Incidentally, just seen this on t'Guardian.

Direct Digital Democracy

So the hung parliament means that the incumbent PM gets to build a government made from the most suitable people from each party? Why does that not already happen?

 

Assuming for a moment that none of the major parties are perfect (just go with me on this one), is it not better to have the one person who is most competent in their position in charge of each department? As opposed to being forced to choose one party which could have some members that you feel are weaker and would prefer someone from another party, even if you didn't agree with that parties policies in general.

 

Smash the establishment, etc.

Suitability has nothing to do with it. Parties go into huddles in closed rooms, attempting to negotiate a working majority against promises of senior cabinet posts to people not fit to hold them, or extreme legislation as a honey trap for single interest groups. If you thought this government stank, wait till you see two minority parties vying against one another to seduce the Lib Dems and the Irish Unionists.

I'm pretty sure that can happen anyway. Ministers (including cabinet) can be appointed from any party (and either house, I think). Didn't Labour talk about offering cabinet positions to Lib Dems in 1997? (though I can't remember what came of it).

Ok so according to the first poll, the Libs got an 8% bump from the debates. Which is a hell of a bump, more than anyone was really expecting I think. Sure, that will erode a bit but... I think that'll be a short-term erosion overlaid on a longer term (over the next few weeks) steady growth. Possibly with further bumps from the subsequent debates.

 

And of course the stupid bit is that if the election was today and people voted as that poll indicates (30% libs, 33% tory and 28% lab) then Labour would come out of the election with the most seats with 274ish, Tories second with about 245 and Liberals last with 100. Fucking democracy (fail)

Fail indeed, but at least that outcome would result in proper electoral reform. A hundred lib dems moderating labour's suthoritarian streak can't be a bad thing either.

Trouble with election reform is...

I want a PR system for the commons which maintains local representation (which is doable, so ok). But I do not want an elected Lords. And I feel quite strongly about that so the more they push for it the less chance they'll get my vote.

I can't be arsed trying to understand Wikipedia's explanation - how do new Lords come along, and how/why do you want it to be?

Well it used to work that you had to be a Lord (or a Lady). Then they added "life peers" i.e. Lords where the title is not hereditary. These are given out by the government (technically by the monarch but always on behalf of the PM) for... stuff, y'know, like doing good stuff or buying a peerage.

 

Then the Labour government 'reformed' the Lords by reducing the number of hereditary peers and replacing them with life peers. Which, of course, means that the peers are now chosen by the ruling party in the commons. Which is a great idea of course.

 

I want it to be how it used to be. I want the House of Lords to be full of hereditary peers. We have a resource in this country in that we have (or used to) a class of people who are financially independent, well educated and with a lot of spare time on their hands. So we have a second chamber full of people with the time and education to come to a considered opinion on a particular subject and then vote their conscience. I am of course idealising the situation massively but I think it's good to state the ideal and then aim for it.

 

I would be in favour of some form of independent oversight to make sure Lord are putting the hours in and not taking bribes and that sort of thing. In fact I would only let genuinely financially independent Lords sit. I also don't care if the Lords are hereditary or not - that's not the point. I would not object to, say, taking 500 kids from social services every 30-or-whatever years, giving them the best education the country can offer then putting a few hundred million pounds in their bank account and making their job to be a member of the Lords from 18 to retirement. But, y'know, given that we have the remnants of a mechanism which used to do that, we might as well just start that up again. With oversight.

 

The alternative (and I probably won't idealise this) is another chamber full of career politicians who're more interested in maintaining their own positions with populist fluff and servicing the interests of big business than in actual public service.

I agree with all of that,
another thing I liked about the old system is that most were brought up with a sense of 'duty', of 'doing the right thing' and could be the basis of the trust we used to have in government

(I'm kinda in favour of a re-empowered monarchy for the same reasons. That old "democracy is the worst form of government... apart from all the others we've tried" doesn't really hold any more. This shit right now is worse than monarchy)

The 'right thing' generally being to apose any progressive legislation on the grounds that we jolly well got by just fine without it in the past.

Yeah cos so many progressive-as-fuck ideas come out of the commons.

(I think a conservative (in a particular sense) second chamber is a good thing, overall. Legislation which is neither necessary nor in the public interest (the DEA for example or anti-terror stuff) should not get through, and probably wouldn't've. I think the sort of Lords we're talking about would see the value of something genuinely progressive (I can't really think of anything particularly progressive or radical since the creation of the welfare state and NHS, and they both got through the old-style Lords so, y'know.))

They would under electoral reform! (OK, perhaps putting a little too much faith in politicians there...)

 

But meh. I don't like the idea of a birth-right giving someone the power to sit as a Lord and decide on legislation. And as much as the Lords can protect us from stupid legislation, it also can prevent good legistlation becoming reality, effectively existing to maintain things as close to the status quo as possible.

 

Do away with the peers, make it elected (perhaps withsome portion of life time appointments in specialist areas), and remove the Parliament Act to prevent tits like Tony Blair can't force through anything they bloody well like because they can rely on the fear within their own ranks of the whip system.

 

Assuming we're not going for violent revoluion, of course.

Yeah well violent revolution is my first choice obviously.

I dunno though, I agree that it's an inherently unfair idea. But... society is currently unfair in so many more important ways. We may as well put the useful-anomalies the unfairness generates to work if we're not actually going to sort out the unfairness itself.

I really think representative democracy has shown itself unsuited to managing a postmodern world/country/whatever. Giving a degree of control to people who are (ideally) unaffected by big-business-lobbying and the pressures of getting re-elected just seems like... a good idea.

If the Lords refused to pass the sort of pointless-tinkering bills that get made into law these days, perhaps it would force the Commons to come up with actual (progressive, radical) ideas.

Elect 'em for life, then :D

 

I dunno, it's all fucked.

w3rd :(

(the pm also approves peerages for the opposition too so they don't load the lords with labour supporters)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords?wasRedirected=true

 

composition wise, labour have nothing like a majority. The Tories have more hereditary peers. Being given the right to govern based on an accident of birth is and always has been a shit idea - those in positions of privilege did bugger all to improve the life of commoners historically.

(shhhhh, I'm slurring labour)