Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Furry · 03-15-2005, 10:11 AM

The Lords is the highest court in the land, as well as being a legitimate and important balance to the Commons. Enable a fully-elected and Commons-like Lords, and you'll have exactly that: another House of Commons with similar political weighting. The precautionary antagonism between the two will be lost, effectively giving any government with a large enough majority in the Commons complete and direct control of the legislative process. The small delaying powers still in effect will be lost. These were not subject to the 1946 (or was it '49?) Parliament Act - they remained as a means to engage a cooling off period and also as a concession.

Here's the story that got me onto it:

"LONDON (Reuters) - Last week's titanic parliamentary struggle over a new terrorism law looks set to prompt government calls to diminish the powers of the unelected House of Lords, newspapers say.
Constant amendments by the unelected upper house led to one of the longest stand-offs ever recorded between the Lords and the House of Commons before the law was finally passed on Friday.

The age-old question of what powers the Lords should have to oppose government initiatives is now bound to re-emerge, commentators said.

"While New Labour has spent hundreds of hours of discussing how to reform the content of the House of Lords, it has yet to begin to address the question of what powers it should possess," said the Sunday Telegraph.

"The Prime Minister is certainly going to confront that question now."

But commentators doubted the struggle, which revolved around the rights of terrorism suspects to be judged by a court rather than politicians, will have much effect on the two main parties' standings in the run-up to an expected May election.

Neither Tony Blair nor Conservative leader Michael Howard emerged with much credit, they believe.

"Watching politicians compete for the "terror premium"... has been distasteful," The Observer said, echoing a common view.

Blair has repeatedly rejected direct elections to the Lords -- where Labour does not have a majority -- believing giving peers a mandate would encourage them even more to block legislation.

Past proposals have included imposing time limits on upper house debates or introducing indirectly elected peers in which Lords seats would be allocated according to the parties' support in national elections.

"The confrontation may lead to a hardening of the Labour manifesto pledge on long-term reform of the Lords," wrote Times correspondent Peter Riddell over the weekend.

The Lords originated in the 13th century and now comprises 26 senior clerics of the Church of England and 669 members of the peerage. In 1999, Blair removed the automatic hereditary right of many peers to sit in the upper house.

The Parliament Act, which Blair used to ram through last month's ban on fox-hunting with dogs, was enacted to overcome entrenched opposition from the Lords but was not applicable in the case of the terrorism bill, which imposed a range of "control orders" on suspects including house arrest.

Compromise was reached only when Blair agreed to give parliament a chance to overhaul the legislation next year."

-----------------

Blair rejects direct elections to the Lords fearing that the result will turn out against his party's lines. Having seats in the Lords allocated by electoral turnout gives the BNP and other extremist parties a chance at representation, but that's a side issue, compared to the very real chance that we lose the only effective block against legislation that in the future may infringe what most people consider to be fundamental human rights. We need some sort of mechanism whereby party politics is moderated before becoming law and the Lords, up until now, has fulfilled that role. We are in danger of losing checks and balances on government and that just does not bear thinking about.

I do not believe that the Parliament Act is legal or indeed constitutional. To force leglislation through parliament regardless of what may be at times deep-seated and necessary opposition diminishes the credibility of the bill in question and raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of the entire process. How can a bill be for the good of the country if half of parilament is so desperately clamouring for amendment? Stripping away opposition to any bill that the Commons wishes to pass is, in the long run, short-sighted, dangerous and reeks of party politics.

03-15-2005, 10:11 AM	#15 (permalink)
Furry Crazy Location: UK	The Lords is the highest court in the land, as well as being a legitimate and important balance to the Commons. Enable a fully-elected and Commons-like Lords, and you'll have exactly that: another House of Commons with similar political weighting. The precautionary antagonism between the two will be lost, effectively giving any government with a large enough majority in the Commons complete and direct control of the legislative process. The small delaying powers still in effect will be lost. These were not subject to the 1946 (or was it '49?) Parliament Act - they remained as a means to engage a cooling off period and also as a concession. Here's the story that got me onto it: "LONDON (Reuters) - Last week's titanic parliamentary struggle over a new terrorism law looks set to prompt government calls to diminish the powers of the unelected House of Lords, newspapers say. Constant amendments by the unelected upper house led to one of the longest stand-offs ever recorded between the Lords and the House of Commons before the law was finally passed on Friday. The age-old question of what powers the Lords should have to oppose government initiatives is now bound to re-emerge, commentators said. "While New Labour has spent hundreds of hours of discussing how to reform the content of the House of Lords, it has yet to begin to address the question of what powers it should possess," said the Sunday Telegraph. "The Prime Minister is certainly going to confront that question now." But commentators doubted the struggle, which revolved around the rights of terrorism suspects to be judged by a court rather than politicians, will have much effect on the two main parties' standings in the run-up to an expected May election. Neither Tony Blair nor Conservative leader Michael Howard emerged with much credit, they believe. "Watching politicians compete for the "terror premium"... has been distasteful," The Observer said, echoing a common view. Blair has repeatedly rejected direct elections to the Lords -- where Labour does not have a majority -- believing giving peers a mandate would encourage them even more to block legislation. Past proposals have included imposing time limits on upper house debates or introducing indirectly elected peers in which Lords seats would be allocated according to the parties' support in national elections. "The confrontation may lead to a hardening of the Labour manifesto pledge on long-term reform of the Lords," wrote Times correspondent Peter Riddell over the weekend. The Lords originated in the 13th century and now comprises 26 senior clerics of the Church of England and 669 members of the peerage. In 1999, Blair removed the automatic hereditary right of many peers to sit in the upper house. The Parliament Act, which Blair used to ram through last month's ban on fox-hunting with dogs, was enacted to overcome entrenched opposition from the Lords but was not applicable in the case of the terrorism bill, which imposed a range of "control orders" on suspects including house arrest. Compromise was reached only when Blair agreed to give parliament a chance to overhaul the legislation next year." ----------------- Blair rejects direct elections to the Lords fearing that the result will turn out against his party's lines. Having seats in the Lords allocated by electoral turnout gives the BNP and other extremist parties a chance at representation, but that's a side issue, compared to the very real chance that we lose the only effective block against legislation that in the future may infringe what most people consider to be fundamental human rights. We need some sort of mechanism whereby party politics is moderated before becoming law and the Lords, up until now, has fulfilled that role. We are in danger of losing checks and balances on government and that just does not bear thinking about. I do not believe that the Parliament Act is legal or indeed constitutional. To force leglislation through parliament regardless of what may be at times deep-seated and necessary opposition diminishes the credibility of the bill in question and raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of the entire process. How can a bill be for the good of the country if half of parilament is so desperately clamouring for amendment? Stripping away opposition to any bill that the Commons wishes to pass is, in the long run, short-sighted, dangerous and reeks of party politics. __________________ Furry is the leader of his own cult, the "Furballs of Doom". They sit about chanting "Doom, Doom, Doom". (From a random shot in the dark by SirLance)