The Liberal Democrats have often been the forerunners in advocating political reform and could even be seen as the more republican of the three main parties - rightly or wrongly - so it is no wonder that the latest plan to destabilise and devalue our Parliamentary system and our country was put forward by the leader of that party.
A draft bill was proposed by the deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, a few weeks ago proposing to reform the House of Lords. This bill proposed 15 year fixed terms, starting in 2015, of an 80% elected upper chamber, more than halving the total number of peers to 300 full time members elected through proportional representation.
The glaring problems in this draft bill may expose, I fear, not only the folly of the Lib Dems, but of the whole government.
Expense: At the moment, members of the House of Lords get paid only for when they sit in the house. (There are a few exceptions, such as The Lord Speaker). I believe this is £300 per day they sit out of a total 142 [sic]. In all my years of watching BBC Parliament the only times I have seen the House full have been the state opening of Parliament. Now compare that amount to 300 full time paid 'Senators'. The cost seems somewhat higher in my mind. But, what's a little more taxes - at a time when Europe is in financial ruin - if we'll have 'greater democracy'?
Fixed Term: 15 year fixed term. After which, they are unable to run for office again. If they are good at their job, we lose them permanently. If they are shoddy, corrupt &c we are stuck with them for 15 years, with no way of recalling them. Is this Mr. Clegg's idea of democracy?
Powers: Currently, the main role of the upper chamber is to scrutinise and amend legislature. Sort of like proofreaders before a book is published. I don't mean to cause offence with that comparison, we are lucky enough to currently have a House of Lords that is made up of incredibly intelligent men and women who know considerable amounts in their fields. However, if members were elected, surely that would give them some sort of mandate? Surely they would start to demand more powers?
AND
They would be politicians! Do we need any more career politicians? We would surely lose the expertise that currently resides in the House of Lords.
Supremacy of The Other Place: Presently, the elected House of Commons has more power than the Lords, would this not detract from that? If you have 300 men and women elected to the upper house for a term three times the length of that of the other place would they not consider themselves the more supreme?
Despite Mr. Clegg's insistence that this would not happen, how would it not? In America they have standoffs between The Senate and the House of Representatives, which is why there is a President, to supposedly prevent this. Is this the next step? My saying the Lib Dems are in favour of a republic isn't sounding so dramatic, is it?
Side note: Members of the House of Lords no longer have to refer to the Commons as "The Other Place." It is a sad day.
Eighty Percent Elected: Why 80%? Is it an attempt to not seem too radical? Is it because within that 20% is some expertise that would be lost through elections? I can make no sense of it, personally. It's 100% or 0%. 80% doesn't work with the proposed overhaul.
Proportional Representation: As mentioned in "By Jove I Think He's Got It!" (4th July 2011), the Liberals won, through devolution and coalition, PR in the rest of the U.K. Is this just a feeble attempt by this party to gain what the public rejected in May 2011?
I am unable to see any benefits of this bill, other than it purportedly being more "democratic." With democracy working as well as it is now, I'm not sure I'm too eager for much more.
After the failed attempt to replace the "First Past The Post" voting system with the "Alternative Vote", the Liberal Democrats, and more specifically, Nick Clegg, need a political 'win' from being in the Coalition. This proposal is little more than a vote-mongering, political point scoring attempt made by a party that needs to curry favour with their supporters after the betrayal with student fees. I'm glad it seems as unpopular with MPs as it does with Peers.
On the Governement's e-petitions website, there is a proposal to scrap this plan. Please click here to sign.
Any guesses for the title? Prizes, as always, are not very good.
Edited 14/11/11
A draft bill was proposed by the deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, a few weeks ago proposing to reform the House of Lords. This bill proposed 15 year fixed terms, starting in 2015, of an 80% elected upper chamber, more than halving the total number of peers to 300 full time members elected through proportional representation.
The glaring problems in this draft bill may expose, I fear, not only the folly of the Lib Dems, but of the whole government.
Expense: At the moment, members of the House of Lords get paid only for when they sit in the house. (There are a few exceptions, such as The Lord Speaker). I believe this is £300 per day they sit out of a total 142 [sic]. In all my years of watching BBC Parliament the only times I have seen the House full have been the state opening of Parliament. Now compare that amount to 300 full time paid 'Senators'. The cost seems somewhat higher in my mind. But, what's a little more taxes - at a time when Europe is in financial ruin - if we'll have 'greater democracy'?
Fixed Term: 15 year fixed term. After which, they are unable to run for office again. If they are good at their job, we lose them permanently. If they are shoddy, corrupt &c we are stuck with them for 15 years, with no way of recalling them. Is this Mr. Clegg's idea of democracy?
Powers: Currently, the main role of the upper chamber is to scrutinise and amend legislature. Sort of like proofreaders before a book is published. I don't mean to cause offence with that comparison, we are lucky enough to currently have a House of Lords that is made up of incredibly intelligent men and women who know considerable amounts in their fields. However, if members were elected, surely that would give them some sort of mandate? Surely they would start to demand more powers?
AND
They would be politicians! Do we need any more career politicians? We would surely lose the expertise that currently resides in the House of Lords.
Supremacy of The Other Place: Presently, the elected House of Commons has more power than the Lords, would this not detract from that? If you have 300 men and women elected to the upper house for a term three times the length of that of the other place would they not consider themselves the more supreme?
Despite Mr. Clegg's insistence that this would not happen, how would it not? In America they have standoffs between The Senate and the House of Representatives, which is why there is a President, to supposedly prevent this. Is this the next step? My saying the Lib Dems are in favour of a republic isn't sounding so dramatic, is it?
Side note: Members of the House of Lords no longer have to refer to the Commons as "The Other Place." It is a sad day.
Eighty Percent Elected: Why 80%? Is it an attempt to not seem too radical? Is it because within that 20% is some expertise that would be lost through elections? I can make no sense of it, personally. It's 100% or 0%. 80% doesn't work with the proposed overhaul.
Proportional Representation: As mentioned in "By Jove I Think He's Got It!" (4th July 2011), the Liberals won, through devolution and coalition, PR in the rest of the U.K. Is this just a feeble attempt by this party to gain what the public rejected in May 2011?
I am unable to see any benefits of this bill, other than it purportedly being more "democratic." With democracy working as well as it is now, I'm not sure I'm too eager for much more.
After the failed attempt to replace the "First Past The Post" voting system with the "Alternative Vote", the Liberal Democrats, and more specifically, Nick Clegg, need a political 'win' from being in the Coalition. This proposal is little more than a vote-mongering, political point scoring attempt made by a party that needs to curry favour with their supporters after the betrayal with student fees. I'm glad it seems as unpopular with MPs as it does with Peers.
On the Governement's e-petitions website, there is a proposal to scrap this plan. Please click here to sign.
Any guesses for the title? Prizes, as always, are not very good.
Edited 14/11/11
No comments:
Post a Comment