As I said in my earlier article on Prime Ministers Questions today it looks like Gordon Brown has scrapped the Super Casino policy.
Gordon Brown said:
"This is an issue on which there is no consensus found in the two houses of parliament."
Well it was passed in the House of Commons and thrown out by the House of Lords.
Yvette Cooper (Mrs Balls) who is a far better communicator than her husband Ed was on Newsnight trotting out the same line.
This sticks in the craw somewhat as previously Labour has screamed blue murder when the House of Lords have thrown out other daft measures.
Still it is nice to see Gordon Brown hiding behind the noble House of Lords.
(See the Guardian here for the quote)
Showing posts with label Lords Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lords Reform. Show all posts
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Weasel's FOI bill looks like it is going to die a slow death!
Well, it seems David MacLean's Freedom of information exemption bill is withering and dying because it is about as popular as a rattlesnake in a lucky dip as far as the House of Lords is concerned!
Who said the House of Lords needed reform!
Iain Dale did point out that this would happen yesterday here. It is definitely good news.
Who said the House of Lords needed reform!
Iain Dale did point out that this would happen yesterday here. It is definitely good news.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
House of Lords Reform, Another train wreck?
Well, according to to yesterday's Guardian it may be. In this article, headlined "Labour fears another Lords train wreck", "Labour MPs will warn Jack Straw that he faces another "train wreck" on House of Lords reform unless he changes his voting arrangements for a second time."
Good. I hope Jack ignores them. What we do not need is more constitutional fiddling.
I have also written these articles on House of Lords Reform.
Good. I hope Jack ignores them. What we do not need is more constitutional fiddling.
I have also written these articles on House of Lords Reform.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Lords Reform to be Shelved (Hopefully)!
I hear from the BBC that Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons has shelved plans for having a preferential voting system when the Commons, and indeed Lords decide to vote on which of the dogs breakfast of options that are on offer.
It seems a victory for David Clelland Mp, who I mentioned in this article as being against the preferential voting system.
However I take the view that there won't be enough people agreeing on one system being better than what we currently have, because there is not a single better system. I do accept that you would not have ended up with what we have by design though. It does work.
Now all we need is to have Frank Fields option as well, so the status quo is an option. I think that would be popular.
You can read the BBC article here.
It seems a victory for David Clelland Mp, who I mentioned in this article as being against the preferential voting system.
However I take the view that there won't be enough people agreeing on one system being better than what we currently have, because there is not a single better system. I do accept that you would not have ended up with what we have by design though. It does work.
Now all we need is to have Frank Fields option as well, so the status quo is an option. I think that would be popular.
You can read the BBC article here.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Support this Early Day Motion!
Write to your MP and get them to support this Early Day Motion, proposed by Frank Field MP for Birkenhead.
The motion's text is:
You can contact your MP via They work for you, here.
Hat tip to Dizzy Thinks, here.
The motion's text is:
That this House believes that whatever proposals come forward on House of Lords reform, any indicative vote should include on the ballot paper the option to support the status quo.I have written on the subject of Lords reform here. I think this is a great idea. After all, if it isn't broke, don't fix it!
You can contact your MP via They work for you, here.
Hat tip to Dizzy Thinks, here.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
House of Lords reform
Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House of Commons has come up with some proposals for reform of the House of Lords. He says that if we miss this opportunity to reform the House of Lords then we will miss it for a generation. Good. Lets miss it then.
In this White Paper and speech he has proposed a number of options.
The problem is of course we have been down this road before. No one option is liked by a majority in the House of Commons (or the Lords for that matter) so each alternative gets voted down by a majority and nothing changes.
He has proposed to change the voting system in the Commons for it as well, so that instead of vote for or against each separate proposal MP's have to rank each in order or preference. The least unpopular presumably winning.
Well, as David Clelland Mp for Tyne Bridge, (Labour) does not like the idea of fiddling the voting system to get something. He will be voting against the procedural change and I hope a lot of other MP's do as well. There is a sound reason why there is no agreement thus far. Most MP's think the current system is better than any proposals so far put to them. I agree.
