Painting themselves as the wonderful Labour Party fighting on behalf of the oppressed masses, the House of Lords has always been a sore point for them. And whenever the Red Team see something that is unattainable to the less-than-average John, Abdul or Wong, prepare to pull out all the stops to ‘fix it’.
Even better if the Red Team can score a few points past the Blue Team. And considering that an election is round the corner, this can be construed as pure politicking on the part of the Red Team, especially due to the ease Jack Straw can withdraw from his duties as Justice Secretary to push the idea.
Say what you will about the ‘party-patronage’ and hereditary peers, replacing them with more politicians just seems wrong. Trusting the current inhabitants of the Houses of Swine to ‘fix-it’, even more wrong.
Past examples of the Lordships’ of all Feck’ups (in no particular order) are: Lord Mangledbum (disgraced but never forgotten). Lord Ashcroft (Tory owner donor). Baroness Uddin (crook who may get away with it). Lord Paul (Labour donor). Baroness Ashton (the EU foreign Affairs something-or-other).
Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor. Published: 9:00PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
Plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is this weekend consulting cabinet colleagues on a blueprint which would represent the biggest change to the way Britain is governed for several decades.
The proposals, which have been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph and which are expected to be announced soon, would sweep away centuries of tradition and set ministers on a collision course with the current 704-member House of Lords, which is resolutely opposed to having elected members.
Ministers are ready to announce their plans, which follow years of fruitless cross-party discussions and several votes in the House of Commons, in a bid to wrong-foot the Tories with polling day less than two months away.
Labour’s plan is to provoke elements inside the Conservative Party to object to the reforms – which would allow it to paint David Cameron as wedded to old ideas of privilege.
…
The plans would see all members of the new-look assembly being directly elected – ending the system of party patronage- with polling under some form of proportional representation system taking place at the same time as general elections.
One third of the new chamber would be elected on each occasion – with members serving three terms, up to 15 years, once elected in a similar system to the one in use to choose members of the US Senate.
Under the plans, ministers could only be appointed from peers who had been elected – bringing to an end the “GOATS” system which has seen Gordon Brown choosing as members of his government people from outside politics whom he has appointed peers.
In the event of death, members would be replaced without the need for by-elections under some sort of “best loser” system. Members would be paid a salary which has yet to be fixed – but it would almost certainly be less than the £64,766 currently paid to backbench MPs.
Ministers are expected to look at whether it would be possible to introduce any kind of artificial “balance” so that the reformed chamber includes a certain proportion of women and members of different faith groups.
…
The remaining 92 hereditary peers – the relic of a deal done under Tony Blair’s premiership in 1999 – would also be swept away under the proposed reforms.
…
Three years ago the Commons voted by a majority of 113 to reform the upper house to an all-elected chamber – but that move was blocked by the House of Lords itself, which voted for a fully appointed assembly.
David Cameron, who personally supports reform of the Lords, is however not thought to relish the idea of a full-scale battle over a big shake-up with Tory peers within months, or even years, of becoming prime minister should his party win power in the election, almost certainly to be held on 6 May.
…
Labour’s only significant change to the House of Lords since coming to power in 1997 was the removal of most hereditary peers in 1999.
Under a deal done between the government and Lord Cranborne, then the Tory leader in the Lords, a “rump” of 92 hereditaries was saved and still remains in the upper house, topping up its number with “by elections” on the death of a hereditary peer.
In 2003 the government proposed stripping the prime minister of the day of powers to decide how many peers were created, but the plans were put on hold.
The same year saw a series of votes in the Commons over whether various percentages of the Lords should be of elected members – including one proposal for an all-elected House – but all the proposals were defeated.
Problem with our democracy is the illusion that we, the electorate, actually matter. With so many involved in the workings of the State, the base vote for the Establishment is more than suffice to keep them in. This has happened ever since the common man gained the vote.
The Bastards that Be entrench their positions by financing, manipulating and blackmailing friend and foe alike, and for the most part, doing so successfully.
We do need our entire political structure tweaked yet the last people we should trust are those professional liars. Best way to regain our Democracy is to vote AGAINST the Establishment, not with them.
Those who give away their freedoms for their luxuries, deserve neither.
The future will involve a lot of hard work no matter how you vote. Best to keep it in-house at least.
Mr Straw is coming into some flack due to his utterance that Pakistanis see white infidels as easy-meat. The Meeja are determined to muddy the waters and refuse to see the main fault.
My mindless mind mindlessly minding 