Should the house of lords be filled with random public Watch

ohyeah12
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
what do you think about the idea of life peers in the house of lords beeing elected through a lottery system with the british public
0
reply
Muppet Science
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Interesting idea, but I'm not sure what the point of it would be. I would prefer the idea of the House of Lords having life peers appointed based on expertises in a particular area, e.g. retired scientists etc. Admittedly the question of who appoints the peers is somewhat fiddly - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all that.
1
reply
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
It would liven the place up a bit.

Although I'd rather go with short term appointments for say a year of people that represent a niche of UK culture. For example, a year of just militant vegans, then a year of Rangers and Celtic fans, a year of former Big Brother contestants, a year of EDL members, etc.
0
reply
KyleH123
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Quantex)
It would liven the place up a bit.

Although I'd rather go with short term appointments for say a year of people that represent a niche of UK culture. For example, a year of just militant vegans, then a year of Rangers and Celtic fans, a year of former Big Brother contestants, a year of EDL members, etc.
that would be pure banter
0
reply
Arkasia
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Why would I want some filthy pleb who thinks Made In Chelsea is high-culture made into a life-peer?
0
reply
ohyeah12
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Arkasia)
Why would I want some filthy pleb who thinks Made In Chelsea is high-culture made into a life-peer?
Because maybe it would be good for democracy to see what just called a pleb having a fight with a bigot like you lol
0
reply
Arkasia
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by ohyeah12)
Because maybe it would be good for democracy to see what just called a pleb having a fight with a bigot like you lol
The reason we have the House of Lords is to maintain the democracy and avoid populism. Having a lottery that could chuck a bunch of uneducated morons from anywhere in this country into that would defeat the purpose.
0
reply
gr8wizard10
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
no, the vast majortiy of this country shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone represent anyone else.
0
reply
ohyeah12
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by gr8wizard10)
no, the vast majortiy of this country shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone represent anyone else.
your making a very good point with your own nasty controling personality but i think its best we hear from everyone including bigots like you because your so very easy to prove wrong and that helps us get to the truth

also now we all know your a grumpy pants we can all take it in to account and try to help you with whatever decision is made democraticly, if we can.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
The second chamber is supposed to be there to scrutinise legislation. As such it needs to be filled with those with sufficient experience and expertise to adequately do that job. I'm not suggesting that the current HoL necessarily fits these criteria, but it's a lot better than this suggestion.

Mrs Mills who works at Tesco, some immigrant fruit pickers and a call centre worker will not do an awfully good job at revising legislation, I fear.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Reality Check)
The second chamber is supposed to be there to scrutinise legislation. As such it needs to be filled with those with sufficient experience and expertise to adequately do that job. I'm not suggesting that the current HoL necessarily fits these criteria, but it's a lot better than this suggestion.

Mrs Mills who works at Tesco, some immigrant fruit pickers and a call centre worker will not do an awfully good job at revising legislation, I fear.
While I personally agree, the flipside to that is if you make sure every piece of legislation that they get to review is presented by people giving the pros and cons, then there's no reason why random members of the public can't be, essentially, a jury for work going through.
0
reply
GonvilleBromhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Muppet Science)
Interesting idea, but I'm not sure what the point of it would be. I would prefer the idea of the House of Lords having life peers appointed based on expertises in a particular area, e.g. retired scientists etc. Admittedly the question of who appoints the peers is somewhat fiddly - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all that.
Am I being stupid or doesn't that translate as who judges the judges? Why would this apply to appointment of peers? I've only ever heard it as a reference to the freedom of the judiciary on my degree but granted law is rather insular so I'd be interested to note if it has other uses.

As for the OP, I don't believe so. The House of Lords is an appointed body without any actual power. It can delay legislation and suggest amendments but it has no power over Parliament (after three readings they can force a bill through). It makes sense to appoint experts and individuals with experience valuable to the legislative process to contribute to debates on complex legislation. I feel the appointers should have some culpability for their appointees for example they should have to - as servants of the people - validate their decision and if it is generally held to be a poor or nepotistic one then some procedures should exist to potentially make the Lord in question stand down from their chair and the MP face measures to prevent personal factors influencing their appointments.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
absolutely not. 90% of the Great British Public think a peer is something encrusted with barnacles at the seaside.
0
reply
shorey92
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
Am I being stupid or doesn't that translate as who judges the judges? Why would this apply to appointment of peers? I've only ever heard it as a reference to the freedom of the judiciary on my degree but granted law is rather insular so I'd be interested to note if it has other uses.

