No referendum to be held on House of Lords reform

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18561424

The government has decided not to hold a national referendum on plans to reform the House of Lords.

It will publish its plans next week. If its legislation is passed, the first elections would take place in 2015.

BBC political correspondent Robin Brant said some Conservatives would see the decision not to hold a referendum as a victory for deputy prime minister Nick Clegg on a key issue for his Liberal Democrats.
But our correspondent said government sources had indicated that the prime minister had secured several key concessions.
These included making it clear that the new-look Lords could not block legislation passed by the House of Commons, he said.

Well in that case why would we need a second house?It just becomes a waste of time and money especially if there are to be elections?Unless it is allowed to make changes to sloppy legislation what will be the point?

The thing is the electorate never get a referendum on anything worth having one on. In fact I honestly can not ever remember being asked to vote on one full stop

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18561424Well in that case why would we need a second house?It just becomes a waste of time and money especially if there are to be elections?Unless it is allowed to make changes to sloppy legislation what will be the point?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18561424







Well in that case why would we need a second house?It just becomes a waste of time and money especially if there are to be elections?Unless it is allowed to make changes to sloppy legislation what will be the point?

I think we need a second house ,not one built on privilege but elected to act as a kind of buffer to stop the government getting power crazy and dictatorial

Originally Posted by martyh

I think we need a second house ,not one built on privilege but elected to act as a kind of buffer to stop the government getting power crazy and dictatorial

Did you se the concession that Cameron has asked for and got.That makes a second house unable to act as a buffer and to stop a power crazy government.

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

Oh and the fact that the Conservative,Labour and Liberal want an elected second house makes me very very suspicious.When the three major parties agree be very,very wary.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Did you se the concession that Cameron has asked for and got.That makes a second house unable to act as a buffer and to stop a power crazy government.

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

Oh and the fact that the Conservative,Labour and Liberal want an elected second house makes me very very suspicious.When the three major parties agree be very,very wary.

I did and as you say an elected house with no effective power is pointless and i see it as a massive change to our democratic process ,something we should really have a say in

and yes i am deeply suspicious when all parties agree on something ,makes me think there is an alterior motive

[Dai]

Indeed. The whole point of the 'Lords' is to act as a buffer to the 'Commons' and their kneejerk nonsense. One can see how the HOC would love to change that.

The government of the moment has so few real powers that they are reduced to tinkering with details. The Lisbon treaty pretty much made parliament redundant so all they can do is rubber stamp EU law and play about on the fringes.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I don't see the need for a referendum on reforming the House of Lords: this was in the Tory & Lib Dem manifestos, so they already have a mandate for it.

I hated the very idea of the House of Lords when I was younger.

... However, during the reign of Tony Blair, I grew to like and respect the House of Lords, thanks to the way it often kept New Labour's nonsense in check.

I do think we should move away from an upper house with membership based on privilege, but I think it must still retain the power to block legislation passed by the Commons.

We need to see the full proposals to see what it actually meant by "these included making it clear that the new-look Lords could not block legislation passed by the House of Commons". Will it be like at the moment, where the Parliament Act can be used to stop the House of Lords blocking legislation, or will they change it so that the new upper house can *never* block legislation without the Commons needing the Parliament Act?

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

The thing is the electorate never get a referendum on anything worth having one on. In fact I honestly can not ever remember being asked to vote on one full stop

We had a referendum last year on changing the voting system...