What's the deal with Life Peers?

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
The English Aristocracy? These guys in the upper house are life politicians. I mean are we in 2002AD or 1782AD?

Barry, they can still introduce laws right? In an era of pseudo-democratic representation, that is mind boggling. Like a boys club gone crazy.

It's a class system. How is that different from India's caste system?

But there you go.

Isn't the Blairy-eyed one trying to do away with the House of Lords? Or has that fallen by the wayside?

---

This post is so riddled with misconception that I find it difficult to know where to start. The unfortunate thing about this is that others may take this tissue of half-truths as being fact.

Firstly your thread title states 'What's the deal with Life peers?' You then start your post with 'The English Aristocracy' The aristocracy in the House of Lords are hereditary peers and are totally different from Life peers. Hereditary peerages are passed from generation to generation, these 96 make up the aristocracy in the House of Lords. Life peerages only last for the lifetime of the person involved.

Life peers can be put forward by any political party but Tony Blair has the final say. It is unusual for him to refuse anyone put forward but it has been known. The Life Peers recently introduced go by the name of 'Tony's Cronies' Life peers are drawn from all aspects of society, from industry, trade unions and the arts, as well as ex MPs.

The Lords cannot introduce bills into Parliament, that can only be done by the Commons. They can delay any Bill from the Commons three times. If the Governments wants to it can then force the bill through. Generally speaking a compromise is reached. Money bill such as the budget cannot be held up at all. With the current Labour Government having such a huge majority there is little opposition in the Commons leaving the Lords as the only form of opposition.

Recently the Government attempted to introduce an anti-terrorism bill at very short notice. 'If the House of Lords did not exist, or had complied with what the Home Office was aggressively insisting on, the act which is now law would have been substantially different. Police snooping into private records, including medical records, would have been allowed in the investigation of any crime anywhere in the world. There would have been no proper sunset clause, requiring regular reassessment of the vast powers the act confers. Another swath of EU powers would have been allowed to bypass parliament. A crime of incitement to religious hatred, with quite unconsidered effects on free speech and social order, would have swept briskly on to the statute book.

Pressure from the Lords forced these things to be changed. There was, moreover, nothing party-motivated about it. Religious hatred was struck out not because people do not see the problem, but because they knew it had no place in an anti-terrorism measure. Sometimes the Lords have played games with the Commons for base reasons of prejudice or party manoeuvre. Not this time.' (From the Guardian Newspaper)

Other high profile bills which were rejected by the Lords include reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts from 18 to 16 and the abolition of hunting.

The Lords is being reformed and hereditary peers will eventually disappear, it just takes time.

As for the class system that you seem so obsessed by Yorick - I have never come across it in all my years of living here. If there is an aristocracy in Britain it consists of pop stars and footballers. Posh & Becks are the 'new' royalty.

I would also like to distance my self from the Looney Left of IW (Barry & Epona).

As for Tony Blair trying to do away with the Lords I think he is far too busy being our Ambassador to the world to bother with anything that happens here.

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Epona]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:


I would also like to distance my self from the Looney Left of IW (Barry & Epona).

---

Cheers Donut, there's nothing I like better than having my views written off by the use of 2 words, I expected more originality from you [img]tongue.gif[/img] - if you're gonna insult me, do it with style

For what it's worth, I agree in part with what you are saying (and Barry) in that I agree there needs to be an 'upper house' of sorts - checks & balances, all that - I particularly agree concerning the Terrorism stuff, that had to be stopped (ID cards and access to medical records have never managed to stop terrorism in other countries). What I disagree with is the makeup of that upper house - and feel it should be elected representatives of some description, and accountable to the population - that is my problem with life and hereditary peers - it is the lack of accountability, they can never be ditched should they be wildly out of line.

Just remember that in the search for democracy that you probably don't really want a TRUE democracy. A true democracy where everyone votes on everything is actually just Anarchy in another guise. Probably the best form of democracy is the Representative Republic where you elect leaders to represent the majority view..this cuts down on the anarchy and chaos, but does introduce the possibility of corruption and influence peddaling. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[fable]

As for the class system that you seem so obsessed by Yorick - I have never come across it in all my years of living here. If there is an aristocracy in Britain it consists of pop stars and footballers. Posh & Becks are the 'new' royalty.

My impression (perhaps flawed) was that the British military, civil service, and (to a lessening extent) politics were still largely in the hands of people who had gone to the best private schools, and then moved onto Eton and the like--not particularly different from the US, except that the system here is kept much quieter, given the prevailing suspicion and dislike for the well-educated. Am I wrong?

