Tony Blair - leader of the english speaking world

[Skunk]

I think the role of the Lords is often misunderstood. They cannot initiate legislation, they cannot amend or delay any finance bills and can only refuse to pass Government Legislation three times for any bill. They are a revising house.

Nonetheless, they wield considerable power. The power to deny legislation can mean preventing a bill from ever becoming law. They had blocked every anti-hunting bill for more than 30 years! This happens because considerable time is involved in passing legislation through the House of Commons (ofthen several months). When the Lords reject a bill they do with reccomendations to amend it - which have to be discussed in the Commons (read more months of delays). If the commons amends a single item on their proposed legislation, the counter goes back to zero - as if the Lords has never previously rejected the bill.

The reaction of the Commons to this sort of delaying tactic is:
"If we spend all of our parliament time trying to get this one piece of legislation through, then we won't have time to get our other proposals turned into law - so we won't send the legislation back to the lords again - we'll just drop it". Which is what happened to several anti-fox hunting bills.

(i) Composition. One of the perceived strengths of the House lies in the wide range of experience of its members. For any given policy area there are members who can bring practical understanding to the debate, either having worked in the given area itself or having a long history of working on policy in the area.

This is an often proclaimed argument for retaining the unelected members of the Lords. Yet this 'experience' could be retained by simply employing them in a Government Policy Institute, with a remit to publish fully its findings on all proposed legislation.

Ministers need to win the argument to win the vote as Whips have few sanctions to impose on troops who are un-elected and are not young career politicians with ambitions in the party. The fact that members of the Lords do not have constituency duties means they have the time and are in the position to look at the more technical parts of legislation.

The same could be said for a fully elected upper house - since, by default the Commons MP would be taking care of 'constituency business'.

Debate style. Debates in the Lords are less confrontational and party political than those in the Commons. In the Commons the minister in charge of a bill is closely identified with the policy behind it, challenges are seen as politically motivated. In the Lords debate tends to focus on the merits of particular points and ministers cannot rely on uncritical support from their own party. This style makes it easier for ministers to concede points and accept amendments without appearing to 'lose’.

Nonethess, all of the members of the Lords have party political considerations - apart from the seven? independents and 24 clerics. Very hard to turn on the party that you've been a member of for forty odd years...

Timetable. Convention is that the Lords observe certain intervals in between each stage of a bill’s consideration. Amendments in the Lords can also be made at Third Reading. These two factors mean the timetable in the Lords is much more leisurely than that in the Commons. Ministers have time to respond to points raised at an early stage in the Lords’ consideration of a Bill by tabling a Government amendment before the Bill leaves the Lords. If the Bill has come from the Commons then amendments arising from points made in the Commons will often be made on arrival in the Lords.

Again, there is no reason to suggest that such a 'leisurely' approach could not be adopted by an elected body. In any event this highlights how the unelected House of Lords can successfully delay proposed legislation to the point of obliteration.

Sorry, but I see no reason why the UK should not have two elected houses in the 21st century.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Skunk: The reaction of the Commons to this sort of delaying tactic is: "If we spend all of our parliament time trying to get this one piece of legislation through, then we won't have time to get our other proposals turned into law - so we won't send the legislation back to the lords again - we'll just drop it". Which is what happened to several anti-fox hunting bills.

It's true that this can and has happened occasionally. But if the Commons feels strongly about a Bill they can force it through. Also, if the Lords continued to abuse this power the Commons could create as many new members of the House of Lords that it needed to to ensure the safe passage of future legislation.

Isn't one Elected House enough for you? Especially with a Government with such a huge majority. Would you really want another house, divided along the same party lines just to rubber stamp Government Policy.

What about this one?:

Lords defeat 'sinister' move to limit jury trials

David Blunkett has vowed to overturn a Lords defeat on moves to restrict the right to trial by jury.

The government has let it be known that it will use its Commons majority to repair the legislation after peers voted by 210 to 136 against the move.

Ministers are now set on a collision course with the upper house - and have not ruled out using the Parliament Act to get its way.

