The Politics Thread 4

[Moggy]

The Lords needs to serve two purposes, though: to protect us from our representatives (in cases where the government go batshit, like Brexit) and to protect the legislature from the electorate (in cases where the voters go batshit, like Brexit).

A directly elected Lords might actually make it tougher for them to do both, the former because they would have to play party politics for campaigning, and the latter because they would have to become populist for votes.

Which is why we have been discussing a Lords where they are elected to single terms with no chance of re-election.

[That]

Which is why we have been discussing a Lords where they are elected to single terms with no chance of re-election.

Sure, OK, then you have pressure from whoever supported your campaign to make their chosen replacement for you electable at the next Lords Election.

[OrangeRKN]

Because the second House is there for checks and balances over the main chamber. Why would you want the government to decide who checks their work?

It's worked pretty well up till now. The main problems with the house of lords are ideological (hereditary and religious peers) and practical (life terms and an ever expanding size) as opposed to competency and effectiveness as a balancing house. I would agree with you if in practice an appointed second house acted subservient to the government, but I don't think that's what we see. The House of Lords as it currently is does a pretty good job.

It’s like being happy for the banks to regulate themselves, after all you are happy for them to look after your money so you must trust them?

The banks aren't democratically elected, and even in cases where they partially are (like building societies) they are not elected by the population as a whole with the understanding that they are responsible for regulation. I don't think it's a relevant analogy.

If we are to be a proper democracy then we ought to be a proper democracy for BOTH sections of Parliament.

I'm not sure a "proper democracy" has any real meaning. If it's important to be a "proper democracy" I could just as well argue we should have no elected representatives whatsoever and everyone should get to vote on everything. If you accept representative democracy as a practical and justified system then I don't see any significant leap between that and appointed peers.

[Moggy]

Sure, OK, then you have pressure from whoever supported your campaign to make their chosen replacement for you electable at the next Lords Election.

Why would you have that pressure? You get elected to a 20 year term and you know you will not get an extension. Why would you spend any time worrying about what your successor would do? Especially when you would have no idea who the successor would be – a Lords election doesn’t have to be a FPTP local election like we have for the Commons.

It's worked pretty well up till now. The main problems with the house of lords are ideological (hereditary and religious peers) and practical (life terms and an ever expanding size) as opposed to competency and effectiveness as a balancing house. I would agree with you if in practice an appointed second house acted subservient to the government, but I don't think that's what we see. The House of Lords as it currently is does a pretty good job.

It does do a pretty good job. It also did when it was solely hereditary and religious. Doing a pretty good job is fine, but why wouldn’t we strive to make it better? And democratic?

The banks aren't democratically elected, and even in cases where they partially are (like building societies) they are not elected by the population as a whole with the understanding that they are responsible for regulation. I don't think it's a relevant analogy.

It wasn't a direct analogy, it was a silly bit of hyperbole based on your "trust the government" statement.

I'm not sure a "proper democracy" has any real meaning. If it's important to be a "proper democracy" I could just as well argue we should have no elected representatives whatsoever and everyone should get to vote on everything. If you accept representative democracy as a practical and justified system then I don't see any significant leap between that and appointed peers.

I accept representative democracy. That doesn’t mean I want people that serve for only 5 years to have the power to appoint people FOR LIFE to the second chamber.

[That]

Sure, OK, then you have pressure from whoever supported your campaign to make their chosen replacement for you electable at the next Lords Election.

Why would you have that pressure? You get elected to a 20 year term and you know you will not get an extension. Why would you spend any time worrying about what your successor would do? Especially when you would have no idea who the successor would be – a Lords election doesn’t have to be a FPTP local election like we have for the Commons.

If you have to campaign for an election - even for a long single term - you have to have campaign funds. The pooling and distribution of campaign funds leads to political parties. Political parties are making an investment in a person, and will self-select people who are likely to look out for the interests of the party. Looking out for your party includes making the decisions that won't get the party slated in the papers. Therefore we will end up with Lords unwilling to make unpopular decisions.

[Moggy]

Sure, OK, then you have pressure from whoever supported your campaign to make their chosen replacement for you electable at the next Lords Election.

Why would you have that pressure? You get elected to a 20 year term and you know you will not get an extension. Why would you spend any time worrying about what your successor would do? Especially when you would have no idea who the successor would be – a Lords election doesn’t have to be a FPTP local election like we have for the Commons.