As for the OP, I don't believe so. The House of Lords is an appointed body without any actual power. It can delay legislation and suggest amendments but it has no power over Parliament (after three readings they can force a bill through). It makes sense to appoint experts and individuals with experience valuable to the legislative process to contribute to debates on complex legislation. I feel the appointers should have some culpability for their appointees for example they should have to - as servants of the people - validate their decision and if it is generally held to be a poor or nepotistic one then some procedures should exist to potentially make the Lord in question stand down from their chair and the MP face measures to prevent personal factors influencing their appointments.
Not allowing personal factors influence is neigh on impossible, every decision ever made has been influenced by bias in some form and the Lords are exactly the same, they are usually appointed because of their business acumen (apart from David Cameron, whom filled it with his conservative supporting mates) and have vast knowledge of certain workings around the world, a lot more than Dave from down the road who gets his news from the Daily Mail.
0
reply
GonvilleBromhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by shorey92)
Not allowing personal factors influence is neigh on impossible, every decision ever made has been influenced by bias in some form and the Lords are exactly the same, they are usually appointed because of their business acumen (apart from David Cameron, whom filled it with his conservative supporting mates) and have vast knowledge of certain workings around the world, a lot more than Dave from down the road who gets his news from the Daily Mail.
I'm not suggesting a 100% abdication rather I'm suggesting utilitarian perspectives ie he might be the MPs friend but if he has valuable experience as a law lord for twenty years, or as a psychologist at a high level etc then there is rationale for the appointment. I'm opposing current oddities in peerages such as people like David Beckham and big business leaders being given knighthoods for no conceivable reason whatsoever (obviously the same principle in reference to appointment of lords). I don't believe the HofL is necessarily where we need Dave from down the road as you put it, unless Dave is an expert in his field for example a well regarded artisan or tradesperson although what paper he reads is irrelevant. It's equally important to represent those who understand the trade community as it as academia, for example only someone with years of experience can highlight potentially undetected problems in infrastructure bills and so forth or unintended problems of interpretation (for example the 2015 Consumer Rights Act is incredibly easy to understand without a legal background, but studying it as a legal document it is one of the most complex and incomprehensible things ever written in to law which only someone with a legal background would identify in terms of problems in practice).
0
reply
Muppet Science
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
Am I being stupid or doesn't that translate as who judges the judges? Why would this apply to appointment of peers? I've only ever heard it as a reference to the freedom of the judiciary on my degree but granted law is rather insular so I'd be interested to note if it has other uses.

As for the OP, I don't believe so. The House of Lords is an appointed body without any actual power. It can delay legislation and suggest amendments but it has no power over Parliament (after three readings they can force a bill through). It makes sense to appoint experts and individuals with experience valuable to the legislative process to contribute to debates on complex legislation. I feel the appointers should have some culpability for their appointees for example they should have to - as servants of the people - validate their decision and if it is generally held to be a poor or nepotistic one then some procedures should exist to potentially make the Lord in question stand down from their chair and the MP face measures to prevent personal factors influencing their appointments.
I think it literally translates as 'who will guard the guards', at least my meaning was as such. I made the point as it is important given that the peers will have some influence of the legal system and as such it will be important that their appointment is on good grounds - rather like you have said in the latter parts of your post. One need only see the backlash and problems following allegations of cronyism with some of Cameron's suggested peers.
0
reply
Nirvana1989-1994
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
It may stop the people from going on about the 'elite'.
0
reply
sleepysnooze
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
no, the legislature is not a jury. they have completely separate purposes and rationales of composition
a jury has random people because it is people, not representatives, that should decide innocence - the decision of innocence (or guilty) doesn't create laws like parliaments do. if you had a jury that was composed of all sections of political society, you wouldn't get unbiased justice but you'd get ochlocracy. that's why it has to be unanimous - because the jurists must reach come kind of neutrality and consensus together, not just via a bare majority. if you had jury-like members in an upper chamber, you could essentially, from time to time, be making laws that NOBODY likes just because you happen to have a day where all the jurists were radicals of some nature. how is that appropriate? why should majoritarian legislation be down to pure luck?! it wouldn't be a neutral consensus because it wouldn't have to be unanimous!

such an idea is totally ridiculous. I hate when people bring this one up because it doesn't appreciate the differences between these two branches. in my opinion, the house of lords is totally useless as it is. it is powerless and has absolutely no constitutional role. it is 75% party political so it is not an effective non-partisan check on party officials and their ambitions. we aren't a federal state so why would we need an upper chamber for such a parliament then if our parliament doesn't perform a check on the power of the government? and if it ever does, it's incredibly minor and more thratrical than substantial. I *do* happen to think we should become a federal state, and therefore, have an *elected* chamber, but I just have such bare faith in politic(ian)s these days that I am never going to hold my breath for that.
0
reply
GonvilleBromhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Muppet Science)
I think it literally translates as 'who will guard the guards', at least my meaning was as such. I made the point as it is important given that the peers will have some influence of the legal system and as such it will be important that their appointment is on good grounds - rather like you have said in the latter parts of your post. One need only see the backlash and problems following allegations of cronyism with some of Cameron's suggested peers.
Could be, I don't speak latin lol.

Oh definitely. Agree 100%.
0
reply
Muppet Science
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
Could be, I don't speak latin lol.

Oh definitely. Agree 100%.
I barely know any either cool username btw - I'm afraid I know little more of it than Zulu taught me.
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

Are you registered to vote?

18-20 years old (yes) (218)
53.3%
18-20 years old (no) (53)
12.96%
20-25 years old (yes) (64)
15.65%
20-25 years old (no) (9)
2.2%
25-30 years old (yes) (24)
5.87%
25-30 years old (no) (0)
0%
30-40 years old (yes) (23)
5.62%
30-40 years old (no) (3)
0.73%
40+ years old (yes) (8)
1.96%
40+ years old (no) (7)
1.71%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed