Article 50 ruling due now
Discussion
I'm not suggesting that we reform the HoL because they've voted to amend the Brexit Bill, I just think it's the opportune moment to highlight how bent the system is at a time when they are in the public eye.
In the last 10 years, the number of Police Officers was reduced by 20k. The Lords said nothing.
The UK population went up by 3.79M. The Lords said nothing.
The number of MPs increased by 4. The Lords said nothing.
The number of Lords sitting in HoL increased by 61. The Lords accepted a £300 a day allowance for their increased cohort.
Blair promised to reform the Lords and he replaced many hereditary peers with failed politicians, cronies and donors. Cameron chose to reform by swelling their number. This is a chance to make the Lords more accountable and representative, even ardent remainers should have issues with a second chamber that is meant to act as a check and balance on the politicians but is merely filled with political appointments without a public mandate.
In the last 10 years, the number of Police Officers was reduced by 20k. The Lords said nothing.
The UK population went up by 3.79M. The Lords said nothing.
The number of MPs increased by 4. The Lords said nothing.
The number of Lords sitting in HoL increased by 61. The Lords accepted a £300 a day allowance for their increased cohort.
Blair promised to reform the Lords and he replaced many hereditary peers with failed politicians, cronies and donors. Cameron chose to reform by swelling their number. This is a chance to make the Lords more accountable and representative, even ardent remainers should have issues with a second chamber that is meant to act as a check and balance on the politicians but is merely filled with political appointments without a public mandate.
brenflys777 said:
I'm not suggesting that we reform the HoL because they've voted to amend the Brexit Bill, I just think it's the opportune moment to highlight how bent the system is at a time when they are in the public eye.
In the last 10 years, the number of Police Officers was reduced by 20k. The Lords said nothing.
The UK population went up by 3.79M. The Lords said nothing.
The number of MPs increased by 4. The Lords said nothing.
The number of Lords sitting in HoL increased by 61. The Lords accepted a £300 a day allowance for their increased cohort.
Blair promised to reform the Lords and he replaced many hereditary peers with failed politicians, cronies and donors. Cameron chose to reform by swelling their number. This is a chance to make the Lords more accountable and representative, even ardent remainers should have issues with a second chamber that is meant to act as a check and balance on the politicians but is merely filled with political appointments without a public mandate.
In the last 10 years, the number of Police Officers was reduced by 20k. The Lords said nothing.
The UK population went up by 3.79M. The Lords said nothing.
The number of MPs increased by 4. The Lords said nothing.
The number of Lords sitting in HoL increased by 61. The Lords accepted a £300 a day allowance for their increased cohort.
Blair promised to reform the Lords and he replaced many hereditary peers with failed politicians, cronies and donors. Cameron chose to reform by swelling their number. This is a chance to make the Lords more accountable and representative, even ardent remainers should have issues with a second chamber that is meant to act as a check and balance on the politicians but is merely filled with political appointments without a public mandate.
1000hrs and already a bit over 58,000 signatures.
And 2 months before the deadline. It will be interesting to see how many people signed up to this once the deadline has lapsed. The HoC stuffed full of cronies, failed politicians and convicted criminals needs a complete overhaul or demise.
And 2 months before the deadline. It will be interesting to see how many people signed up to this once the deadline has lapsed. The HoC stuffed full of cronies, failed politicians and convicted criminals needs a complete overhaul or demise.
turbobloke said:
brenflys777 said:
I'm not suggesting that we reform the HoL because they've voted to amend the Brexit Bill, I just think it's the opportune moment to highlight how bent the system is at a time when they are in the public eye.
In the last 10 years, the number of Police Officers was reduced by 20k. The Lords said nothing.
The UK population went up by 3.79M. The Lords said nothing.
The number of MPs increased by 4. The Lords said nothing.
The number of Lords sitting in HoL increased by 61. The Lords accepted a £300 a day allowance for their increased cohort.
Blair promised to reform the Lords and he replaced many hereditary peers with failed politicians, cronies and donors. Cameron chose to reform by swelling their number. This is a chance to make the Lords more accountable and representative, even ardent remainers should have issues with a second chamber that is meant to act as a check and balance on the politicians but is merely filled with political appointments without a public mandate.
In the last 10 years, the number of Police Officers was reduced by 20k. The Lords said nothing.
The UK population went up by 3.79M. The Lords said nothing.
The number of MPs increased by 4. The Lords said nothing.
The number of Lords sitting in HoL increased by 61. The Lords accepted a £300 a day allowance for their increased cohort.
Blair promised to reform the Lords and he replaced many hereditary peers with failed politicians, cronies and donors. Cameron chose to reform by swelling their number. This is a chance to make the Lords more accountable and representative, even ardent remainers should have issues with a second chamber that is meant to act as a check and balance on the politicians but is merely filled with political appointments without a public mandate.
