"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 06:53:04 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/03/17 21:10, bert wrote:
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current
Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It
now
risks losing its credibility.

As others have said a totally elected house would lead to a challenge
to
the authority of the commons as Lords claimed to represent
constituents.
There is not much appetite for such a House.

So can I suggest the following

a) the absolute size of the HOL would be capped

b) a portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population). They would simply be elected in order of preference
Members
would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years) but could then stand
for
re-election

c) within a month of a general election each party could nominate a
group of members to represent them in proportion to the number of votes
they received. There could be a minimum percentage applied to qualify
for any members, say 5%. These members would serve until one month
after
the next General Election when they could be re-nominated. Independents
would not reach the threshold.

d) as long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented.

e) Law Lords A number of the judiciary to be appointed to provide the
necessary legal expertise

f) Other Expertise This is where it gets difficult How to control the
introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and
expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs
entertainment, other religions sport etc. (Note the Honours System
exists to simply reward them for achievement). With a total cap on the
size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life
which would restrict new blood coming in or for a fixed term such as 15
years.

I've probably missed other categories.

Now where's my coat...

Brave attempt bert, but I think that you miss the historical point of an
upper chamber.

And that is that it should be selected by a process as unlike the lower
as possible, in order than any flaws in the lower chamber not be
reflected in the upper.

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it with
political appointees.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

Of course that leaves the question of who gets appointed.

I actually don't have an answer to that. Lottery? People the queen just
likes?

BUT I do like the principle that someone gets a lifetime sinecure in
exchange for considering the affairs of the nation.

The worst thing that has happened to politics in my lifetime, is the
demise of the independently wealthy politician who didn't need to get
elected just to keep his job.

It should be peopled with retired experts who do it for expenses only.

Why are they any more likely to do what is necessary than anyone else ?

Numbers should be capped.
There should be a range of skills.
New members should have to apply and be interviewed.

That last is even sillier than you usually manage.

"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
news
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

On 04/03/17 21:10, bert wrote:
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current
Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It now
risks losing its credibility.

As others have said a totally elected house would lead to a challenge to
the authority of the commons as Lords claimed to represent constituents.
There is not much appetite for such a House.

So can I suggest the following

a) the absolute size of the HOL would be capped

b) a portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population). They would simply be elected in order of preference Members
would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years) but could then stand for
re-election

c) within a month of a general election each party could nominate a
group of members to represent them in proportion to the number of votes
they received. There could be a minimum percentage applied to qualify
for any members, say 5%. These members would serve until one month after
the next General Election when they could be re-nominated. Independents
would not reach the threshold.

d) as long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented.

e) Law Lords A number of the judiciary to be appointed to provide the
necessary legal expertise

f) Other Expertise This is where it gets difficult How to control the
introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and
expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs
entertainment, other religions sport etc. (Note the Honours System
exists to simply reward them for achievement). With a total cap on the
size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life
which would restrict new blood coming in or for a fixed term such as 15
years.

I've probably missed other categories.

Now where's my coat...

Brave attempt bert, but I think that you miss the historical point of an
upper chamber.

And that is that it should be selected by a process as unlike the lower as
possible, in order than any flaws in the lower chamber not be reflected in
the upper.

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it with
political appointees.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

Of course that leaves the question of who gets appointed.

I actually don't have an answer to that. Lottery? People the queen just
likes?

BUT I do like the principle that someone gets a lifetime sinecure in
exchange for considering the affairs of the nation.

The worst thing that has happened to politics in my lifetime, is the
demise of the independently wealthy politician who didn't need to get
elected just to keep his job.


Solution is simple: Get rid of EVERY appointed Peer of whatever political
colour, and keep the hereditary ones. It may seem totally illogical for
them to be in position, as they got there by birth right, but it worked
when that was the process as they were only answerable to themselves.

Its very arguable that it did work.

No system is ideal !

But some stink.

On 05/03/17 17:06, wrote:
But it is far from clear that those are what a modern economy
needs in a parliament. Trump is in fact just that.
A parliament, or a modern economy?


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

In article ,
tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news


The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it
with political appointees.

well he packed it with political appointees in order to redress the
imbalance of the Hereditaries who were almost universally Tories, giving
the Tories an inbuilt majority in the house of 100s

Which would be terrifying to the likes of Turnip who thinks a hereditary
ruling class the only way. Wouldn't do to have an oik in charge, now,
would it?

--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the
current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

it's not "full of" Lib-Dem and Labour, it's just that there is no
longer a majority of Tories, like wot there used to be

Yes I went a bit off message then.
the numbers a
Conservative 252
Labour 202
Liberal Democrats 102
Crossbenchers 177
Others 71

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It
now risks losing its credibility.

Agreed


tim


I deliberately didn't propose numbers of each category I suggested. I
perhaps should also have included the current hereditary peers though I
am not their greatest fan. Perhaps they could be included initially but
then phased out over the next generation.
One of the requirements of any reform proposal is that it is
sufficiently balanced to get voted for by those parties with a vested
interest. The HOC has already rejected the proposal to have a totally
elected HOL as putt forward by the Lib-Dems during the coalition.
--
bert

On Monday, 6 March 2017 02:43:30 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the
current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

it's not "full of" Lib-Dem and Labour, it's just that there is no
longer a majority of Tories, like wot there used to be

Yes I went a bit off message then.
the numbers a
Conservative 252
Labour 202
Liberal Democrats 102
Crossbenchers 177
Others 71

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It
now risks losing its credibility.

Agreed


tim


I deliberately didn't propose numbers of each category I suggested. I
perhaps should also have included the current hereditary peers though I
am not their greatest fan. Perhaps they could be included initially but
then phased out over the next generation.
One of the requirements of any reform proposal is that it is
sufficiently balanced to get voted for by those parties with a vested
interest. The HOC has already rejected the proposal to have a totally
elected HOL as putt forward by the Lib-Dems during the coalition.


Well if it was elected, it would have equal powers to the HoC.
Who would have the last word?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 02:43:30 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the
current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

it's not "full of" Lib-Dem and Labour, it's just that there is no
longer a majority of Tories, like wot there used to be

Yes I went a bit off message then.
the numbers a
Conservative 252
Labour 202
Liberal Democrats 102
Crossbenchers 177
Others 71

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It
now risks losing its credibility.

Agreed


tim


I deliberately didn't propose numbers of each category I suggested. I
perhaps should also have included the current hereditary peers though I
am not their greatest fan. Perhaps they could be included initially but
then phased out over the next generation.
One of the requirements of any reform proposal is that it is
sufficiently balanced to get voted for by those parties with a vested
interest. The HOC has already rejected the proposal to have a totally
elected HOL as putt forward by the Lib-Dems during the coalition.


Well if it was elected, it would have equal powers to the HoC.
Who would have the last word?

That would be enshrined in law, and the candidates would know what rights
they were to get before they decide to stand.

This is no different to HMG having a higher status than local councils.
No-one suggests that LAs have "equal status" with national government just
because both are elected.

I see no reason why that argument would fly for an elected Second Chamber
either - it's a straw man put up by people with a vested interest in not
having an elected second chamber (and unfortunately believed by 90% of the
rest)

tim

On 06/03/2017 10:25, tim... wrote:



I see no reason why that argument would fly for an elected Second
Chamber either - it's a straw man put up by people with a vested
interest in not having an elected second chamber (and unfortunately
believed by 90% of the rest)

tim

How would having an elected HOL be better than, say, doubling the number
of MPs and electing them?
Say half at mid term?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 06/03/2017 10:25, tim... wrote:



I see no reason why that argument would fly for an elected Second
Chamber either - it's a straw man put up by people with a vested
interest in not having an elected second chamber (and unfortunately
believed by 90% of the rest)

tim

How would having an elected HOL be better than, say, doubling the number
of MPs and electing them?

the point is that the HoL is a revising chamber, and for un-contentious
bills (by all accounts) does a very diligent job improving bills that the
HoC has shot through in inadequate time because there is no political
capital to be won spending time on it.

It is only when the HoL gets involved in making politically motivated
changes that there is problem.

But if we took it away because of the latter, there would be no-one doing
the former

tim

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 6 March 2017 02:43:30 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the
current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

it's not "full of" Lib-Dem and Labour, it's just that there is no
longer a majority of Tories, like wot there used to be

Yes I went a bit off message then.
the numbers a
Conservative 252
Labour 202
Liberal Democrats 102
Crossbenchers 177
Others 71

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It
now risks losing its credibility.

Agreed


tim


I deliberately didn't propose numbers of each category I suggested. I
perhaps should also have included the current hereditary peers though I
am not their greatest fan. Perhaps they could be included initially but
then phased out over the next generation.
One of the requirements of any reform proposal is that it is
sufficiently balanced to get voted for by those parties with a vested
interest. The HOC has already rejected the proposal to have a totally
elected HOL as putt forward by the Lib-Dems during the coalition.


Well if it was elected, it would have equal powers to the HoC.
Who would have the last word?

No one does, just like with any other bicameral system.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 06/03/2017 10:25, tim... wrote:



I see no reason why that argument would fly for an elected Second
Chamber either - it's a straw man put up by people with a vested
interest in not having an elected second chamber (and unfortunately
believed by 90% of the rest)

tim

How would having an elected HOL be better than, say, doubling the number
of MPs and electing them?
Say half at mid term?

The other house usually has a quite different system
for electing the members, normally with multi member
electorates and that can see a different party with the
majority of members to the other house. And often with
not all the members of that house being elected at one time.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
the point is that the HoL is a revising chamber, and for un-contentious
bills (by all accounts) does a very diligent job improving bills that
the HoC has shot through in inadequate time because there is no
political capital to be won spending time on it.

It is only when the HoL gets involved in making politically motivated
changes that there is problem.

Can you give a few examples of legislation that isn't 'politically
motivated'?

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
the point is that the HoL is a revising chamber, and for un-contentious
bills (by all accounts) does a very diligent job improving bills that
the HoC has shot through in inadequate time because there is no
political capital to be won spending time on it.

It is only when the HoL gets involved in making politically motivated
changes that there is problem.

Can you give a few examples of legislation that isn't 'politically
motivated'?

An irrelevant question. What the HoL is supposed to do, regardless of
which flavour of government is in power, is to improve bills to make
their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and possible unintended
consequences. And perhaps other things in the same vein.

Its actually been a govt funded retirement home for more than a century now.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
the point is that the HoL is a revising chamber, and for un-contentious
bills (by all accounts) does a very diligent job improving bills that
the HoC has shot through in inadequate time because there is no
political capital to be won spending time on it.

It is only when the HoL gets involved in making politically motivated
changes that there is problem.

Can you give a few examples of legislation that isn't 'politically
motivated'?

where the changes are not politically motivated, not the whole bill

tim

On 07/03/2017 03:20, Tim Streater wrote:

An irrelevant question. What the HoL is supposed to do, regardless of
which flavour of government is in power, is to improve bills to make
their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and possible unintended
consequences. And perhaps other things in the same vein.


Isn't that what they have done with the brexit bill?
The government has said they will protect to rights of EU citizens
already here and the HOL has put clauses in to do so.
So what's all the fuss about?
Brexiteers that don't want the rights protected?

Brexiteers are pretty dumb if they think they have voted for anything
other than the UK having no say in the EU.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Can you give a few examples of legislation that isn't 'politically
motivated'?

An irrelevant question. What the HoL is supposed to do, regardless of
which flavour of government is in power, is to improve bills to make
their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and possible unintended
consequences. And perhaps other things in the same vein.

You've found a copy of their constitution, have you?

How about throwing out a bill they know will ruin the country? ;-)

--
*WOULD A FLY WITHOUT WINGS BE CALLED A WALK?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 07/03/2017 03:20, Tim Streater wrote:

An irrelevant question. What the HoL is supposed to do, regardless of
which flavour of government is in power, is to improve bills to make
their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and possible unintended
consequences. And perhaps other things in the same vein.


Isn't that what they have done with the brexit bill?
The government has said they will protect to rights of EU citizens already
here and the HOL has put clauses in to do so.
So what's all the fuss about?
Brexiteers that don't want the rights protected?

They dont like the detail of how the 'rights' are protected.

Brexiteers are pretty dumb if they think they have voted for anything
other than the UK having no say in the EU.

You remoaners should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

Obviously not.

In article ,
harry writes
On Monday, 6 March 2017 02:43:30 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the
current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

it's not "full of" Lib-Dem and Labour, it's just that there is no
longer a majority of Tories, like wot there used to be

Yes I went a bit off message then.
the numbers a
Conservative 252
Labour 202
Liberal Democrats 102
Crossbenchers 177
Others 71

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It
now risks losing its credibility.

Agreed


tim


I deliberately didn't propose numbers of each category I suggested. I
perhaps should also have included the current hereditary peers though I
am not their greatest fan. Perhaps they could be included initially but
then phased out over the next generation.
One of the requirements of any reform proposal is that it is
sufficiently balanced to get voted for by those parties with a vested
interest. The HOC has already rejected the proposal to have a totally
elected HOL as putt forward by the Lib-Dems during the coalition.


Well if it was elected, it would have equal powers to the HoC.
Who would have the last word?
Which is why I suggest only a portion be elected.
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 07/03/2017 03:20, Tim Streater wrote:

An irrelevant question. What the HoL is supposed to do, regardless of
which flavour of government is in power, is to improve bills to make
their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and possible unintended
consequences. And perhaps other things in the same vein.


Isn't that what they have done with the brexit bill?
How naive.
The government has said they will protect to rights of EU citizens
already here and the HOL has put clauses in to do so.
The commons decided not to put in that clause. The HOL has reinserted it
in order to weaken the hand of the government in negotiations.
So what's all the fuss about?
The rights of British citizens currently living in the EU,
Brexiteers that don't want the rights protected?

We want the rights of British citizens living in the EU to be protected.
The UK has signed up to the Vienna Convention on Acquired Rights, many
EU member countries including France have not.
Brexiteers are pretty dumb if they think they have voted for anything
other than the UK having no say in the EU.


Remainers are so dumb they don't seem to understand that Brexit means
Brexit, and they assume everyone else is as dumb as them. They don't
seem to care about the rights of EU citizens living in the EU.
--
bert