Revision Update: Parliament: House of Lords:
'via Blog this'
Showing posts with label lords reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lords reform. Show all posts
Friday, 17 May 2013
Saturday, 27 April 2013
How effective is the Lords at constraining the executive and what arethe implications of this for the reform debate?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-22266173
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
Friday, 8 March 2013
2012: Coalition drops House of Lords
from the BBC website:
Why
has the government dropped the plans?
The government was facing
considerable opposition, particularly among Conservative MPs. In July 2012, 91
Tory MPs rebelled against the government in a vote on how to timetable the
House of Lords Reform Bill - the largest such act of defiance since the
coalition was formed in 2010. Following this the prime minister told his backbenchers he would have
"one more try" on Lords reform but if his party could not reach a
deal he would "draw a line" under the issue. Several senior Labour
politicians also raised doubts and many peers were reported to be unhappy, too.
What does it mean for the coalition?
Lords reform has
been a key goal for the Lib Dems, and its failure raises coalition tensions.
Nick Clegg said the coalition agreement was a contract between the coalition
partners and the Conservatives had broken the contract by not honouring the
commitment to Lords reform.
What will the Lib Dems do now?
Mr Clegg says his
party will withdraw its support for boundary changes designed to cut the number
of MPs from 650 to 600 and equalise the size of constituencies- a Conservative
manifesto pledge. Legislation to reduce the House of Commons has already been
passed but proposals for the new constituency boundaries will have to be
approved by MPs before changes can be made.
Several
Conservative MPs have criticised the move saying the coalition agreement links
the Conservative commitment to bring in boundary changes to the Alternative
Vote referendum - something the Lib Dems wanted - which was held last year. The
MPs say they have kept their part of the deal and Mr Clegg cannot now backtrack
on boundary changes.
When will the boundary vote take place?
The final proposals
for the new constituency boundaries are not due to come back to Parliament
until October 2013. The Lib Dem leader has said he would like to see an
amendment to delay the change before then, but Mr Cameron is expected to go
ahead with the vote as planned.
Tuesday, 5 March 2013
Monday, 2 July 2012
Lords reform case against
If passed, this Lords reform bill would be a catastrophe | Jesse Norman http://gu.com/p/38yhe
Friday, 29 June 2012
Detailed reports on Lords reform 1999-2010
Chronology:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/House%20of%20Lords%20Reform%201997-2010%20-%2028%20%20June%202010.pdf
Implications: Click HERE
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Conflict Between Two Elected Houses? ........................................................................ 3
3 An Elected Second House—Wither the Salisbury Convention? .................................... 7
4 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Expertise? ........................................ 12
5 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Independence? ................................ 16
6 A More Representative House of Lords? ..................................................................... 19
7 Religious Representation in the House of Lords .......................................................... 21
8 The Church of England and Lords Reform—Disestablishment? ................................. 25
9 Little House, Big House? .............................................................................................. 28
10 Relationship with Citizens and Voters ........................................................................ 30
11 The House of Lords and Wider Constitutional Reform ............................................... 34
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/House%20of%20Lords%20Reform%201997-2010%20-%2028%20%20June%202010.pdf
Implications: Click HERE
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Conflict Between Two Elected Houses? ........................................................................ 3
3 An Elected Second House—Wither the Salisbury Convention? .................................... 7
4 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Expertise? ........................................ 12
5 Duplicating the House of Commons—A Loss of Independence? ................................ 16
6 A More Representative House of Lords? ..................................................................... 19
7 Religious Representation in the House of Lords .......................................................... 21
8 The Church of England and Lords Reform—Disestablishment? ................................. 25
9 Little House, Big House? .............................................................................................. 28
10 Relationship with Citizens and Voters ........................................................................ 30
11 The House of Lords and Wider Constitutional Reform ............................................... 34
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Lords Reform update June 2012
The Telegraph lays into Labour but also Tories and LDs over House of Lords, saying that the current proposals and debates is more about party political posturing than getting reform right. See here.
Miliband calls for referendum on Lords reform.
Miliband calls for referendum on Lords reform.
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
"Lords Baffoonery has to end!" Lords reform - arguments for
Lords buffoonery has to end. So why not abolish them? | Polly Toynbee http://gu.com/p/374bt
Sunday, 22 April 2012
Unit 1 and Unit 2 revision: House of Lords and Referendums
The issue over the last couple of weeks boils down to three new developments:
- The threat of Tory resignations if Cameron pushes ahead with Clegg's proposals (80% elected etc.). Cameron is at odds with most of his own Tory MPs, as he says he's in favour of Lords reform, whilst they are largely against. Even some cabinet ministers are hinting that Lords reform could be a resignation issue. The other issue is whether or not Cameron should whip his Tory MPs into voting for Lords reform or whether it should be up to the individual MPs. Some say that around 80 Tory MPs will vote against the proposed reforms when the time comes to vote on legislation.
- The question of whether or not a referendum should be held over whether or not Clegg's proposals should be put into action. A parliamentary committee will report on Monday (23/4/12) that a referendum should be held on the issue. Many Tory MPs agree, hoping that most people can be persuaded that reform is necessary and expensive (like AV campaign). However, Miliband is also in favour of a referendum. Clegg says that the coalition already has a democratic mandate for Lords reform as it was in both coalition parties' manifestos before the last election, and therefore a referendum is not needed. Unit 1 retakers should take note of this referendum possibility.
- The issue of whether or not the coalition can survive it's disagreements over Lords reform. See this blog for a brief analysis...and here.
The three issues are interwoven.
What the coalition agreement says about Lords reform HERE.
This weekend has seen some excellent coverage in The Guardian and the Telegraph (as usual).
Guardian:
- Article on coalition splits over Lords reform
- Article on cabinet tensions
- Against reform article
- In favour of reform editorial
Telegraph:
- Article on Conservative party tensions over Lords reform.
- Article about junior ministers threatening to resign over Lords reform.
- Miliband gives his reasons for supporting a Lords reform referendum.
- Lib Dem Lord Oakeshott hits out at Tory MPs against Lords reform saying they should "grow up" and remember the coalition agreement.
Anyone hoping to get a decent Unit 2 (or Unit 1 retake) grade will be reading these articles and taking notes on arguments and controversies, party positions and splits within parties.
Monday, 26 March 2012
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Lords reform
Lords reform: Nick Clegg likens UK system to Belize and Burkina Faso http://gu.com/p/35ngd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)