It worked. It never upset the public.

[wendigo100]

...so remind me again why New Labour want to completely change the House of Lords?

[The Lone Gunman]

...so remind me again why New Labour want to completely change the House of Lords?

Petty jealousy.
Deep in the heart of NL there is still a class war going on. They do not like the privilidged classes and want to remove any perceived advantage they may have.
It is ironic that whilst doing so they have abandoned the principals that their party was founded upon. Sorry to use this example, but it shines like a beacon in the night. IR35 was aimed at perceived high earners taking the piss on tax. NL implemented a law (IR35) which removed this advantage, but left the workers in the industry totaly exposed to the whims of the corporate bosses. IT contracting is one step away from being a Victorian business.

They are also the Governmental equivelant of Ranieri. They are tinkerers.
They do not seem to be able to recognise when something works and leave it alone. They insist on changing everything and call it reform.
Why do they have to reform everything. WHy can they not just sit back and let things run with just a nudge on the stearing here and there. (Not just an NL trait).

[Euro-commuter]

...so remind me again why New Labour want to completely change the House of Lords?

The interesting thing here is not the target (House of Lords) but the interesting constitutional trick being tried out here.

The vote is multiple-choice with multiple selections valid. No bill is being debated so the vote is not a vote on what is to become law.

What it seems to be is a method for the government to guage the likelihood of various proposals passing a vote into law, before they propose and debate a bill, so that they can introduce a bill with the most chance of giving them the closest to the result they want: neither too strong but not likely to pass, nor passed but not as strong as they could have got away with.

No more of this old idea of having a policy, getting elected on your platform, proposing to parliament what you believe in, debating it, and standing on the result.

[snaw]

Why give a sh!t anyway, it's a pretty useless body in it's current guise, and it's a free vote.

**** me, threats under every stone or what.

[threaded]

Why give a sh!t anyway, it's a pretty useless body in it's current guise, and it's a free vote.

**** me, threats under every stone or what.

Well, in a parallel universe the New Lie removed the house of Lords in their first term. There never was another election after that.

[wendigo100]

Why give a sh!t anyway, it's a pretty useless body in it's current guise, and it's a free vote.

**** me, threats under every stone or what.

Are you serious snaw?

[The Lone Gunman]

**** me, threats under every stone or what.

The HOL has served as a counter to the Commons for hundreds of years and up to now it has worked well.
Without this balance our democracy IS threatened.
NL abuse of the parliament act should worry you.

[snaw]

It's a free vote ffs. Correct me if I'm wrong but this change isn't a proposal to get rid of it, it's one to change how's it's made up (Proportion of appointees and electees). You're gettng a little hysterical ... doomed etc.

It's been around for hundreds of years, mostly served by members on hereditary peerages, representing their constituency (i.e. landed gentry and the very rich in the main). I find it hard to get sentimental about such a body personally.

It's a bit neutered imo. In my life I don't see it having achieved much at all (Unlike in other democracies where you have two bodies, with some sort of powers that check and balance each other), if it was up to me I'd give it more powers, but only if the actual composition was changed to something more palatible (Happy with a cross section of appointees and elected reps).

[wendigo100]

snaw,

1. You don't see what the HoL does because little of what it does is headline stuff. It threw out more bad legislation under Thatcher than it has done under Blair. The difference now is that Blair threatens the Parliament Act at every turn, and so his bad legislation gets through.

2. The very fact that the Lords is being neutered should be a concern.

3. Turning it into an elected body will replicate what we have in the commons, which removes it's point.

4. Your point about privilege and landed gentry is utterly irrelevant to me, as it should be to everyone, who should be more interested in the purpose and performance of the upper house. I believe it is more effective filled with people who are not professional vote-chasing politicians.

[snaw]

snaw,

1. You don't see what the HoL does because little of what it does is headline stuff. It threw out more bad legislation under Thatcher than it has done under Blair. The difference now is that Blair threatens the Parliament Act at every turn, and so his bad legislation gets through.

2. The very fact that the Lords is being neutered should be a concern.

3. Turning it into an elected body will replicate what we have in the commons, which removes it's point.

4. Your point about privilege and landed gentry is utterly irrelevant to me, as it should be to everyone, who should be more interested in the purpose and performance of the upper house. I believe it is more effective filled with people who are not professional vote-chasing politicians.

1. I know perfectly well what it does, so get of your patronising high horse. It can send legislation back to the commons for review/amendment, twice (2nd time almost never rejected). That's it, at best it can delay things by one year . It can't throw out legislation as you put it.

2. It's being neutered, how? This vote is to change how it's being composed, nothing about it's actual powers.

3. Umm, as far as I can see the choices seem to range from 80% elected to 20% elected. Why's this a bad thing, many other democracies function very well with two elected bodies, with different responsibilities.

4. The point was in response to the statement that's it's worked well for hundreds of years. I'd dispute that claim, as I said in my reply. I'm all for having appointed and elected rep's and as I said I don't think it's 'purpose and performance' is all that great that we should be worried about a little shake up.