Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Labour tries to get rid of the Lords


George Howarth, a Labour MP has tabled an Early Day Motion to get rid of the House of Lords and create a Uni-cameral legislature which would mean that Blair could effectively do what he wanted. If he had this a few years ago he would have actually made the ID cards compulsory which they aren’t at present.

We cannot get rid of the House of Lords. They have shown that they are willing to stand up against the oppressive nature of this government. I think this is why this George Howarth Guy wants to get rid of any opposition as looking at his voting record on They Work For You shows that he feels very strongly for introducing ID cards and for a hunting ban, both of which were opposed by the Lords.

I don’t believe we should get rid of the Lords, infact I believe we should have more checks and balances on the government by creating something similar to tri-cameral legislature which I think no other country has (could be wrong).

It wouldn’t be a full time tri-cameral legislature though. Let me explain:

I believe that the Lords should have an elected element in it. They can either be elected by county or be around 10% of the MPs which would be 65 so they would basically have super constituencies.

These elected Lords would sit with the none elected lords and would have a few more powers. This would mean the Parliament Act would be neutered. If the Commons tried to use the Parliament Act it would bypass the unelected Lords and go straight to the elected lords to vote on so Parliament would have to be sure it could work. To stop our government sending our troops to wars that are not in our interests the elected Lords would have to vote on any deployment of troops to foreign combat situations.

I think with these changes it would make the legislative process much better and would stop the government getting legislation through too fast.

Hat tip:Dizzy Thinks.

3 comments:

alanorei said...

I recall in March 2000 when Tone & nulab slung out 666 hereditary peers.

One of them was local, Lord Gisborough. I wrote a note of commiseration to him and he replied thanking me and voicing concern that he and his colleagues got ejected "for expressing non trendy views."

i.e. For example, they were totally opposed to allowing child molesters greater access to children, which Tone, Hain & co are on about at present.

Andrew Allison. A Conservative View said...

I agree with you. The elected part of the 'Upper House' should evenly refect the regions of the UK, irrespective of population. That way, the North East would get the same representatives as London and the South East. That's how the US Senate works.

If this approach was adopted, we could have non-elected peers giving us the benefit of their wisdom - which I think we really need - and the regions of the UK evenly represented. Blair or Brown will not go for this. Why? Because they are frightened.

Stan said...

I think the Lords should be left alone. I'm all for reform or "modernisation" if something is clearly failing, but the Lords - despite it's obvious anachronisms - was not failing. It's problem, for Labour, was that it was too effective. What needs reform is the system that allows Scotland, Wales and NI to have their own parliaments, but denies that right to the English and ensures that the people who have least say in that are the English.