Meanwhile some Labour MP's wishing to do grave damage to our constitution suggest abolishing our house of Lord's and moving to a unicameral system. That is one with only one house. There are clear reasons why that is a bad idea. It would lead to the dictatorship of the mob, or perhaps party machine. The House of commons needs checks and balances. If you want to see what sort of company we would be in if we had a unicameral system, Dizzy has this helpful map. I for one do not want to join that club.
My take on the whole thing is this. If you wanted to create a second chamber today you most certainly would not come up with the House of Lords. However you have to look at what it is for, and what it does. Fundamentally it is there to prevent government doing stupid things, at least with out a fight. It does not stand in the way of manifesto pledges but will seek to amend and alter bills particularly where daft or over authoritarian or both (like the various bits of anti terror legislation).
In an ideal world the commons would hold the executive to account, but frequently it does not because the executive commands a majority in the House of Commons. The Lords does it frequently and well.
Many say we must have elected members of the house of Lords, or that having a combination of hereditary peers and appointed ones is bad. So what? Does it work? Yes. The only thing that you could do is make the Lords more powerful. I am not sure that is a good idea, or less, which I am sure would be a very bad one. Others complain of the name. They think we are a laughing stock in the 21st Century for having a House of Lords. Well what about the monarchy? Are we to lose that too? What of all our old buildings, not very "modern" either.
We were a laughing stock in Europe when we had a parliament in the first place, why should we care what anyone else thinks? We are a separate country with our own traditions and institutions. Other countries have evolved their own. Why do we need to be sheep that follow? Why can't we keep on doing our own thing?
The BBC has this here.
nourishing obscurity has this here.
In this White Paper and speech he has proposed a number of options.
- All 92 hereditaries to sit in the new chamber until they die off
- Current 605 life peers could choose to stay or leave with a generous redundancy package
- A smaller chamber of 540 Peers * 50% to be elected, 30% nominated by Party leaders and 20% by an independent commission
- Peers to be elected in batches of 90 over three elections every 5 years. Term limit of 15 years
The problem is of course we have been down this road before. No one option is liked by a majority in the House of Commons (or the Lords for that matter) so each alternative gets voted down by a majority and nothing changes.
He has proposed to change the voting system in the Commons for it as well, so that instead of vote for or against each separate proposal MP's have to rank each in order or preference. The least unpopular presumably winning.
Well, as David Clelland Mp for Tyne Bridge, (Labour) does not like the idea of fiddling the voting system to get something. He will be voting against the procedural change and I hope a lot of other MP's do as well. There is a sound reason why there is no agreement thus far. Most MP's think the current system is better than any proposals so far put to them. I agree.
Meanwhile some Labour MP's wishing to do grave damage to our constitution suggest abolishing our house of Lord's and moving to a unicameral system. That is one with only one house. There are clear reasons why that is a bad idea. It would lead to the dictatorship of the mob, or perhaps party machine. The House of commons needs checks and balances. If you want to see what sort of company we would be in if we had a unicameral system, Dizzy has this helpful map. I for one do not want to join that club.
My take on the whole thing is this. If you wanted to create a second chamber today you most certainly would not come up with the House of Lords. However you have to look at what it is for, and what it does. Fundamentally it is there to prevent government doing stupid things, at least with out a fight. It does not stand in the way of manifesto pledges but will seek to amend and alter bills particularly where daft or over authoritarian or both (like the various bits of anti terror legislation).
In an ideal world the commons would hold the executive to account, but frequently it does not because the executive commands a majority in the House of Commons. The Lords does it frequently and well.
Many say we must have elected members of the house of Lords, or that having a combination of hereditary peers and appointed ones is bad. So what? Does it work? Yes. The only thing that you could do is make the Lords more powerful. I am not sure that is a good idea, or less, which I am sure would be a very bad one. Others complain of the name. They think we are a laughing stock in the 21st Century for having a House of Lords. Well what about the monarchy? Are we to lose that too? What of all our old buildings, not very "modern" either.
We were a laughing stock in Europe when we had a parliament in the first place, why should we care what anyone else thinks? We are a separate country with our own traditions and institutions. Other countries have evolved their own. Why do we need to be sheep that follow? Why can't we keep on doing our own thing?
The BBC has this here.
nourishing obscurity has this here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
