being told no so whether or not people want it or not is entirely irrelevant at this point.
    Don't get me started on Cameron - he shouldn't be prime minister, end of.

    (Original post by Nothos)
    Except they don't. They can only delay it, and generally they only do this for good reasons. Plus the commons can entirely bypass the Lords.

    Proper Lords reform should be about making the Lords less a plaything for Prime Ministers.

    Absolutely right Nothos.

    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Still, they have the power to send legislation back to the commons. You don't consider that power?
    I think it's damn necessary for a revising chamber - ensure the legislation is of top quality. If the Commons want it to go through, they have those powers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, we know that the Lords is not apolitical, but it's true they're much better at being non partisan than the Commons. I don't say non biased, because most of them have a great many vested interests, but they're not necessarily aligned.

    And it depends how you elect them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, I know your discussing the House of Lords and I'ma let you finish but this is the most watched video of all time, OF ALL TIME! [on youtube]




    322,161,200 views.

    and this is perhaps the funniest thing I have seen all day:

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Meritocracy > Democracy.


    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    :facepalm2:
    Okay you face palm but why?

    Meritocracy would be the appointment of peers based on their merit - namely intelligence, education, record in their field etc it would mean a House full of experts. Democracy would be the election of peers/senators based on popularity of either them or their party - they need not be intellegent but rather party apparatchiks.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Okay you face palm but why?

    Meritocracy would be the appointment of peers based on their merit - namely intelligence, education, record in their field etc it would mean a House full of experts. Democracy would be the election of peers/senators based on popularity of either them or their party - they need not be intellegent but rather party apparatchiks.
    It would be quite disingenuous to claim the House of Lords is in any way meritocratic, to be fair.

    Regardless, the way the human brain works basically makes the idea of meritocracy impossible.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.