Is it sensible to appoint so many new peers?

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/02/26/50-mps-out-40-lords-in/

Another 40 Lords to be appointed while reducing the commons by 50.

It will not be long before we are a one-party state.
What's that called? Oligarchy, or aristocracy? Or maybe tyranny or dictatorship.
It certainly isn't democracy as I know it.

"This may sound like an over-elaborate conspiracy theory. That it should be a Conservative Prime Minister, of all things, who would seek to damage the Lords is counterintuitive. But the latest round of appointments (not to mention previous ones) is puzzling, until considered in this light. And these are not simply isolated musings. I have spoken to journalists who claim to have been told by senior Conservative sources that there is indeed a deliberate strategy to undermine the Lords. Such suggestions have started to creep into the newspapers (para 21). Other events in recent years have also contributed to an undermining of the chamber’s reputation. It is notable that the House of Lords Appointments Commission, responsible for proposing expert independent peers, has been invited to make only eight nominations since 2010 – compared to the 31 in the period 2005-10 (in the context of a far smaller total number of peerage appointments). The presence of independent members and experts are among the most popular features of the Lords with the public, and it has previously been widely agreed that Crossbenchers should be maintained at 20%. Instead, this group is being undermined.

Whether by accident or design, David Cameron as Prime Minister is clearly failing in his constitutional duty to appoint responsibly to the Lords, and to protect and maintain the reputation of parliament. No modern Prime Minister has made peerage appointments with this degree of recklessness. There is enormous concern inside the Lords itself about the situation, and there are rumours that this concern is shared in Whitehall as well. But until something is done to constrain his powers, the Prime Minister maintains complete control over the system – in terms of how many peers are appointed, when, and with what party balance. If such powers are abused this becomes extremely serious, given the lack of external constraint – and presents others in the system with a major constitutional challenge. Some may argue that the answer is ‘big’ reform: most obviously the introduction of election. Indeed for some the reaction to my headline could well be “destruction of the Lords: hooray!” But this all depends on what comes in its place. A move to election would require action by government, and this government clearly has absolutely no intention to bring forward a bill. So the risk is instead descent towards a moribund and discredited institution, as existed in the 1950s, with ever weaker ability to hold the government to account. Until some bigger Lords reform happens, the priority must be to maintain the integrity of parliament, and its capacity properly to do its job."

Wonder why?

Meg Russell did actually say that some might think it an over-elaborate conspiracy theory.

Hmmmm.

An idea or yet another conspiracy theory.

Here's an interesting idea. Cameron is trying to destabilise the Lords so they will get rid of it, so the Commons has all the power.

www.democraticaudit.com/?p=15682

Yes indeed, grumppa!

Fair point, Ana, but hope springs eternal.

Eloethan

You can be as sarcastic as you want and twist my posts as many times as you want.

However please read posts more carefully.

I have said I believe there will have to be cross party agreement so we are both stating the bleeding obvious.

I have not said ' I am against ' an elected second chamber/House of Lords. I have repeatedly asked if anybody knows how/what happens to get a 100% elected Hof L as posts were made which sounded as they knew because they had mentioned it, not me! I can't be against it I haven't a bloody clue what it entails, if you read my posts.

You are the one banging on about Corbyn now and I haven't a clue what should be done but I have not asked anybody else what they would do either. Read the posts.

I repeat I was not the poster to introduce what Corbyn said he was going to do , follow the time line of the thread.

Well sorry POGS I forgot we were in the presence of an expert on the parliamentary system. I suspect though many of us are not.

I am suggesting that the dismantlement of the present system and the establishment of a new one is something that is not going to happen overnight and which will require a great deal of consultation and discussion and no doubt people revising their opinions in the course of these discussions.

Given that you know so much about the current system and appear not to be in favour of an elected second chamber, how would you make the whole set-up fit for the 21st century? I don't expect you to agree with everything I or anyone else says but since you're so keen to criticise suggestions made by Corbyn and others as to how the system could be improved, I'm asking you to put forward your ideas on the matter.

Don't you mean 'well before Chilcot', grumppa?

Any elected upper house would challenge the supremacy of the Commons, especially a PR based one. So the HoL cannot perhaps be reformed on its own. And the USA is not a useful parallel unless we plan to give executive power to the Head of State.

Time for a Royal Commission on the Constitution? Give them until 2020 and they can report just before Chilcot.

Eloethan

I haven't asked any GN poster to set out a 'manifesto' !

As for telling me not to focus on Corbyn that is rather odd. I asked questions to posts that declared what Corbyn said he was going to do. I would not have brought Corbyn into the equation had his name not been put forward with a declaration of his intent re House of Lords reform.