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:
I would also like to distance my self from the Looney Left of IW (Barry & Epona).

---

Well, whilst I don't mind being considered both loony and left I have to point out that most of your post was exactly the same as mine. The House of Lords have appropriate powers and have been extremely useful at various times in checking the executive. If you read back you will find I actually argued for a second chamber unelected on this basis. What I disagree with is your belief that it is representative, or in any way fit to be part of the constitution in its present form.

I personally say that dismissing the notion of a class driven society is extremely premature for Britain. You have to look beyond conventional class boundaries, this is not upper class and lower class we are talking here. I am saying that there is a very definite political class in operation. For example did you know that Irvine ran for a seat twice in the 70's and failed. Now he is the third citizen of the country, despite being rejected by the electorate twice. We have a command premiereship, and who advises the Prime Minister? I am not talking simple spin doctoring here, I am talking about the blatant political adivsors. The country is run from Downing Street not Parliament Square and how many people voted for the Prime Minister? What happens in the political mile of the city of London is very different from the views of the public on the whole. And what can we do about? Vote for another member of the same political class who is committed to window dressing the same system. Great.

So my views differ from yours. No big deal, I think we can both survive the experience. Even if counselling is required.

[khazadman]

there is one thing i do like about the system in the uk,and that is the weekly question and answer period between the MP's in the commons and the prime minister.

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


So my views differ from yours. No big deal, I think we can both survive the experience. Even if counselling is required.

---

You have risen in my esteem Barry - it is brave of you to put yourself forward for counselling. Of course my Looney Left jibe was meant in jest. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree that there are political and social groupings active in society but I believe that Yorick was alluding to the tradionally accepted class groupings of Upper, Middle and Working classes.

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:


You have risen in my esteem Barry - it is brave of you to put yourself forward for counselling. Of course my Looney Left jibe was meant in jest. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree that there are political and social groupings active in society but I believe that Yorick was alluding to the tradionally accepted class groupings of Upper, Middle and Working classes.

---

I know it was in jest! With you it is hard to think it could be anything else. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And I don't really know about the traditional class boundaries, they are not as visible anymore. I just think that there is still a class system in place, possibly more dangerous in some ways as it is less immediately apparent.

Khazadman - well, I have been to PMQT a couple of times for a laugh and you wouldn't think much of it if you had seen what it is actually like. The questions have to be submitted 2 weeks in advance but once they have been asked the MP in question gets to ask a supplementary question. So to keep the supplementary question secret the MPs always use the same official question:

"What engagements does the Prime Minister have for the date of X (the date of the PMQT session)?"

So the order paper goes out with all the questions on it. 20 (approx - can't remember exact number) MPs are chosen and their names appear on the order paper, all with same question next to them:

Sir Boyle Roche MP - What engagements does the Prime Minister have for the date of X?

Cyril Smith MP - What engagements does the Prime Minister have for the date of X?

Dennis Skinner MP - What engagements does the Prime Minister have for the date of X?

... and so on for 3 pages worth. That is the brilliance of democracy in Britain. So then all that matters are the suplementary questions. The one area where proper scrutiny of the exectuive can be had. And as the MPs are allocated questions on the basis of parties half of the questions go to the party of government. Well isn't that nice! Basically half of PMQT is planted questions anyway. An exaggerated example might be "Prime Minister, can you tell the house about all the great things you have been doing this week with handicapped children?". And then it lasts for half an hour. They get through about 4 MPs questions in that time, and then it is the only method of scrutiny of the executive left. Great. I wouldn't hold it up as much if I were you, thats all I'm saying.

[Epona]

Barry, interesting point about PMQT - LOL you know a lot about the technicalities!

At work I spend some time dealing with agriculture PQs (not PMQs) and really what goes on is quite structured. Most of the questions asked are designed to show the Govt in a good light, a lot of the real nitty gritty is dealt with by written answer.

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Epona:
Barry, interesting point about PMQT - LOL you know a lot about the technicalities!

At work I spend some time dealing with agriculture PQs (not PMQs) and really what goes on is quite structured. Most of the questions asked are designed to show the Govt in a good light, a lot of the real nitty gritty is dealt with by written answer.

---

Ministerial questions are often actually quite factually based. Basically PMQT is a point scoring exercise, more so since the cameras came in. The real power of the House of Commons is entirely in the Select Committees, but they have no legal basis to force change. Very worrying, very, very worrying.

And yes, I know a lot about the technicalities LOL! Unfortunately a quarter of this years mark is on British Political Institutions for me.