The government's legislation, which would end the right to a jury trial in complex fraud cases and where there is a risk of jury intimidation, were branded a "sinister" attack on civil liberties.

Conservative spokesman Lord Hunt called on peers to oppose government moves to limit the right to a jury trial in complex fraud cases or where juries face intimidation.

The former Cabinet minister urged his fellow peers to protect the citizen from the state.

Lord Hunt highlighted the "fundamental importance of jury trial to our democracy".

"It provides a crucial link between the citizen and the system of justice," he said.

"Trial by one's peers prevents the justice system becoming a matter of the state judging the citizen.

"Trial by jury is far more popular with the public than any politician or political party."

Lord Hunt warned that the government was seeking "a much more sinister confrontation than mere party politics, namely that between the state and the citizen".

Ahead of the defeat, the government was standing by its plans.

Downing Street said the prime minister was "absolutely committed" to the Criminal Justice Bill.

Upping the stakes, Number 10 warned that the entire bill could fall if the Lords continues to oppose the legislation.

"The government remains absolutely committed to this Bill. We will listen to any constructive suggestions but there will certainly be no concessions on the point of principle," said a spokesman.

"These are sensible and limited measures that, far from undermining a fundamental principle of the legal system, will protect its integrity and improve public confidence.''

"We believe this Bill stands as an integral whole and we are determined to see it on the statute book."

David Blunkett said a defeat would halt reforms designed to help hundreds of people living in fear.

"The idea that 12 decent men and women should, along with their families, be forced to live in terror in order to satisfy the maintenance of a failed system is a travesty of democracy and justice," he said.

[Donut]

And of course there is always Section 28




Labour faces Lords defeat on Section 28 alternative
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 10/07/2003)

Opposition peers are expected to defeat the Government today by backing a proposal for an alternative to the controversial Section 28.

The House of Lords will vote on a Tory amendment designed to replace Section 28, the law stopping local authorities from promoting homosexuality, with a new clause giving parents the power to object to inappropriate sex education.

Lady Blatch, the Tory deputy leader in the Lords, said the proposal would have the advantage of covering heterosexual and homosexual material, and that as a result its supporters could not be dismissed as "homophobic".

Gay rights campaigners detest Section 28 and Labour tried to scrap it during its first term in office. It failed because the Lords would not accept its abolition.

A fresh attempt was made when the Local Government Bill was going through the Commons earlier this year and the Bill, which originally had nothing to do with sex education, was amended to include the repeal of Section 28.

Today the Tories will propose an amendment that would theoretically enable parents to stop schools using sex education material they considered inappropriate.

Lady Blatch said Section 28 had worked as a deterrent but it had two important defects: it did not cover heterosexual material and, because it related to local authorities, did not cover leaflets and books produced for schoolchildren by "third parties", such as health authorities.

[Skunk]

Isn't one Elected House enough for you? Especially with a Government with such a huge majority. Would you really want another house, divided along the same party lines just to rubber stamp Government Policy.

Well, just about every country in the EU has managed to ensure that this does not happen - I don't see why the UK couldn't do the same. There are lots of ways that it can be done, from differing constituency boundaries to fixed term elections for both houses and so.

As for the article, that only proves the need for two houses - it doesn't provide arguments for the need for an unelected rather than elected upper house.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Skunk: Well, just about every country in the EU has managed to ensure that this does not happen - I don't see why the UK couldn't do the same. There are lots of ways that it can be done, from differing constituency boundaries to fixed term elections for both houses and so. As for the article, that only proves the need for two houses - it doesn't provide arguments for the need for an unelected rather than elected upper house.

Because every other country in the EU uses Proportional Representation. Our system allows for Governments to have huge majorities and this doesn't serve for good government because there are no checks and balances.

[Skunk]

And the United States? - is their system fatally flawed because both houses are democratically elected?

What about India, the world's largest democracy (600 million voters). Is their system an abusive failure?

And Canada?
Have they produced wild dictators and extreme policies?

And Austrailia?
Do the poor Aussies suffer because they don't have anyone who was 'born to rule'?

[Yorick]

There ARE big problems with proprtional representation.

