Is it sensible to appoint so many new peers?

I wish I had your blind faith it is/was only the Conservative Party that stuffed the Lords with Cronies DJ.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/30/house-of-lords-house-of-ill-repute

An excellent article about the newly appointed peers.

A second chamber is definitely needed, but a slimmed down one.

Eloethan couldn't agree more! We need some kind of self-denying ordinance, but I don't believe it will happen.

According to the websites I've looked at, the House of Lords Appointments Commission (established 2000) appoints some non-party people and also has to vet nominations recommended by parties "to ensure the highest standards of propriety" (apparently).

Some MPs are nominated to the HL when they leave the Commons.

Resigning Prime Ministers may recommend "resignation honours" for politicians, political advisers and others who have supported them.

There are places for 26 Archbishops and Bishops who, as I understand it, on leaving their posts are replaced by their successors.

It is the convention for former Speakers to go to the HL.

There are 92 places for hereditary peers (and the details as to what constitutes a hereditary peer aren't that straightforward).

It seems to me - and I think most people would agree - that there is probably a need for some sort of second chamber to scrutinise proposed legislation and highlight any concerns that might arise. But the above arrangement seems to me totally unsatisfactory as it encourages cronyism and a subtle form of corruption. This "cosy little club" atmosphere is unlikely to be challenged by those that benefit considerably from it and who, at least in some cases, appear to think that it is outrageous that the system of appointment and the role and benefits of the members should be questioned in any way. And there are far too many of them!

Are not!

pogs the two are mutually exclusive. So you abolish the House of Lords as is - pigs in trough- and then set up an elected house.

DJ

Well I am going on what I believe I heard him say, namely he would prefer to abolish the House of Lords.

You seemed to uphold what I thought when you said in your post of 14.52 when you said 'he would like it abolished'

Now I will proceed with the view by those who are backing Corbyn that he will go for an elected House of Lords.

I still don't understand who puts forward names for election and who is enitled to vote, can anyone tell me.

I am sure you could have found that out for yourself.

“I propose that in opposition the Labour Party convene a constitutional convention to move toward a more democratic devolution settlement across the regions and a more representative parliament.”

He added: “In the interim, under our proposals, the Labour Party will certainly not nominate new peers for the Lords which risks undermining its legitimacy.”

Corbyn's words.

Corbyn wants an elected second chamber and an end to hereditary peerages. He wants the second chamber to be elected by PR.
Cameron wants to have 1000 peers by the end of this parliament.
Corbyn will go along with the SNP and not put up any names for membership of the Lords if he is leader.
He hasn't changed his stance at all.

"Nevertheless, the SNP are hopeful that their 56 MPs plus a Corbyn-led Labour could mount a meaningful challenge to the Prime Minister’s narrow Commons majority.

Both Labour and the Lib Dems made manifesto promises ahead of this year’s general election to replace the current set-up with an elected chamber.

MacNeil said:“The public are growing more and more concerned with the cost of Parliament and David Cameron plans on expanding the House of Lords to over 1,000 members; this will do nothing for public finances or public confidence."

So it looks as though my question can't be answered then.

Not surprised the subject was getting in a muddle. One minute this was the route Corbyn will take then another comes along.

I guess I will have to wait and see if he wins the Leadership election then maybe his 'proposals' will become a little more clear.

I agree about committees,whitewave, but in their present form they have no legislative power. At least a second house can temper a government like we have at the moment. There are a few things that Cameron has given up on already because he knew they would not get through the Lords.

I also do not think we should have fewer MPs unless we have more devolution. If counties are given more power, and finance, we would not need so many MPs.

Don't need a second chamber to scrutinize, committies do that at a much reduced cost

DJ

I thought when I read your post Friday 28th 15.16 where you said 'Corbyn has voted for a 100% elected House of Lords and if elected Corbyn will stand by that ' was maybe giving a different stance according to how I have heard him speak.

So what is the truth? Will he stand by a 100% elected House of Lords or will he try to abolish it? Again I am getting confused as two scenarios are being mentioned.

As for your comment 'government does not often allow debate'. my impression was any backbencher could ask for a debate and the Speaker makes a decision. Perhaps I am wrong but I think there are ways and means and debates are not permitted or chosen by the ruling government benches, if that were the case only government business would be debated and as you know as you too watch Parliament live that is not the case.

www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/votes#reform

This is how he voted on House of Lords reform in the commons.

He would like it abolished, but the government does not often allow a debate on that. Therefore he has to go along with the motion and is only allowed to vote for or against whatever the motion is.

A fully elected house of lords is the equivalent of the second house in the US. It could be elected on party list lines, introducing PR into government.

I agree a house of lords is not needed, but a second body to scrutinise whatever the government of the day wants to push through without debate is absolutely necessary.

WW

So as Durhamjen has pointed out Corbyn has said he stands by his view the House of Lords should be 100% elected. That's his view at the moment I understand.

I take it you do not agree with Corbyn on this matter.

To be honest I am surprised as I thought I could remember Corbyn talking on Russia Today saying he wanted the Lords abolished alongside the monarchy. Might have been talking to George Galloway on his slot . I could be mistaken I will try and find it.

How to get fewer MPs? Introduce PR. Job done!

House of Lords? Why do we need a second house? Get rid of it. Job done.

Explain a 100% elected House of Lords to me please.

Who puts forward the candidate.

Who has the right to vote.

Will it be the government of the days decision, how do you do it fairly ?

The number of MP's is a bone of contention too.

What I don't understand is the muddled thinking that is displayed by some that there should be fewer MP's but when the Boundary Commission want to make a change they don't agree saying it 'favours' a party they don't vote for. It is unfair. So how do you get fewer MP's?

How do you square the process with fairness if you only think of securing votes for your chosen party. I believe there should be fewer MP's, even MP's say they want fewer MP's but not if they are one of them. How do you get fewer MP's without being accused of hypocrisy.

The House of Lords also falls fowl of being stuffed by more Lords etc. by David Cameron now because the House of Lords was stuffed by more Lords etc. by Labour.

Take your political hat off and you will see that the government of they day be it red, blue, green, yellow spotty dotty always stuffs their lot in. If they don't they cannot get anything through Parliament unless they invoke the Parliament Act. which is where the present government were heading because the numbers of opposition Lords was greater than the serving government. The Lords were in charge of the MP's .

Both houses need reform, both houses need fewer members but how do you do it fairly?

I believe there is a case to be had for keeping the Lords but we elect our MP's to run the country. The Lords should not wield such power they can override a government . Hence the over stuffing of members for a government of any colour to be able to govern as the electorate saw fit through the ballot box and the reason why the Parliament Act was introduced.

It's one thing to shout why it is happening but how do you reduce the numbers fairly ?

Some say get rid of those over 80. Fine but to be honest I would rather listen to Baroness Trumpington or Baroness Boothroyd than someone younger with no experience. I personally think the time has come to consider the automatic right of the Lords Spiritual, I am Cof E but I personally don't believe they should take a roll in government. These are points to ponder but how do you reduce the numbers fairly and show no political bias, I haven't got a clue.

Sadly I think you're right auntbett

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/28/house-lords-reform-parody-reality-tv

Good article here.

OBN. The network where nepotism, greed, dodgy favours, hidden corruption, dodgy dealing, creative accounting and a hint of moral degradation seem to be totally acceptable and even applauded. The seediness of the House of Commons requires some tempering by a second chamber, but what's the point when it's more of the same? Time for a change? Yes, but it won't happen - the status quo is very comfy for some.

Don't worry about the chairs, Anya. I expect quite a lot of them might be stay at home peers .
( oops mistyped at first and left out the r).