If you have to campaign for an election - even for a long single term - you have to have campaign funds. The pooling and distribution of campaign funds leads to political parties. Political parties are making an investment in a person, and will self-select people who are likely to look out for the interests of the party. Looking out for your party includes making the decisions that won't get the party slated in the papers. Therefore we will end up with Lords unwilling to make unpopular decisions.

Being appointed by a political party will mean that you are affiliated to that political party and will mean that you will generally go along with that political party.

There’s barely any difference. Except in one system we get to choose who is in the House of Lords and in the other Theresa May picks.

[That]

Being appointed by a political party will mean that you are affiliated to that political party and will mean that you will generally go along with that political party.

There’s barely any difference. Except in one system we get to choose who is in the House of Lords and in the other Theresa May picks.

Agreed. But I'm not really defending having the government appoint Lords either.

I think a department within the civil service should maintain a big list of qualified candidates, from which appointees are randomly invited until available places are filled. I'm not going to post a manifesto but I think qualification ought to involve good standing, a higher degree (Ph.D., B.M.B.S., M.Eng., etc.), and a career in a respectable profession.

You asked a question about paying them earlier. I don't have a problem with being a Lord involving a great salary, as in my fantasy system it would come with a high work-load and a mechanism for Lords that don't turn up & put the effort in to be dismissed.

[Moggy]

You asked a question about paying them earlier. I don't have a problem with being a Lord involving a great salary, as in my fantasy system it would come with a high work-load and a mechanism for Lords that don't turn up & put the effort in to be dismissed.

The question about paying them was in response to the idea of making it like jury service with people being called up to serve. My point there was that if we reimbursed those people for loss of earnings, then somebody earning £20k would feel pretty damn resentful to the peer sitting next to them who was earning £400k. Especially if that was the case for 5, 10 or 20 years.

I think we all agree that making it like jury service would be bad.

[That]

Yes.

Tangent: Arguably jury service itself is bad, though I'm not sure I quite see a better solution. Maybe it's the least-bad way to do it but that's still kind of dissatisfying.

[Preezy]

Just accept that God has decreed that man shouldn't have the right to govern oneself, and that such divine rights should remain with Kings (and Queens, if they ask nicely).

[Moggy]

Yes.

Tangent: Arguably jury service itself is bad, though I'm not sure I quite see a better solution. Maybe it's the least-bad way to do it but that's still kind of dissatisfying.

I would love to do jury service. I am sure it is boring really, but I think it could be really interesting as long as it wasn’t too horrible a case.

I also fully accept that I am an idiot though and the idea of a jury made up of people like me (or people worse than me!) is pretty scary.

[Hypes]

Just accept that God has decreed that man shouldn't have the right to govern oneself, and that such divine rights should remain with Kings (and Queens, if they ask nicely).

Agreed. The monarch should appoint people to serve in the House of Lords. Problem solved

[OrangeRKN]

All children orphaned before the age of 1 shall be raised in seclusion by the state for the sole purpose of serving in the House of Lords. On turning 25 an advanced AI shall select those who shall serve up to the required quota based on a lifetime of aptitude data. Those who do not make the cut will be reassigned to roles within the military suiting their capabilities.

[That]

All children orphaned before the age of 1 shall be raised in seclusion by the state for the sole purpose of serving in the House of Lords. On turning 25 an advanced AI shall select those who shall serve up to the required quota based on a lifetime of aptitude data. Those who do not make the cut will be reassigned to roles within the military suiting their capabilities.

I'm down with it

[Lagamorph]

AI Lords.
It'll be like Metal Gear Solid 2.

[Moggy]

All children orphaned before the age of 1 shall be raised in seclusion by the state for the sole purpose of serving in the House of Lords. On turning 25 an advanced AI shall select those who shall serve up to the required quota based on a lifetime of aptitude data. Those who do not make the cut will be reassigned to roles within the military suiting their capabilities.

I'm down with it

Seconded.

[Jenuall]

You failed to prevent Brexit - Fission Mailed.

[Squinty]

You failed to prevent Brexit - Fission Mailed.

It's just like one of my Japanese Animes Daily Mail editorials.

[Moggy]

twitter.com/danbloom1/status/996416453363621890

Disgusting.

And Theresa May, the architect of this, remains as Prime Minister.

[Jenuall]

Up to 63 my arse, there’s no way the number of people affected will be that small. Disgraceful stuff and what’s worse is I can’t see any real accountability for it coming anytime soon.