Is it time?

"The House of Lords has just signed its own death warrant – again. By voting down key clauses of the government’s Internal Market Bill, the Lords confirmed that it is an archaic excrescence which has no place in a 21st-century democracy."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/10/the-house-of-lords-has-signed-its-own-death-warrant-again/

What a load of bullshido (the article, not your post). How on earth are the House of Lords trying to thwart Brexit? We've already left. How can anyone stop something that's already happened. It's impossible and to even suggest it shows the utter contempt they have for the people who lap that sort of rubbish up. But I suppose, it's all the right wing press have left. Falsely claiming that (insert person/country/EU) are trying to stop something that's already happened. And then blame them for the mess we'll be in on January 1st.

All they (the House of Lords) are trying to do is prevent the UK government breaking international law, thus saving (what we have left of) our reputation around the world.

It's not that it really matters now that Biden is President-elect. They (our so called government) are going to have to fall in line now.

lmao if you think this is the most egregious example of why the House of Lords should be abolished.

If you wanted the House of Lords abolished, you just missed the only chance you’ll ever get -

I agree with the abolition of the Lords. And replace it with an elected senate. Something with legitimacy. Elected on a rolling basis or PR so it’s less likely to be subject to wild swings like we get with general elections.

But by rejecting bad legislation, it is doing its job!

Brexiteers should note that the Lords who voted against the bill include arch-Brexiteers like Michael Howard.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

I agree with the abolition of the Lords. And replace it with an elected senate. Something with legitimacy. Elected on a rolling basis or PR so it’s less likely to be subject to wild swings like we get with general elections.

But by rejecting bad legislation, it is doing its job!

Brexiteers should note that the Lords who voted against the bill include arch-Brexiteers like Michael Howard.

Spoil sport...that’s not relevant...boo, we want out. Out out out.

Next they’ll be telling you Boris and his Eton elite represent Dave and Shaz that have lived in Grimsby all their life...

Seriously, the lords has needed wholesale changes for years but I think we all know the likelihood is slim...shame really as there’s a good alternative that’s already been discussed...

I thought that we wanted to bring control back to Parliament? You know, follow our historic laws and constitution. ;D

Quoted from KingstonMariner

I agree with the abolition of the Lords. And replace it with an elected senate. Something with legitimacy. Elected on a rolling basis or PR so it’s less likely to be subject to wild swings like we get with general elections.

But by rejecting bad legislation, it is doing its job!

Brexiteers should note that the Lords who voted against the bill include arch-Brexiteers like Michael Howard.

I beg to differ. It is not for the Lords to say what is good or bad law. It is there to make sure laws passed by the elected house will work not to try and chuck them out on a political whim because the HoL happens to have a particular majority.. To scrutinise and ensure practicality is the role of the Lords..

The idea of previous reforms was to rid the Lords of such politicisation and appoint people who were acknowledged as primary in their particular field. That was the principle behind the Blair reforms in 1999. In fact for many years after 1911 this scrutiny was precisely what the old hereditary house was very good at. It was right and proper to rid it of the hereditary principle but successive governments have since thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Many of the “experts” appointed have been no more than axe grinders and/or.friends of the ruling party. It does not always do what it should or what was intended.

We could become unicameral and just do such scrutiny in theory by parliamentary committees of the HoC but these would necessarily be party political and would end up using outside experts ad hoc like Sage or something as daft as that. Also the HoL usefully allows non-controversial bills to be started and debated there for the benefit of of the public and save time in the HoC.

The HoL may indeed reject this bill but it should not do it to make people like John Major or Michael Howard happy. Reasons should not be on such political postures but on issues of fact and legality within the U.K.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

The HoL may indeed reject this bill but it should not do it to make people like John Major or Michael Howard happy. Reasons should not be on such political postures but on issues of fact and legality within the U.K.

So if parliament made genocide legal in the UK those who commit it here should not face punishment for breaking international law by outside agencies?

Quoted from LH

So if parliament made genocide legal in the UK those who commit it here should not face punishment for breaking international law by outside agencies?

That is a silly argument. There is no guarantee what the HoL would do. You also only have to think what would happen if there was no HoL and a new law took only a vote in the HoC.

The international law ploy is just  that, a ploy. I would have more time for them if they did some jumping up and down about international law as applied or not by Russia, China, Saudi and so on.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

That is a silly argument. There is no guarantee what the HoL would do. You also only have to think what would happen if there was no HoL and a new law took only a vote in the HoC.

The international law ploy is just  that, a ploy. I would have more time for them if they did some jumping up and down about international law as applied or not by Russia, China, Saudi and so on.

They do. And their point is, our case against such countries is weakened because we’re reneging on a treaty entered into so recently.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

I beg to differ. It is not for the Lords to say what is good or bad law. It is there to make sure laws passed by the elected house will work not to try and chuck them out on a political whim because the HoL happens to have a particular majority.. To scrutinise and ensure practicality is the role of the Lords..

The idea of previous reforms was to rid the Lords of such politicisation and appoint people who were acknowledged as primary in their particular field. That was the principle behind the Blair reforms in 1999. In fact for many years after 1911 this scrutiny was precisely what the old hereditary house was very good at. It was right and proper to rid it of the hereditary principle but successive governments have since thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Many of the “experts” appointed have been no more than axe grinders and/or.friends of the ruling party. It does not always do what it should or what was intended.

We could become unicameral and just do such scrutiny in theory by parliamentary committees of the HoC but these would necessarily be party political and would end up using outside experts ad hoc like Sage or something as daft as that. Also the HoL usefully allows non-controversial bills to be started and debated there for the benefit of of the public and save time in the HoC.

The HoL may indeed reject this bill but it should not do it to make people like John Major or Michael Howard happy. Reasons should not be on such political postures but on issues of fact and legality within the U.K.

The House of Lords is as you say is contemplative chamber. And a good thing too. The fact the ruling party can pack it is a bad thing as it weakens that function. It still has the right to reject bills and suggest amendments, even though the Commons can ultimately override it. There is no limit on the reasons it can reject a bill.

What ‘ploy’ is arch Leaver Michael Howard trying to pull then?

PS it is exactly the role of the Lords to say what is bad law. That’s why we have Law Lords. They’re there to use their expertise to propose amendments.