V1598 – House of Lords Referendum Bill 2020, (Third Reading)

Watch
Poll: Should this Bill be passed into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye. (22)
43.14%
Of the contrary, no. (22)
43.14%
Abstain. (7)
13.73%
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
B1598 - House of Lords Referendum Bill 2020, (Third Reading) TSR Labour Party






House of Lords (Referendum) Bill (2020)

A bill to hold a referendum on the constitutional nature of the House of Lords


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—




1) The holding of a referendum

a) That a referendum be held on TSR in the month of September or October 2020 in accordance with Section VII of the Guidance Document.
b) That the Speaker and/or the TSR Community Team reserves the right to change the timing of the referendum prescribed in section 1(a).

2) Format

a) The question asked in the referendum is 'What should the constitutional nature of the House of Lords be?'.
b) There will be six options on the ballot paper as follows, 1) Reformed, with a partially elected chamber, 2) Reformed with a fully elected chamber, 3) Reformed, through complete abolition, 4) Status quo without hereditary peers and religious peers, 5) Status quo without hereditary peers, 6) Status quo as present.
c) The totals for the 'Reform' option and the 'Status quo' option will be added up, and the option with the most votes on whichever side which has a majority will be seen as the winner of the referendum.


3) Education

a) That government facilitates the delivery leaflets and literature and television advertisements from all campaigns whilst keeping neutral itself.
b) That a debate be held on TSR prior to the referendum between the representatives of the three campaigns.


5) Extent, commencement, and short title

a) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
b) This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.
c) This Act may be cited as the House of Lords (Referendum) Act 2020

Notes

The question of the House of Lords and its constitutional nature have been hotly disputed in the past. Previous governments such as that of Tony Blair and the Coalition government have tried and failed to successfully reform the House of Lords. One of the largest obstacles to reform is that it is unclear what will replace the status quo, abolition or replacement with an elected chamber. This referendum will resolve this issue, and further give popular legitimacy to the chamber if the public choose to keep the status quo.

Changes for Second Reading

The time frame of the referendum has been moved forward so as to not clash with results day, with the date being more flexible if the CT/Speaker wish. A debate will also be held to facilitate scrutiny and education. Constitutional ambiguities about the nature of the referendum have also been resolved.

Changes for Third Reading

There is a resolution to the problem of what the second chamber would look like has been resolved, as well as that of how to carry out the referendum without a second round. Finally the referendum has been made advisory to resolve the problem of how it would be implemented as a binding referendum.

Changes for Division

Section 3 has been removed.

0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
I support this.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 months ago
#3
Ridiculous referendum and one that doesn't solve anything when we'll all be debating the nature of the three options afterwards
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Ridiculous referendum and one that doesn't solve anything when we'll all be debating the nature of the three options afterwards
Wouldn't want any debate, would we?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 months ago
#5
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Wouldn't want any debate, would we?
Have debate; don't have the referendum. A referendum should reach a definite decision and then you can debate the ways to implement that decision. This referendum doesn't do that. It gives the winning side three options.

Pretend the reform side won. Reform through abolition and reform through partial election are on the same side. We're back to square one. Do we abolish it or reform it? Nothing has been solved.
1
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 months ago
#6
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Have debate; don't have the referendum. A referendum should reach a definite decision and then you can debate the ways to implement that decision. This referendum doesn't do that. It gives the winning side three options.

Pretend the reform side won. Reform through abolition and reform through partial election are on the same side. We're back to square one. Do we abolish it or reform it? Nothing has been solved.
Depends which of those options won, I suppose.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Depends which of those options won, I suppose.
Have you read the bill? Both of those options can win at the same time.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 months ago
#8
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Have you read the bill? Both of those options can win at the same time.
How?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
(Original post by Theloniouss)
How?
b) There will be six options on the ballot paper as follows, 1) Reformed, with a partially elected chamber, 2) Reformed with a fully elected chamber, 3) Reformed, through complete abolition, 4) Status quo without hereditary peers and religious peers, 5) Status quo without hereditary peers, 6) Status quo as present.
c) The totals for the 'Reform' option and the 'Status quo' option will be added up, and the option with the most votes on whichever side which has a majority will be seen as the winner of the referendum.


Potentially weird outcomes:

(1) Reform side wins. Reformed with partial election has 33.33% of reform votes, reform with full election has 33.33% and reform by abolition has 33.33%. In this outcome you're back to square one and nothing has been resolved. There's a winning side with contrasting options and there isn't a winner.

(2) Reform by abolition has 25% of total votes, reform by partial election has 15%, reform by full election has 15%, status quo without hereditary peers has 18%, status quo without religious peers has 18% and status quo without reform will have 18%.

Total for abolition: 25%
Total for keeping HoL in some function: 84%

In this referendum abolition would win. How is that acceptable? That's an outrage for anyone who values democracy. Ok it's advisory. That doesn't help. I'd expect a sensible government to ignore it in this case and when they do you're back to square one.

