Why does the UK still have the House of Lords

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I mean I understand preserving the monarchy = tourism dollars thing, but are there tourists that go to Britain because of the House of Lords? Why's it still exist? What up with that?

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 23 January 2003 16:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Its better than having a Homelessness Of Lords. They wouldn't last ten minutes on the mean streets on London.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 23 January 2003 16:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh it keeps them happy, leave them to it.

― jel -- (jel), Thursday, 23 January 2003 18:05 (twenty-three years ago)

give it up for the ladies

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 23 January 2003 18:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Apparently, lots of tourists do queue up to watch parliamentary debates. I imagine most prefer the Commons, though - it's a bit more lively, and most of the members don't look as if they died in 1982.

Having a parliamentary chamber that can give the government a slapping when necessary = classic. Having one whose members all have a seat for life = debatably c/d. Having one which always has a massive bias towards one party = dud.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 23 January 2003 18:54 (twenty-three years ago)

the only good thing about the House of Lords is that they stop a lot of the stupider Labour policies, bills and motions getting through - because of course all Lords are evil Tory bigwigs...so in the interests of balance perhaps they still have some use, otherwise i'd scrap the lot of em ASAP

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 23 January 2003 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

To entertain the Ladies, silly.

― Lara (Lara), Thursday, 23 January 2003 19:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Many Lords have sat in the house for less time than Strom Thurmond sat in the Senate.

Lords reform should be part of a root and branch reform of British Democracy.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I understand the whole fuss about the uselessness of the Lords, but what I never understood was the idea to scrap the mess instead of reforming it. It seems like the perfect place to re-create as the start of 21st century cameral organization and function; what has happened to the Lords over time seems to be merely its slow disarming and decay. Why not make it productive?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:12 (twenty-three years ago)

What? Like the Scottish parliament?

*chuckle*

― Lara (Lara), Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Do the lords have much legislative power? (Please excuse my ignorance of British government.)

― JD (JND), Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Not that much. They can reject bills that the Commons has passed so that they have to be debated again but ultimately the Commons can get its way.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:22 (twenty-three years ago)

The House of Lords is still better then the Canadian Senate. what a joke that body is.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:24 (twenty-three years ago)

It's also in some weird constitutional way the highest court in the land so when people lose appeals they sometimes can take it to the House of Lords. I think Morrissey was considering this over not wanting to give Joyce and Rourke any money. But increasingly people seem to be taking things to the European Court of Human Rights instead.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:24 (twenty-three years ago)

I like to imagine Morrissey presenting his case to the Lords in song.

― JD (JND), Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:53 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd like to imagine Morrissey presenting his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:55 (twenty-three years ago)

I like to imagine Morrissey fellating vegetarian snacks.

― Lara (Lara), Thursday, 23 January 2003 23:07 (twenty-three years ago)

Today's agenda "Does anyone in this bitch like taxes?"

― jel -- (jel), Thursday, 23 January 2003 23:09 (twenty-three years ago)

The Lords is the highest court in the L:and but only the Law Lords make judgements. They are the nearest thing we have to a Supreme Court, in tandem with the European Courts of Human Rights and justice. the Law Lords are probably the most eligible members of the lords, however I believe that they don't vote on legislation for reasons of tradition and impartiality.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 23 January 2003 23:42 (twenty-three years ago)

For similar reasons, Morrissey does not fellate them.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 23 January 2003 23:51 (twenty-three years ago)

two years pass...

obviously the house of lords is a terrible anachronism that should have been got rid of in 1832.

but it wasn't, and today, perversely, the constitution depends on the lords.

one old anti-democratic argument was that people don't vote 'freely' for the good: they vote in terms of 'interest'. while this was clearly a tactical defence against the labour vote, it takes on a different meaning in parliament, where supine labout mps will vote through pretty much anything.

hence charles clarke's enabling act, which, wihtout the lords' oppostion, would have put a government minister above the law.

what to do? the lords need to go, but what's the alternative? you can't rely on the fact many labour mps are lawyers for them to respect the constitution.

― NRQ, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:00 (twenty-one years ago)

i still favour eno's much-mocked "second house by lottery" proposal

it wd be like jury duty x 1000000!! (disclaimer: i have never had to do jury duty and it sounds exciting to me)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Billy Bragg had a good idea about this one a few years ago. I can't remember it exactly, but I think the gist of it was there would be, say, 100 people elected to the House of Whatever at the same time as the General Election, but they wouldn't represent constituencies. They would be taken from party lists, representing the parties proportionately to the share of the vote they got in the general election (so you might get something like 40 Labour, 32 Conservative, 20 Lib Dems and a handful of nationalists). This would almost certainly mean that the government would have the largest number of people in the second chanber, but they wouldn't have an overall majority (unless they'd got more than 50% of the votes, which never happens). So it would be representative, but no government could steamroller through all their ideas.

― The Horse of Babylon (the pirate king), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem then is - why should the more democratically elected house defer to the less democratic one?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i still favour eno's much-mocked "second house by lottery" proposal

this is a great idea. Ancicent Athens assigned many offices by lot.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a way of putting into practice the idea that the pre-eminent value is democracy - primacy thus alweays resides ultimately with the chamber that better embodies the democratic will. However, there are other values that whilst not as important in the final analysis, are still important enough to be thought necessary and crucially, not guaranteed to be provided through democratic processes alone - consideration, analysis, reason etc.

Billy's idea here

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

another pre-eminent value is the law, though, and the problem of replacing the law lords with lottery winners is you lose that guarantee. already the practical situation of MPs -- who between ambition and coercion are beholden to the party far more than their electors -- tends to interfere with the functioning of 'the democratic will'.

― NRQ, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

actually i think the lottery idea only proposes that a proportion be chosen by lot (and they have term limits)

the law lords as part of the lords (as curently) is surely a spatch-cock made-do of a solution?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:18 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, totally -- in keeping with most aspects of the british state and constitution.

― NRQ, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:20 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem then is - why should the more democratically elected house defer to the less democratic one?

If the government was still elected by first-past-the-post, it would get the scheme past all those who say "but PR leads to weak coalition governments!"

the law lords as part of the lords (as curently) is surely a spatch-cock made-do of a solution?

When they finally get round to setting up the Supreme Court of England and Wales (coming soon, honest), then the HoL will lose its status as a court of law in any case.

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)

another pre-eminent value is the law, though, and the problem of replacing the law lords with lottery winners is you lose that guarantee.

well why not just have a supreme court with JUDGES in it, like in normal countries?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

a) they effectively already do, because cases are decided by legal panels consisting solely of law lords

b) one is going to be appearing, as soon as they stop arguing about what building they want to take over (probably Middlesex Guildhall, but the judges don't like it very much)

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Normal countries, ha ha. This is Britain we're talking about here.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

they should sit in the LONDON EYE!!

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

hah, for that 'matter of life and death' feel.

― NRQ, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

You have the time it takes for this capsule to travel full circle to make your judgement M'luds.

(Is that the plural to mlud?)

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 13:37 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.