1.Instability. The chances of there being no political party with a clear majority are much higher. Thus governmnets can be formed on the basis of fragile and often ideologically contradictory alliances.

2.Disproportionate voice. Minority parties end up having a dispropotionate voice in matters of government. A small party elected on a "legalise guns platform" can get a minorty view enacted a slaw, because of the necessity of dealmaking in a proprtionate rep. system.

3.Increase in influence of extremist and racist parties. The precedent in Europe speaks for itself. Exhibit A. The rise of the far right. La Penn et al.

4.You cannot vote for who you DON'T want.
Under a two-party-preferred system of preferencial voting, you vote for who you want, but by listing preferences also vote for who you DON'T want. Consequently the horrifying result in France of them having to pick between tewo unsavoury characters would not have occured under a TPP preferencial system. It means three popular personalities that split a democratic vote cannot be outdone by one personality taking the extremist vote. THe three democrats can place the totalitarian LAST on their recommended preferences.

This was how Pauline Hanson - the highly racist ignoramus from Australia - was defeated and wiped out of Australian politics. Every party put her last on their recommended preferences and her party was demolished.

Australia, like the US has an elected Senate. An upper house that gives each state a greater voice, not as reliant on population size. THe Senate, as it turns out, has a measure of proportional representation. So minority parties do get an important voice, but it doesn't impact on the ability of a government to govern with stability.

[Yorick]

But England can't model their system on Australia now can they? Oh the ironies if it ever came to pass!!

BTW. Did you hear about Burnham Burnham, the Austrlian aboriginal activist who claimed England for the Koori people in 1988?

He declared it "Terra Nullis", and planted the Aboriginal flag at Plymouth.

Apparently they're sending Aboriginal prisoners there soon.

[ 08-07-2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Yorick: There ARE big problems with proportional representation. 1.Instability. The chances of there being no political party with a clear majority are much higher. Thus governments can be formed on the basis of fragile and often ideologically contradictory alliances. Having a minority is not always a bad thing and is often preferable as parties must cooperate. With a majority things are getting passed through weather the real people want them or not as majority governments can be hard to keep in check. 2.Disproportionate voice. Minority parties end up having a disproportionate voice in matters of government. A small party elected on a "legalize guns platform" can get a minority view enacted a slaw, because of the necessity of dealmaking in a proportionate rep. system. Dealmaking happens in the other system as well that is why it is called politics, if MPs are doing their job they will follow what their constituents want. As well an extra parties can act as a deciding factor on desions. 3.Increase in influence of extremist and racist parties. The precedent in Europe speaks for itself. Exhibit A. The rise of the far right. La Penn et al. Extremist and racist parties can pop up even in a two tired system. They are rare in both democratic systems. 4.You cannot vote for who you DON'T want. Under a two-party-preferred system of preferential voting, you vote for who you want, but by listing preferences also vote for who you DON'T want. Consequently the horrifying result in France of them having to pick between two unsavoury characters would not have occurred under a TPP preferential system. It means three popular personalities that split a democratic vote cannot be outdone by one personality taking the extremist vote. THe three democrats can place the totalitarian LAST on their recommended preferences. In a two party there is little choice what if you don't like either party, you don't get to vote you don't have representation or political freedom. This was how Pauline Hanson - the highly racist ignoramus from Australia - was defeated and wiped out of Australian politics. Every party put her last on their recommended preferences and her party was demolished. Australia, like the US has an elected Senate. An upper house that gives each state a greater voice, not as reliant on population size. THe Senate, as it turns out, has a measure of proportional representation. So minority parties do get an important voice, but it doesn't impact on the ability of a government to govern with stability.

My point is there are pros and cons of both systems and much depends on other dynamics.

[Yorick]

Pritchke, "two party preferred" means the candidate with the lowest vote gets removed, and who ever is next on his ballot gets the vote. It keeps going until their are TWO candidates left.

So, the person who initially had the highest vote, may not win, because people that voted for other candidates did NOT want him in, and so place others higher on their preferences.

"two party preferred" doesn't mean there are just two parties. There are many parties in Australia on a ballot list. Even the "Let's have a Party"