As for 'just getting our heads around how the present system works', speak for yourself . I have a resonable understanding. As for media focus and more information then I have to say I have not found that to be the case . That's just a personal thing I suppose.

What I have admitted to not understanding is how a 100% elected House of Lords is formatted. It appears neither does anybody else so far.

It is not confrontational to ask questions or comment on posts ! Do you expect everybody to simply agree with everything that is said?

What an elected second house would be called is hardly the most pressing issue. Complaining about the bishops doesn't move things forward. At least they are elected, if only by other bishops, ditto the remaining hereditaries, elected by other peers originally. Perhaps creating new constituencies, not based on geography, might be a way forward? Thanks for the link, durhamjen. What we need is a proper national discussion about it!

www.aviewfromtheattic.com/the-house-of-lords-abolish-reform-or-replace/

A lot to read for those who want to.

POGS Now that there seems to be a fairly general consensus that the way members of the second chamber are appointed and the way they conduct themselves needs to change, consultations and discussions need to take place to decide the best way to do this. I don't know why you expect members of Gransnet to set down some sort of manifesto when most people are only just getting their heads around how the present system works. Perhaps if there had been more media focus on the size of the HL, the privileges that its members have benefited from, the way in which members are appointed, etc., there would have been more discussions about the issue and we might be in more of a position to make informed suggestions.

Instead of focusing on what Corbyn has or hasn't said and being confrontational about whether those who support him have any better suggestions as to the constitution and role of a second chamber, why not give us some of your ideas as to what changes you might like to see and how they could be implemented?

DJ

Read my post Saturday 12.32 which indicates that I 'do not want the status quo' but I ask how to do it fairly. I don't know the answer but I mention age and the Cof E (lords spiritual)) for examples.

There must be a cross party agreement but I don't understand when you post Corbyn wants a 100% elected Lords (friday 28th 15.16) when I have heard him say otherwise. Then you further post he would get rid of the House of Lords (Sunday 30th). It cannot be both surely to goodness.

Corbyn does want to 'eventually' abolish both the House of Lords and the Monarchy and whilst the Lords does not register as being worthy I am not sure some of the electorate understand just how different the UK will be if Corbyn gains power. The electorate will decide at the ballot box though won't they.

There is a maximum membership bill going through parliament.

services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/houseoflordsmaximummembership/stages.html

So we stay as we are forever because at the moment it is not Corbyn's priority, is that what you are saying, POGS?

First of all he has to be elected. Then he has to sort out other problems.
He has 13,000 grass roots members who have volunteered to help him win this election.
By 2020, he will have got together a well thought out system of how to form the second house and get rid of the House of Lords.
There are lots of systems of PR.
I think as it stands it's only the Commons who can vote to get rid of the Lords. I cannot imagine Cameron doing that before he has his chance to get in there. On the other hand, he still only has a 12 member majority so you never know.

In that case whether it be Corbyn or anybody else I fail to see what /how they can be calling for it without the electorate knowing/understanding what / how it will work..

That is not necessarily getting at Corbyn, I don't care who/which party says they want a 100% elected House of Lords. That's why I said it's 'subjective', at this moment in time.

Not yet because nobody does. But it will not be called the House of Lords.

Fair point, taken on board you don't believe it is just an issue for Cameron and Conservative Party.

Do you understand how the election of candidates and voting procedures work if there is a 100% elected House of Lords?

From the article for you, POGS.

"What’s more, it wasn’t just lefties kicking off in complaint – it was everybody. The House of Lords has now moved into a realm beyond parody. For where is there left to go when Polly Toynbee of the Guardian and Quentin Letts in the Mail find themselves in perfect agreement? What strange twilight zone have we entered when the Morning Star and the Financial Times share an editorial line?"

Where does it say anywhere that I think it was only the Tories who stuffed the Lords with their cronies, POGS, because I cannot find it.

It depends on who is in charge when it happens, POGS.
If it is Corbyn, he does things by consensus.
He will have discussions among the whole of the Labour party about the best way to do it but it will be done by PR. We will probably all be able to elect.

Read the article properly, and you will see that it does not say that it was only Tories that stuffed the Lords. She was disappointed that Labour and the Libdems named new Lords too.

Corbyn has said he will not. Neither will the SNP.

One of the problems with the House of Lords at the moment is that you only leave when you become too ill to attend ever, or you die. There is no upper limit on how many Lords there can be.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the committee challenged at least half a dozen more who did not get appointed this time, Eloethan.

I will keep asking the same question because I don't know the answer and those who are behind a 100% elected House of Lords must know.

Who nominates the candidates?

Who gets to vote for them?