James
4th February 2003, 23:03
Lords Reform:
Another Defeat for Democracy
Another Victory for Dictatorship
Tuesday February 4, 2003
In New Labour’s 1997 election manifesto, New Labour promised a reform of the House of Lords.
The reform of the House of Lords is a rather long and complicated one, this is partly due to the actions and efforts of the ‘forces that be’ (i.e. Tony and the boys). Plans to reform the House of Lords are frequently crowed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - but they are never that high on the agenda, and rarely materialise into any real substance producing proper results.
Patriots of the Lords often argue that it has many useful functions, for example delaying bills in order that governments will think them through again and thus improve upon the original. Correcting, so that amendments can be made to government bills in the interests of the country. Many great debates have taken place in the house and it is aruged that debating is a strong feat of the Lords as they have plenty of time and little political bias to obstruct the efficiency of their debates. And finally the safe guarding of human rights so that if a government took power and wanted to use its powers to target individual liberties, then the house could act as a stalwart against the “elective dictatorship” that would be the Commons. All in all the Lords is acting as one of the many checks and balances that make our system fair, just and democratic.
But let us look at these in more detail before we raise the flag and start blindly saluting:
Delaying bills, true whilst this may be 'useful' what right do unrepresentative, unaccountable and out-of-touch individuals have to infringe on the bills created by a fully elected (in theory) and accountable (in theory) body?
Amendments, (please see above). In addition, this is very dangerous because it's one step further than delaying. Instead of simply stopping a bill from being passed for a year or two, this 'function' allows this oligarchy body to change bills beyond recognition of the original which has been drawn up by the representatives who are accountable and in theory in touch with the people etc.
Debating, I’m glad that the House of Lords debates issues! If it wasn’t for this body, I’m sure there would be no debate in the country outside the House of Commons…
Safe Guarding Human Rights, this particular argument looks good on paper, but let’s look at in reality shall we? My biggest concern is that the House of Lords is afraid to act on issues that this argument deals with, i.e. The really important issues. It would be afraid to act, because if the Government is big enough (that is, has a big enough majority - no. of seats) to pass through a bill reducing personal liberty - then it will be easily big enough to force bills through the Lords. Bills can be forced by a big government, by simple threats of swamping with bill-friendly individuals and/or simple reform/disbanding.
‘What’s the alternative though?’ the traditionalist calls; in-between salutes, ‘well a fully elected second chamber of course!’ the rationalist replies.
Returning to the original theme of the article though, what has Labour done since 1997? Bearing in mind that the government has had 6 years now to act upon this promise. Well this is where the path gets rather clouded. No one is quite sure!
There are reports though that a Commission was eventually set up made up of 24 in all including members of both the Commons and the Lords, with Robin ‘goblin’ Cook heading it. The committee finally reported back in December and after many ‘set backs’, resulting with several ‘recommendations’ in a very long report.
Including the brain boggling options, 0%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% and 80% elected, with the rest being appointed. It was rather a disappointment to see such quality of “recommendations”especially considering the length of time and resources spent on the matter. The report is available to the public and I personally do not advise you to seek out and read it, on the account that it’s boring and states the obvious.
The Peers (Lords seated in the house) today backed a fully appointed House of Lords (Surprise, surprise!), the vote going 335 to 110 - a majority of 225.
I shall let you pick yourself up from the floor now after that big shock! It gets more amazing though as they also rejected the option of a fully elected house by 329 votes to 106 in another vote.
But seriously, is a chamber such as the House of Lords going to vote itself out?
The decisions show support for the view of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine (Who is going to be retiring on a package worth £2m from the taxpayer under a special deal offered to the country's three 'great offices of state.') and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair told the Commons last week that he was against a "hybrid" upper house made up of democratically elected peers, so does this mean he’s against a democratic chamber? Well, I think it’s probably more a case of he just wants more ‘jobs for the boys’. After all, the civil service must be getting rather full of the boys by now.
The leader of the Conservative peers, Lord Strathclyde, said: "The prime minister has said he is not in favour of elections and that Lords should be aware that whatever happens there is unlikely to be any legislation this side of the general election."
These ‘crucial’ votes on the future composition of the Lords follow ‘recommendations’ from the joint committee on Lords reform. The committee is now meant to debate (But doesn’t that only happen in the Lords?) the results and come back with even more ‘recommendations’ (Oh woopie!), sometime after the half term parliamentary recess. When precisely though is a mystery to everyone, including the goblin I suspect.
