Labour to ditch House of Lords

Priv

Well-known member


It’s about time it was axed or at least significantly reformed, unelected bureaucrats with way too many recent places given to nodding dogs or wealthy donors. They have done some good though in blocking some atrocious government proposals, however there’s far too many of them.
 
Last edited:
What is needed is an English Parliament. To provide a home for it, the House of Lords would do nicely.
 
They should mention something vague about ‘constitutional reform’ in the next manifesto, because being too specific gives the government/media too much opportunity to create a narrative and attack individual proposals. Then, when they form the next government after the election, they should be able to force through both HoL and voting system reform by pointing out that they were manifesto commitments.
 
No.
The Ione Wells headline is untrue and misleading.
Its a "headline" - thats what it does - it grabs your attention.
Words like "reform" and "consultation" dont equate with "abolition".
Maybe the campaigning for the next election has begun with the BBC?
 
It's not something that really bothers me too much, as the House of Commons can ultimately ignore the House of Lords if it wants, but it's definitely something that I'd fix in an ideal world.

Remove any and all heredity entitlement to sit in it.
Disestablish the Church of England and remove the Lords Spiritual.
Ensure a fixed number of seats and a democratic route of appointment.
 
What about it?
Note the key word "reform".
I know you`re usually a pragmatic intelligent chap.
Its always wise to read the small print and not merely rely on a reporter to interpret the facts for you.
(y)

How to you abolish something without reform?

We need a forum to debate legislation, are you suggesting removing that? As that is the only way to do so without requiring reform.

You're picking holes in something without offering an alternative.
 
How to you abolish something without reform?

We need a forum to debate legislation, are you suggesting removing that? As that is the only way to do so without requiring reform.

You're picking holes in something without offering an alternative.
"Reform" doesnt mean "abolition".
"Reform" = compromise and consultation
"Abolition" = end of [a definite]
I`m pointing out the difference between the words he used and the interpretation by some reporter - who actually qualifies what Starmer actually did say, further into the article.
He wants to retain the House of Lords and reform its function.
Thats not abolition.
Starmer moves the deck-chairs, but hasnt suggesting getting rid of them.
Its in the detail.
I dont need to offer an alternative because I`m commenting on the reporting of his comments and what he actually said.
To qualify a headline we need facts.
To understand the facts, we have to strip back the interpretation from the reporter.
Its like marking a 6th form essay. (y)
 
It seems to me that this has been announced now to trigger a debate on electoral reform more generally. An elected upper house has to be, well elected. That means picking a voting system. That means talking about voting systems. If something other than fptp is used for the Lords there is an obvious question about the commons.
 
"Reform" doesnt mean "abolition".
"Reform" = compromise and consultation
"Abolition" = end of [a definite]
I`m pointing out the difference between the words he used and the interpretation by some reporter - who actually qualifies what Starmer actually did say, further into the article.
He wants to retain the House of Lords and reform its function.
Thats not abolition.
Starmer moves the deck-chairs, but hasnt suggesting getting rid of them.
Its in the detail.
I dont need to offer an alternative because I`m commenting on the reporting of his comments and what he actually said.
To qualify a headline we need facts.
To understand the facts, we have to strip back the interpretation from the reporter.
Its like marking a 6th form essay. (y)

No, you're not, you're spinning it to your point of view. Starmer has said he wants to abolish the current system of HoL nomination.

Abolishing the HoL first requires reform, one cannot happen without the other or our legislative process falls apart.

Consultation on the reform is also required as to the best way forward, especially if it was to become an elected house. Do the current Lords stand for election or are they essentially sacked? Is that even legal? Who pays them compensation?

More importantly, who is able to stand? The HoL scrutinises details in government legislative policy which isn't a job for a random person.

Everything in that artical and what Starmer said is required to move away from a nomination system that is embedded in our political structure. If you don't think that is correct then please feel free to offer an alternative process rather that make a false accusation that he is "rearranging deck chairs".
 
Back
Top