British aristocracy without the House of Lords Act 1999?

[classyjackie]

What if the reform act never passed in 1999, how would the lifestyles of the peers/aristocracy change in the UK? What would the political landscape look today? What would this mean for government and everyday life in Britain? Would the House of Lords be more powerful?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The House of Lords would be even less relevant than now, and rapidly heading to being abolished. As for how the aristocracy would live, that's not going to change other than the elderly Lords and Ladies have something to do once their professional careers are over and they reach retirement age. Most of the work of the Lords was done by the Life Peers anyway, not the Aristocracy.

 

[Dancing Fool]

What would the political landscape look today?

The House of Lords would be even less relevant than now, and rapidly heading to being abolished.

I’m a Yank . . .

And I kind of think the long game in the United States is moving toward a parliamentary form of democracy — Yes, through Constitutional Amendments — and making the Senate advisory only.

However, it worries me that our U.S. House of Representatives has more extremists than the Senate, and that only maybe 10% of the 435 seats have any kind of competitive elections between D’s and R’s.

So, yes, I’m interested in how things work in the UK.

 

[Nivek]

I’m a Yank . . .

And I kind of think the long game in the United States is moving toward a parliamentary form of democracy — Yes, through Constitutional Amendments — and making the Senate advisory only.

However, it worries me that our U.S. House of Representatives has more extremists than the Senate, and that only maybe 10% of the 435 seats have any kind of competitive elections between D’s and R’s.

So, yes, I’m interested in how things work in the UK.

Senate is always the best chamber In any system

 

[Navigator]

The House of Lords would be even less relevant than now.

The HoL's decline into irrelevance began when Lloyd-George and the other commoners started stuffing it full of apparatchiks who had either never been elected or who had been thrown out of office by the electorate because of their incompetence. If any part of Parliament is abolished, it should be the power-grabbing HoC. Most of the problems in society are a consequence of MPs' adversarial and short-term outlook which barely stretches beyond the next election. At least the better of the hereditarys looked towards the legacy that they would leave for their children in 30 to 40 years.

 

[Typho]

I’m a Yank . . .

And I kind of think the long game in the United States is moving toward a parliamentary form of democracy — Yes, through Constitutional Amendments — and making the Senate advisory only.

Senates are ironically the future, upper houses that didn't evolve into senates were generally abolished, because they served no purpose.
UK has a history of proposing senates, for Irish and Scottish devolution.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I’m a Yank . . .

And I kind of think the long game in the United States is moving toward a parliamentary form of democracy — Yes, through Constitutional Amendments — and making the Senate advisory only.

However, it worries me that our U.S. House of Representatives has more extremists than the Senate, and that only maybe 10% of the 435 seats have any kind of competitive elections between D’s and R’s.

So, yes, I’m interested in how things work in the UK.

No elected upper chamber can be just advisory. The fact that it's elected allows it to claim the backing of the electorate in any conflict with the lower house. This is why the House of Commons has always resisted an elected upper house when reforming the House of Lords. What they fear is a return to the situation before the 1911 reforms when the Lords could veto bills passed by the Commons rather than just delay them or propose amendments.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Most of the problems in society are a consequence of MPs' adversarial and short-term outlook

What if I say it’s our job as system reformers to find a way to dovetail the short-term into the long-term?

I mean, that’s a big ask. But that is kind of our task.

 

[Dancing Fool]

No elected upper chamber can be just advisory. The fact that it's elected allows it to claim the backing of the electorate in any conflict with the lower house.

I had a political science professor who laid out the case for “effective party government.” The voters pretty much get what the winning party promised, and can decided how much they like it. Therefore, we have a dynamic feedback process and the voters will [hopefully!] get smarter over time.

The fly in the ointment is that the swings can be too abrupt. For example, we can end up first nationalizing steel, and then de-nationalizing it [and that’s going to be about the only example a Yank’s likely to know!]

 

[Derek Pullem]

The HoL's decline into irrelevance began when Lloyd-George and the other commoners started stuffing it full of apparatchiks who had either never been elected or who had been thrown out of office by the electorate because of their incompetence. If any part of Parliament is abolished, it should be the power-grabbing HoC. Most of the problems in society are a consequence of MPs' adversarial and short-term outlook which barely stretches beyond the next election. At least the better of the hereditarys looked towards the legacy that they would leave for their children in 30 to 40 years.

Trouble is the House of Lords is becoming even more devalued due to actions of some Prime Ministers.

I mean - elevating your 29 year old special advisor to the Lords because she worked for you for just over a year as special advisor and for five years before that as your shared PA scrapes the barrel

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The fly in the ointment is that the swings can be too abrupt. For example, we can end up first nationalizing steel, and then de-nationalizing it [and that’s going to be about the only example a Yank’s likely to know!]

A way to lessen the swings would be to have the second chamber elected on a different cycle to the first and to use a different electoral method such as some form of PR for the Upper House and First Past the Post for the Lower. This would at least prevent the Upper House being a clone of the lower with roughly the same proportion of Senators per party as the Lower.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Trouble is the House of Lords is becoming even more devalued due to actions of some Prime Ministers.

I mean - elevating your 29 year old special advisor to the Lords because she worked for you for just over a year as special advisor and for five years before that as your shared PA scrapes the barrel

That's nothing Lloyd George was selling peerages.

 

[Derek Pullem]

That's nothing Lloyd George was selling peerages.

I guess i was bemoaning the fact that the "price" paid for a peerage seems to have fallen so low

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Senate is always the best chamber In any system

Except the PLC

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Except the PLC

What's a Public Limited Company got to do with an Upper Political Chamber?

 

[Derek Pullem]

What's a Public Limited Company got to do with an Upper Political Chamber?

Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth - the ultimate one man one vote one veto

 

[misterwibble]

Trouble is the House of Lords is becoming even more devalued due to actions of some Prime Ministers.

I mean - elevating your 29 year old special advisor to the Lords because she worked for you for just over a year as special advisor and for five years before that as your shared PA scrapes the barrel

Got her peerage for party services.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth - the ultimate one man one vote one veto

Or how to not get anything done and destroy your country.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Got her peerage for party services.

There's a smutty comment just waiting to get me banned in response to this.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

You could probably make an argument that the HoL would be looking at abolition without the reform act, and it is a good argument, but I feel some sort of reform would get pushed through. At the very least Blair and Labour would likely push through a bill limiting the size of the HoL because 800+ members is ridiculous. Or, while allowing people to get peerages, not guaranteeing them an automatic seat in the HoL might be a good thing.

As for the HoL becoming powerful, not a chance. The (effective) last gasp of the HoL was in 1911 before the Commons took over.