In reality imo it's simply continuing to promote the message that the current system isn't working to the satisfaction of many citizens.
confused_buyer said:
Surely the point of an unelected Chamber is that it looks at things objectively without having to worry about the temperature of events?
Now, in this case, they might have misjudged it but I'm not sure that is a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You'd think so... But some figures... Now, in this case, they might have misjudged it but I'm not sure that is a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- 804 members
- Just 208 noted as no political affiliation (26%)
- 26 of a religious flavour (3%)
- So of the other 570...
- 252 Conservative (31% of the House)
- 204 Labour (25%)
- 102 LibDem (12%)
- 3 UKIP, 1 from Wales, 6 from NI
- None from Scotland (probably for historic reasons? Or classified in the other groups)
That make up does not suggest political neutrality/independence to me... Nor objectivity.
And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
confused_buyer said:
The Lords is quite entitled to say to the Commons "we've looked at it, and we think you should have another think about this bit".
This is all that has happened and is how our Legislature works. They are quite entitled to do it and the Commons is quite entitled to say "thank you, we have looked at it again and we're sticking with it as was" which is what I suspect they will do.
I think we only really get into major problems if the Lords then ignores this and sends it back yet again as an endless delaying tactic. There doesn't, at the moment, seem to be much appetite to do that. They recognise that in the end the Commons must and will win.
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with what the Lords have done. This is all that has happened and is how our Legislature works. They are quite entitled to do it and the Commons is quite entitled to say "thank you, we have looked at it again and we're sticking with it as was" which is what I suspect they will do.
I think we only really get into major problems if the Lords then ignores this and sends it back yet again as an endless delaying tactic. There doesn't, at the moment, seem to be much appetite to do that. They recognise that in the end the Commons must and will win.
However, the hereditary peers and the bishops have to go. It's a disgrace that they have a say in our Parliament.
Hayek said:
I've always been sympathetic to the way the Lords used to be - hereditary peers who in theory made sensible decisions because they weren't at the mercy of an upcoming election.
However increasingly I feel like our system has painted itself into a corner into which it can no longer be taken seriously. I'd be concerned if we didn't have a sanity check on the commons, at the same time though what use is it if it can be stuffed by political parties, and if those Lords with an EU pension must remain loyal to the EU to ensure they receive their pension. Too many conflicts of interest.
Also if the Lords are abolished and the idea of hereditary peers is finished with, would this mean the monarchy starts looking unsustainable?
i wouldn't want to see the lords abolished. there is a very important place for them . my main issues are do we need so many,should there be a retirement age and is the current system the correct way to be selecting them ?However increasingly I feel like our system has painted itself into a corner into which it can no longer be taken seriously. I'd be concerned if we didn't have a sanity check on the commons, at the same time though what use is it if it can be stuffed by political parties, and if those Lords with an EU pension must remain loyal to the EU to ensure they receive their pension. Too many conflicts of interest.
Also if the Lords are abolished and the idea of hereditary peers is finished with, would this mean the monarchy starts looking unsustainable?
Edited by Hayek on Wednesday 1st March 23:52
strangely enough for someone that is anti establishment i think there is a place for hereditary peers ,they have the potential to be the least biased people in politics today . whether that really is the case i don't know, but i like to think so.
i don't see the royal family being unsustainable anytime soon. with the young princes being so popular they will be a net asset for a long time to come. apart from charles being a bit of a lunatic i personally rather like them. apparently a strange stance for someone like me according to friends that would like to see their privileges removed .
grumbledoak said:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686
51,880 this morning.
Almost 63,000 now. I said it would hit 100,000 quickly.51,880 this morning.
Once it gets on social media it could go ballistic.
Serves the f. right.
Duncan Smith was on Vine just a minute ago saying if Merkel and her cronies like Juncker etc had sat down with May for just 5 mins and agreed all in Europe and here in the UK could stay, it would have solved the matter. Hey, it's that simple.
But Merkel et al said 'NEIN!'
Never mind. Roll on the European elections.
Even as a committed Brexiteer this is the point of a second chamber. They haven't thrown it out, just asked for an amendment.
During and after Brexit I think there will, and certainly should be some significant changes to the British constitution but they should be done in their own right not hurried through for political experience.
During and after Brexit I think there will, and certainly should be some significant changes to the British constitution but they should be done in their own right not hurried through for political experience.
Murph7355 said:
.
That make up does not suggest political neutrality/independence to me... Nor objectivity.
And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
The difference is that because they aren't elected they can't be held to ransom by the whips as they can't be sacked, deselected or whatever. The Lords works far more across party lines than the Commons.That make up does not suggest political neutrality/independence to me... Nor objectivity.
And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
The Lords has it faults no doubt but the age and type of people isn't always one of them. So what if someone is 85. Have they not got something to contribute with maybe 65 years of political experience? They can probably spot the same mistakes being made all over again on numerous subjects.
confused_buyer said:
Murph7355 said:
That make up does not suggest political neutrality/independence to me... Nor objectivity.
