首页> 外文期刊>Parliamentary Affairs >1949, 1969, 1999: The Labour Party and House of Lords Reform
【24h】

1949, 1969, 1999: The Labour Party and House of Lords Reform

机译:1949、1969、1999:工党和上议院改革

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Throughout its one hundred year history, the Labour Party has never been able to agree on how the House of Lords should be reformed. On those occasions when Labour parliamentarians have sought to devise a package of reforms, most notably in 1949, 1969 and since 1999, they have discovered that each potential measure to change the composition or power of the House of Lords raises other potential problems. For example, a more democratic or representative membership would imbue the Second Chamber with more legitimacy, and thus increase the likelihood of challenges to a Labour government in the House of Commons, whilst replacing hereditary peers with appointees raises concerns about enhancing prime ministerial patronage. Such have been the range of possible options for reform of the House of Lords, and the concomitant range of opinions in the Labour Party, that no agreement has ever been reached, and hence previous proposals for Lords reform have invariably been abandoned. It is in this context that the Blair Governments stalling over ‘stage two’ of House of Lords reform should be understood.
机译:工党在其一百年的历史中从未就如何改革上议院达成共识。在那些工党议员试图制定一揽子改革方案的情况下,最著名的是在1949年,1969年和1999年以来,他们发现改变上议院组成或权力的每项潜在措施都会带来其他潜在问题。例如,更民主或更具代表性的成员资格将使第二分庭更具合法性,从而增加下议院对工党政府提出挑战的可能性,而以任命的人员取代世袭的同僚则引发了对加强总理的光顾的担忧。这就是上议院改革的各种可能选择,以及工党的随之而来的一系列意见,因此从未达成任何协议,因此,先前关于上议院改革的提议总是被放弃。正是在这种情况下,应该理解布莱尔政府因上议院改革的“第二阶段”而陷入困境。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Parliamentary Affairs》 |2006年第4期|599-620|共22页
  • 作者

    Peter Dorey;

  • 作者单位

    Reader in British Politics at Cardiff University;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号