The referendum doesn't achieve anything!
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 months ago
#10
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
b) There will be six options on the ballot paper as follows, 1) Reformed, with a partially elected chamber, 2) Reformed with a fully elected chamber, 3) Reformed, through complete abolition, 4) Status quo without hereditary peers and religious peers, 5) Status quo without hereditary peers, 6) Status quo as present.
c) The totals for the 'Reform' option and the 'Status quo' option will be added up, and the option with the most votes on whichever side which has a majority will be seen as the winner of the referendum.


Potentially weird outcomes:

(1) Reform side wins. Reformed with partial election has 33.33% of reform votes, reform with full election has 33.33% and reform by abolition has 33.33%. In this outcome you're back to square one and nothing has been resolved. There's a winning side with contrasting options and there isn't a winner.

(2) Reform by abolition has 25% of total votes, reform by partial election has 15%, reform by full election has 15%, status quo without hereditary peers has 18%, status quo without religious peers has 18% and status quo without reform will have 18%.

Total for abolition: 25%
Total for keeping HoL in some function: 84%

In this referendum abolition would win. How is that acceptable? That's an outrage for anyone who values democracy. Ok it's advisory. That doesn't help. I'd expect a sensible government to ignore it in this case and when they do you're back to square one.

The referendum doesn't achieve anything!
I suppose it's possible there's a tie. (probably should've been covered in the bill but it's unlikely anyway).

Because you've ignored that they're already categorised.

It's not advisory.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 months ago
#11
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I suppose it's possible there's a tie. (probably should've been covered in the bill but it's unlikely anyway).

Because you've ignored that they're already categorised.

It's not advisory.
There's two winners in the referendum. There's the categorised winner. Then the overall winner is the winner from within that category. The categorisation is a ploy to make it look more democratic.

"the option with the most votes on whichever side which has a majority will be seen as the winner of the referendum."

I.e. the categories (3 on each side) are added up and the option with the most votes on whichever side has a majority (assume this was narrowly abolition on the side of reform that has a majority) would be the winner. Abolition could win despite an overwhelmingly massive majority being against abolition.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 months ago
#12
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
There's two winners in the referendum. There's the categorised winner. Then the overall winner is the winner from within that category. The categorisation is a ploy to make it look more democratic.

"the option with the most votes on whichever side which has a majority will be seen as the winner of the referendum."

I.e. the categories (3 on each side) are added up and the option with the most votes on whichever side has a majority (assume this was narrowly abolition on the side of reform that has a majority) would be the winner. Abolition could win despite an overwhelmingly massive majority being against abolition.
That is true of any of the options. I see no real issue with it - it's an inevitable consequence of having multiple options.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 months ago
#13
(Original post by Theloniouss)
That is true of any of the options. I see no real issue with it - it's an inevitable consequence of having multiple options.
You're happy then with the least popular option being declared the winner?

That's the most antidemocratic view I've heard in a long time.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 months ago
#14
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
You're happy then with the least popular option being declared the winner?

That's the most antidemocratic view I've heard in a long time.
It isn't possible for the least popular option to win. It would have to be at least the third most popular.
Last edited by Theloniouss; 2 months ago
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 months ago
#15
(Original post by Theloniouss)
It isn't possible for the least popular option to win. It would have to be at least the third most popular.
83% of people could be against abolition. Abolition still wins. It is possible for the least popular option to win.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 months ago
#16
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
83% of people could be against abolition. Abolition still wins. It is possible for the least popular option to win.
That doesn't make it the least popular option, it makes it less popular than all the other options combined. (but more popular than at least 3 of the other options - in fact, in the example you gave in post 9 it was the most popular option.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 months ago
#17
(Original post by Theloniouss)
That doesn't make it the least popular option, it makes it less popular than all the other options combined. (but more popular than at least 3 of the other options - in fact, in the example you gave in post 9 it was the most popular option.
Abolition would have 17% of the vote. Not abolishing would have 83%

In what world is 17% > 83%?
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 months ago
#18
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Abolition would have 17% of the vote. Not abolishing would have 83%

In what world is 17% > 83%?
Given that 'not abolish' isn't an option, it would actually have 0% of the vote.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 months ago
#19
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Given that 'not abolish' isn't an option, it would actually have 0% of the vote.
You are purposely being obtuse to try defending what is clearly anti-democratic.

You are supporting a gerrymandered referendum.
0
S-Ryan2020
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 months ago
#20
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
You're happy then with the least popular option being declared the winner?

That's the most antidemocratic view I've heard in a long time
Let’s just take an example where voters had multiple choices. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was democratically elected president in a 4 way race but only carried 40% of the popular vote while the other 60% was spread amongst the other 3 candidates. If we were to go by your logic then Lincoln shouldn’t have been made president, correct?
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

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (550)
34.06%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (665)
41.18%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (327)
20.25%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (73)
4.52%

Watched Threads

View All