And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
The difference is that because they aren't elected they can't be held to ransom by the whips as they can't be sacked, deselected or whatever. The Lords works far more across party lines than the Commons.And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
"The Government Whips’ Office is responsible for the management of the Government’s legislative programme in the House of Lords. The office is led by the Chief Whip who is supported by a team of Whips who are Ministers of the Crown appointed as Baronesses and Lords in Waiting. The office is part of the Cabinet Office’s Government in Parliament Group."
No doubt it will be a different regime to the HoC but I suspect that HoL peers not being desperate to climb the greasy pole in politics and thereby not being bothered about ruining promotion prospects is a more effective brake on toeing a Party line.
The fact that politicians are elevated to the HoL means however that there are Party lines in play, and while some will be more active than others, they'll never be far below the surface.
ked over your fellow countrymen with your selfish vote. 
turbobloke said:
The fact that politicians are elevated to the HoL means however that there are Party lines in play, and while some will be more active than others, they'll never be far below the surface.
It's obviously a political manoeuvre from the remain camp, designed to throw another spanner in the works of getting on with implementing the result of the referendum.Clearly, it was never the case that all EU people resident in the UK were not going to be just asked to leave when separation happened, although to listen to the people who supported this asinine decision you'd think that there were going to armed SS guards escorting foreigners to the boats. All that guaranteeing the unequivocal right to remain at this stage would do is disadvantage the government in the event that the EU decided to tie UK citizens right to remain to some other issue (like the ludicrous 60 billion euro demand for example).
The issue could very quickly be resolved right now with both sides guaranteeing a right to remain, but apparently the EU has chosen not to do so (according to the government, anyway). That doesn't bode well for what they'll do after negotiations start, does it, so giving a 'concession' in advance of talks is sheer idiocy.
The more the remoaners mess things up by pulling stunts like this, the worse the eventual deal will be but they care more about appearing 'right' (both in the sense of right about Brexit and being a PC compliant neoliberal) than they do about getting on with the practicalities of real life and obeying democratic mandates.
Murph7355 said:
You'd think so... But some figures...
That make up does not suggest political neutrality/independence to me... Nor objectivity.
And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
I used to respect the HoL, they were generally people who acted in what they thought were the best interests of the country, now they're just an adjunct to the HoC and used to frustrate whatever their political masters want frustrated.- 804 members
- Just 208 noted as no political affiliation (26%)
- 26 of a religious flavour (3%)
- So of the other 570...
- 252 Conservative (31% of the House)
- 204 Labour (25%)
- 102 LibDem (12%)
- 3 UKIP, 1 from Wales, 6 from NI
- None from Scotland (probably for historic reasons? Or classified in the other groups)
That make up does not suggest political neutrality/independence to me... Nor objectivity.
And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
Many appointees have done nothing of note, probably the worst in recent times have been the Lib Dems, currently standing at 9 MPs, yet 102 Peers.
Not picking on anyone in particular, but what have these two ever done that they should now be part of government? Local councillors who've made good. It makes a mockery of the title 'Peer' and everything that's wrong with the HoL at the moment.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/shas_sheehan
http://www.libdems.org.uk/paul-scriven
My suggestion: Scrap the 'Lords' and call it a second house. Re-appoint every 10 years, no-one who has served a party in any capacity should be allowed to be considered. Limit to 300.
turbobloke said:
confused_buyer said:
Murph7355 said:
That make up does not suggest political neutrality/independence to me... Nor objectivity.
And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
The difference is that because they aren't elected they can't be held to ransom by the whips as they can't be sacked, deselected or whatever. The Lords works far more across party lines than the Commons.And if politicism is going to be accepted, it must be based on the electorate's wishes IMO.
"The Government Whips’ Office is responsible for the management of the Government’s legislative programme in the House of Lords. The office is led by the Chief Whip who is supported by a team of Whips who are Ministers of the Crown appointed as Baronesses and Lords in Waiting. The office is part of the Cabinet Office’s Government in Parliament Group."
No doubt it will be a different regime to the HoC but I suspect that HoL peers not being desperate to climb the greasy pole in politics and thereby not being bothered about ruining promotion prospects is a more effective brake on toeing a Party line.
The fact that politicians are elevated to the HoL means however that there are Party lines in play, and while some will be more active than others, they'll never be far below the surface.
At this point, there is no effective opposition to Brexit. The article 50 bill will be passed, but before this happens, the Lords will hopefully identify some important matters that the commons might have overlooked in it's haste to capitulate to the political mood.
It is very easy to destroy things and very difficult to build them. The role of the Lords has been built over several hundred years. Our democracy is a finely balanced and quite clever process that has evolved and survived the test of time. I see the opportunity for significant negative unintended consequences if it is removed.
Having seen the situation in the US, where the electoral college system has allowed the selection of a president who received less support from the electorate than the opposition, I would suggest that our system is flawed, but considerably less flawed than the alternatives.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff