Darren Hughes | This House Would Scrap The Lords

Darren Hughes | This House Would Scrap The Lords | Cambridge Union

Рет қаралды 132

29 күн бұрын

Darren Hughes speaks in the Debating Chamber as the first proposition for the motion on Thursday 25th April 2024.
Darren Hughes is chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. ERS was formed in 1884 and campaigns for democratic reforms including proportional representation for the House of Commons and an elected second chamber to replace the House of Lords. Darren has served as a Member of Parliament and Government Minister in New Zealand.
Baroness Jenny Jones has held several prominent political roles: Deputy Mayor of London, Deputy Chair of the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee, Green Councillor for Southwark Council and Chair of the Green Party of England and Wales. She served on the London Assembly from 2000-16 where she worked on housing, policing and civil liberties, cycling and walking, road safety and the legacy of the 2012 Olympics/ Paralympics.
Kezia Dugdale is a Professor of Practice at the University of Glasgow and Associate Director of the Centre for Public Policy. Before joining the University of Glasgow, Kezia was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Lothians region for eight years, during which she led the Scottish Labour Party through four national elections and the EU referendum.
Philip Norton (Lord Norton of Louth) is Professor of Government, and Director of the Centre for Legislative Studies, at the University of Hull. He was appointed to the Chair of Government in 1986 making him, at 35, the youngest professor of politics in the UK. He was elevated to the peerage, as Lord Norton of Louth, in 1998 and was the first Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution.
Christopher Lorde is a student speaker that won the right to speak through a process of Audition.
Baroness Hayman is a Crossbench peer, who served as the first ever Lord Speaker from 2006 to 2011. Having entered the House of Lords in 1996, she has also held Ministerial posts in the Transport, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health Departments. She is the current Chair of Peers for Planet and served as President of the Cambridge Union in Easter 1969.
............................................................................................................................
Thumbnail Photographer: XXXXXXXXXXXX
............................................................................................................................
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers:
/ @cambridgeunionsoc1815
............................................................................................................................
Connect with us on:
Facebook: / thecambridgeunion
Instagram: / cambridgeunion
Twitter: / cambridgeunion
LinkedIn: / cambridge-union-society

Пікірлер: 19

@edbop 27 күн бұрын

You have to be soft in the head to think that proportional representation would be a good idea. The party political system is the problem, if people voted for the person rather than the party then the MPs might actually read the proposed legislation they are voting on.

@neilhardman7973 25 күн бұрын

What system of politics exists, where party politics has been nullified? I know of no way to ensure individual representatives do not band together to increase their power and effectiveness. No FPTP system has done away with party systems, in fact they often create a two party system which is even more partisan than other systems. If we are stuck with party politics, why not improve it with a proportional electoral system? If we aren't stuck with party politics, what system do we choose to prevent the rise of parties?

@edbop 25 күн бұрын

@@neilhardman7973 You think PR would be an improvement? SO rather than having an MP accountable to their constituents you just get assigned an MP by their party who is totally beholden to them. Our current system doesn't work very well because people generally vote for a party rather than an individual but there are instances where that isn't the case. If an MPs only loyalty is to their party then they have no reason to read legislation, they won't have the power to vote against the whip and they have no to loyalty to their constituents. No that doesn't seem like an improvement to be; but I do understand that in the world of social media fashionable politics, whether something is a good idea or not doesn't seem to matter.

@neilhardman7973 23 күн бұрын

@@edbop I agree with your distaste for representatives, being wholly controlled by the political parties, however the current system doesn't protect against that either. Currently most MPs will vote with the whip, the few rebelling are usually going with their conscience, rather than with their interpretation of their constituents beliefs. Our MPs currently don't have any proper mechanism to judge their constituents individual beliefs, aside from polling (which doesn't usually drill down to the constituency level), or having a tiny proportion of constituents send emails in, which is not representative of the constituency as a whole. As well as the highly political MPS that have to conform to a whip, there are the speakers, ministers & party leaders who don't have the time to deal with constituency issues, even if their constituencies aren't voting for anyone with the right coloured rosette. My point is, I can't see how FPTP eliminates any of the broader issues you have raised, and the ideal situation of having a good constituency MP, is few and far between. I'm not sure you need a constituency link when deciding national policy anyway, why should an MP potentially scupper a piece of national legislation because the Hebrides disagree? If all MPs only cared about their constituents, the system might work, but currently only a small minority do. There is a way of getting both anyway, which is MMP., the system in Germany and Scotland. With a top up system, voters get a personal representative (with a constituency twice as large, but what is so special about the 100,000 number we have now, I'm not sure) , but you then have MPs voted on a list to add to the regional representatives, that give a broadly proportional result. I would be quite happy with that system.

@edbop 23 күн бұрын

@@neilhardman7973 So you see there is a problem with the party political system and MPs having to rely on the party for their job but you think further entrenching that system would be an improvement. If we are to change anything for the better in this country people need to start voting for capable independent candidates.

@Anon54387 22 күн бұрын

@@neilhardman7973 Fair warning, American peeking over the fence here. I honestly don't know what to do to prevent parties. In the American Constitution party is not mentioned, and many of America's founders actively despised the idea of political party. Nonetheless, parties quickly formed after a government was set up. If a Constitutional amendment outlawed parties I think they would exist in fact if no longer in name. I'm usually a pretty optimistic guy, but I just don't see any way around it.