I agree with his views on a second elected chamber being hard to justify. Instead, a body of respected experts from diverse backgrounds sounds like something much better to aim for. I think the former choice would just be a cop out, effectively forcing the public to decide what the Lords should be because the government won't.
I think there should be hereditary peers as a point of expertise and experience - the familisation of power that children are brought up to inherit an infinitesimally small and absolutely limited quantity of influence on executive action, and legislation should pass it on the eldest child regardless of sex, it should be more like the monarchy. Equally, the heir ought to have sufficient merit already to be raised to the peerage, and keep the title in only a ceremonial sense.
I wonder what would happen if, say, someone held a private referendum/election to seek a democratic mandate for election to the House of Lords, what the appointment commission would do. Surely they couldn't refuse it?
I'm interested in learning more about the law, can anyone recommend some things I should do. I'm going to start watching the news and reading the times which will include the law section.
Any political institution with influence over our laws should be elected including the house of lords. There should be a revising upper chamber but it should be elected by the british people using full proportional representation.
It's almost as if you don’t understand what a politician is there for. The whole point of democracy is that you delegate power. You elect a representative to choose the experts, on your behalf, and your delegate is then held accountable for those choices. We elect politicians and not scientists. A chamber of unelected so-called experts sounds like something Oliver Cromwell once dreamt up. No, we don’t need another rump parliament. We either elect House of Lords or we get rid of it!
My goodness. What a bland description - no feeling, no opinion. No wonder nothing ever gets done if tedious bores like this have anything to do with it. Seems like you enjoy looking for reasons why not and cannot. No doubt all the decision makers are the same.
Very informative and understandable approach to the constitutional questions for prospective law student :)
I agree with his views on a second elected chamber being hard to justify. Instead, a body of respected experts from diverse backgrounds sounds like something much better to aim for. I think the former choice would just be a cop out, effectively forcing the public to decide what the Lords should be because the government won't.
I think there should be hereditary peers as a point of expertise and experience - the familisation of power that children are brought up to inherit an infinitesimally small and absolutely limited quantity of influence on executive action, and legislation should pass it on the eldest child regardless of sex, it should be more like the monarchy.
Equally, the heir ought to have sufficient merit already to be raised to the peerage, and keep the title in only a ceremonial sense.
Totally agree with you. I don't like it when university videos make comment pend for approval.
I wonder what would happen if, say, someone held a private referendum/election to seek a democratic mandate for election to the House of Lords, what the appointment commission would do. Surely they couldn't refuse it?
+Andrew Finn Oh, I'm sure they'd try.
Oh yes - comment pending approval. So much for free speech and democracy. You will fit nicely in the European Parliament.
I'm interested in learning more about the law, can anyone recommend some things I should do. I'm going to start watching the news and reading the times which will include the law section.
Any political institution with influence over our laws should be elected including the house of lords. There should be a revising upper chamber but it should be elected by the british people using full proportional representation.
Contitution?
It's almost as if you don’t understand what a politician is there for.
The whole point of democracy is that you delegate power. You elect a representative to choose the experts, on your behalf, and your delegate is then held accountable for those choices. We elect politicians and not scientists.
A chamber of unelected so-called experts sounds like something Oliver Cromwell once dreamt up. No, we don’t need another rump parliament. We either elect House of Lords or we get rid of it!
My goodness. What a bland description - no feeling, no opinion. No wonder nothing ever gets done if tedious bores like this have anything to do with it. Seems like you enjoy looking for reasons why not and cannot. No doubt all the decision makers are the same.
Well then..the only answer is to write the darn constitution down...
all around bad idea.