Another Defeat for Democracy
Another Victory for Dictatorship
Tuesday February 4, 2003
In New Labour’s 1997 election manifesto, New Labour promised a reform of the House of Lords.
The reform of the House of Lords is a rather long and complicated one, this is partly due to the actions and efforts of the ‘forces that be’ (i.e. Tony and the boys). Plans to reform the House of Lords are frequently crowed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - but they are never that high on the agenda, and rarely materialise into any real substance producing proper results.
Patriots of the Lords often argue that it has many useful functions, for example delaying bills in order that governments will think them through again and thus improve upon the original. Correcting, so that amendments can be made to government bills in the interests of the country. Many great debates have taken place in the house and it is aruged that debating is a strong feat of the Lords as they have plenty of time and little political bias to obstruct the efficiency of their debates. And finally the safe guarding of human rights so that if a government took power and wanted to use its powers to target individual liberties, then the house could act as a stalwart against the “elective dictatorship” that would be the Commons. All in all the Lords is acting as one of the many checks and balances that make our system fair, just and democratic.
But let us look at these in more detail before we raise the flag and start blindly saluting:
Delaying bills, true whilst this may be 'useful' what right do unrepresentative, unaccountable and out-of-touch individuals have to infringe on the bills created by a fully elected (in theory) and accountable (in theory) body?
Amendments, (please see above). In addition, this is very dangerous because it's one step further than delaying. Instead of simply stopping a bill from being passed for a year or two, this 'function' allows this oligarchy body to change bills beyond recognition of the original which has been drawn up by the representatives who are accountable and in theory in touch with the people etc.
Debating, I’m glad that the House of Lords debates issues! If it wasn’t for this body, I’m sure there would be no debate in the country outside the House of Commons…
Safe Guarding Human Rights, this particular argument looks good on paper, but let’s look at in reality shall we? My biggest concern is that the House of Lords is afraid to act on issues that this argument deals with, i.e. The really important issues. It would be afraid to act, because if the Government is big enough (that is, has a big enough majority - no. of seats) to pass through a bill reducing personal liberty - then it will be easily big enough to force bills through the Lords. Bills can be forced by a big government, by simple threats of swamping with bill-friendly individuals and/or simple reform/disbanding.
‘What’s the alternative though?’ the traditionalist calls; in-between salutes, ‘well a fully elected second chamber of course!’ the rationalist replies.
Returning to the original theme of the article though, what has Labour done since 1997? Bearing in mind that the government has had 6 years now to act upon this promise. Well this is where the path gets rather clouded. No one is quite sure!
There are reports though that a Commission was eventually set up made up of 24 in all including members of both the Commons and the Lords, with Robin ‘goblin’ Cook heading it. The committee finally reported back in December and after many ‘set backs’, resulting with several ‘recommendations’ in a very long report.
Including the brain boggling options, 0%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% and 80% elected, with the rest being appointed. It was rather a disappointment to see such quality of “recommendations”especially considering the length of time and resources spent on the matter. The report is available to the public and I personally do not advise you to seek out and read it, on the account that it’s boring and states the obvious.
The Peers (Lords seated in the house) today backed a fully appointed House of Lords (Surprise, surprise!), the vote going 335 to 110 - a majority of 225.
I shall let you pick yourself up from the floor now after that big shock! It gets more amazing though as they also rejected the option of a fully elected house by 329 votes to 106 in another vote.
But seriously, is a chamber such as the House of Lords going to vote itself out?
The decisions show support for the view of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine (Who is going to be retiring on a package worth £2m from the taxpayer under a special deal offered to the country's three 'great offices of state.') and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair told the Commons last week that he was against a "hybrid" upper house made up of democratically elected peers, so does this mean he’s against a democratic chamber? Well, I think it’s probably more a case of he just wants more ‘jobs for the boys’. After all, the civil service must be getting rather full of the boys by now.
The leader of the Conservative peers, Lord Strathclyde, said: "The prime minister has said he is not in favour of elections and that Lords should be aware that whatever happens there is unlikely to be any legislation this side of the general election."
These ‘crucial’ votes on the future composition of the Lords follow ‘recommendations’ from the joint committee on Lords reform. The committee is now meant to debate (But doesn’t that only happen in the Lords?) the results and come back with even more ‘recommendations’ (Oh woopie!), sometime after the half term parliamentary recess. When precisely though is a mystery to everyone, including the goblin I suspect.