House of Lords losing Power

[Biscuit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35117990

Can someone help me out with this?

As I understand it, the house of Lords are not elected to power by the people, yet still have the power to veto or modify some government bills. Usually they don't excersize this power to any significant extent and basically do nothing meaningful but cash in a paycheque or whatever...

The one time to do use their powers for something that benefits the public and the conservatives spit their dummy out and decide to nerf their powers?!

If they dont even have any real power anymore, why bother even having them there?

[peterb]

They are a revising house, not a primary legislative house.

As I understand it..

They cannot veto primary legislation although they can return it to the House of Commons on one occasion. This current dispute is about secondary legislation which they can veto more than onice. The proposal is to bring this into line with primary legislation.

But I am not a constitutional (or any other sort of) lawyer.

[herulach]

If you look at the voting record of the lords theres actually a lot of crap legislation we would have otherwise had that they rejected or had revised. As much as it isn't perhaps great demographically, an elected house would be frankly pointless.

Having a non politically aligned body whose members are not dependent on winning a popularity contest and, generally speaking, are well educated with a wealth of non political experience reviewing legislation is something to be protective of. Look at the US system and how dysfunctional it is.

For the most part the arguments against it boil down to 'because we don't like it' which is fine as a position, but I'm not convinced anything that could replace would be any more (and likely quite a lot less) effective.

[ik9000]

If you look at the voting record of the lords theres actually a lot of crap legislation we would have otherwise had that they rejected or had revised. As much as it isn't perhaps great demographically, an elected house would be frankly pointless.

Having a non politically aligned body whose members are not dependent on winning a popularity contest and, generally speaking, are well educated with a wealth of non political experience reviewing legislation is something to be protective of. Look at the US system and how dysfunctional it is.

For the most part the arguments against it boil down to 'because we don't like it' which is fine as a position, but I'm not convinced anything that could replace would be any more (and likely quite a lot less) effective.

exactly. Cameron is a fool to tamper with it.

The tories are trying to bring in some vary dangerous laws at the moment. Ofstead inspecting all children's extra curricular activities is currently out for public consultation, giving ofstead the ability to deem anyone (voluntary capacity or not) "unfit to work with children" blacklisting based on the completely undefined criteria of whether they are deemed to (fail to) promote "british values" and "tolerance". No proper court process. Just a quasi-stazi.

Then we have the data-mining on everyone - because when looking for a needle in a haystack it helps to make the haystack bigger you understand, and it's in no way to snoop on people honest.

Now we have reduction in legislative scrutiny from the Lords.

It doesn't take much, once the checks and balances are eroded, for the no-good to find they can run rough-shod over the population without any mechanism left to effectively stop them.

Shall we take bets on "state-review" of all press articles arriving within the current parliament - to ensure they comply with "British values" you understand...

[OilSheikh]

For a minute, I thought there were electricity issues going on !

[HalloweenJack]

[ik9000]

steady that mentions faith. Is that a British Value or not? You might now be unfit to work with children!

[Biscuit]

I guess what really bothers me is the circumstance more than anything else.
House of commons dont get what they want due to the House of Lords so they just try and change the rules.
We have seen this with a few other things like Fracking, where local government (Lancashire IIRC) blocks fracking applications so the government try and push through bills to get around it and/or prevent them from being able to block it.
Say what you like about fracking, im not interested in discussing that in this topic; I just dont understand how the government can repeatedly get away with being so tyrannical?

[ik9000]

I guess what really bothers me is the circumstance more than anything else.
House of commons dont get what they want due to the House of Lords so they just try and change the rules.
We have seen this with a few other things like Fracking, where local government (Lancashire IIRC) blocks fracking applications so the government try and push through bills to get around it and/or prevent them from being able to block it.
Say what you like about fracking, im not interested in discussing that in this topic; I just dont understand how the government can repeatedly get away with being so tyrannical?

You - we all - have to write to our MPs not just post on here.

Beyond that, this country needs a new political party, a new option to vote for so we can send all these current lot a clear message that we really don't want them (not just hate/distrust the other one more.) A party with say, a desire to serve the people, the country. How mad would that be?

I'm sickened to read in the papers Tony Blair saying Corbyn needs to put "party before principals". NO. He needs to put the needs of the people before anything else - including his misguided principles. A tragic window into the partisan minds of modern politicians right there, that they think it's all about themselves and/or their party. Our MPs should represent us, not dictate to us, or ignore reason just to score party points. It really is pathetic. The tragedy is the power they have

[GreenPiggy]

It's ridiculous, the government sowed the seeds for their defeat by trying to ram through tax credits as a statutory instrument(probably because it can be done that way with little scrutiny or debate)
This is PRECISELY the type of legislation that SHOULD be scrutinised by the lords(because it hasn't had a meaningful consideration in the commons)
Much as I despise the lords as an affront to democracy, what they did was entirely within their (correct) constitutional remit.

[herulach]

Because people that vote either don't care/support it (fracking, who cares about some farmers fields if i can heat my poorly insulated suburban mid terrace cheaper), are poorly informed and think it sounds like a good idea (why would spies lie?)

Personally I will have a dilemma at the next election. A corbyn led labour is completely unsupportable. He's like something out of the 60s come back to haunt us. This is likely to result in more conservative majorities as younger labour voters (hopefully) dismiss them as hopelessly naive

[herulach]

You - we all - have to write to our MPs not just post on here.

Beyond that, this country needs a new political party, a new option to vote for so we can send all these current lot a clear message that we really don't want them (not just hate/distrust the other one more.) A party with say, a desire to serve the people, the country. How mad would that be?

I'm sickened to read in the papers Tony Blair saying Corbyn needs to put "party before principals". NO. He needs to put the needs of the people before anything else - including his misguided principles. A tragic window into the partisan minds of modern politicians right there, that they think it's all about themselves and/or their party. Our MPs should represent us, not dictate to us, or ignore reason just to score party points. It really is pathetic. The tragedy is the power they have

I found that an interesting point in the syria vote, On the one hand you've got corbyn threatening to whip because labour membership doesn't want it, and the other hand MPs clearly saying constituents want them to vote with their own conscience.

The problem with the current system is really that people think they're electing a party not an MP, and the media (and indeed politicians themselves) do little to counter that.

[ik9000]

I found that an interesting point in the syria vote, On the one hand you've got corbyn threatening to whip because labour membership doesn't want it, and the other hand MPs clearly saying constituents want them to vote with their own conscience.

The problem with the current system is really that people think they're electing a party not an MP, and the media (and indeed politicians themselves) do little to counter that.

quite. I'm personally in favour of the abolition of political parties - and at the very least making a party whip illegal. An MP should be elected on their merit alone, and without reference to, or backing from a party. The house ought then to nominate 3 PM candidates for a 2nd public vote (including an option for RON).

I appreciate the argument that like-minded people ought to be able to band together, but this current partisan political farce can't be the best we can do surely.