House of Lords Reform - 70 Tory Rebels Sign Letter Opposing

[thinfourth2]

MartinM said:

As I said, there was very little wrong with the hereditary system.

I'd prefer it if it was people selected at random for a year like jury service

[thinfourth2]

stevejh said:

I don't think it's got that bad just yet but I do think that many Conservatives (from all wings of the party) are fed up with with the u-turns, cock-ups and general ineffectiveness of DC and GO. I would love to blame it all on the Lib-Dems but I think everyone can see that it's the Tory leadership that is really at fault.

Labour are still riding surprisingly (considering they got us in this mess) high in the polls, the Lib-Dems aren't and the Conservatives look like they will lose a lot of votes to UKIP but not enough for UKIP to actually make any significant headway. All in all if we had an election soon I fear Labour would get back in.

I'd put money on it if we have an election early that it will be a labour victory

And to be honest it wouldn't bother me

[Borghetto]

I noticed 'innocent me lud' Huhne kept getting up to share his wisdom. Strangely I find anything he say's difficult to believe.

[MartinM]

thinfourth2 said:

I'd prefer it if it was people selected at random for a year like jury service

Yep, or similar. See my post above

[martin84]

Derek Smith said:

The danger is not in the failure of HoL reform. If Cameron makes no effort to support this bill, as the actions, or rather inaction, of his whips demonstrates, he is risking the coalition. One might assume he is thinking that the LibDems can't afford an elections at this time, but then, going by his lack of popularity and the 1/3rd reduction in party membership, nor can the tories.

Fair point, but as 0a says we're on fixed terms now and I don't think a snap election will help anybody except Labour. Surely these Conservative rebels and even David Cameron recognise it's better to be in Government with the Lib Dems than on the opposite side of the house looking at Miliband's smug face? Neither of the Coalition parties can risk an election right now because they'll both be back on the other side, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

[Borghetto]

Watching David Milliband perform last night, how 'lucky' labour is to be saddled with his adenoidal sibling.

[mattnunn]

Can anyone tell me if my MP "Ben Wallace" signed the letter? I can't view that web link.

[Derek Smith]

martin84 said:

Fair point, but as 0a says we're on fixed terms now and I don't think a snap election will help anybody except Labour. Surely these Conservative rebels and even David Cameron recognise it's better to be in Government with the Lib Dems than on the opposite side of the house looking at Miliband's smug face? Neither of the Coalition parties can risk an election right now because they'll both be back on the other side, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

That assumes that politicians will weigh risk. That's an assumption that, from my experience, is unsupported by fact.

[thinfourth2]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

stevejh said:

All in all if we had an election soon I fear Labour would get back in.

And then do what ?

Blame the tory party

fk about

Do nothing of substance

Blame europe

Ignore important stuff

Have a few scandals

Treat us ike idiots



You know exactly the same as the current lot

[Flip Martian]

Not for or against coalitions but one thing that has been a feature over this government so far is the number of u turns. "We're going to do this rather unpleasant and unfair thing..." followed by "actually, we're not". This is either spineless government or something of a check and balance system, depending on your point of view, I suppose.

To some extent, I actually like the idea of a Tory government which can't push through every single "look after our mates" policy they normally would. Far more than the idea of Labour ever getting back in in my life time.

[Caulkhead]

Derek Smith said:

Caulkhead said:

I'm happy to see any mess caused by MP's voting the way they believe rather than following the party whip.

This has the stench of a campaign with a very strong subtext. This does not appear to be MPs sticking up for what they feel is right but an attempt to cause harm to the libdems.

Absolute nonsense. The tories are set to lose their important boundary change agenda if they upset the lib-dems over this - it's got nothing to do with it.

[mattnunn]

Can anyone tell me if my MP "Ben Wallace" signed the letter? I can't view that web link.

[Ayahuasca]

MartinM said:

thinfourth2 said:

I'd prefer it if it was people selected at random for a year like jury service

Yep, or similar. See my post above

Good idea but a problem is that the selected people will not have a clue about the stuff they are meant to be scrutinising.

[elster]

mattnunn said:

Can anyone tell me if my MP "Ben Wallace" signed the letter? I can't view that web link.

No he didn't.

[mattnunn]

elster said:

No he didn't.

Ta, I was hoping not.

[elster]

mattnunn said:

elster said:

No he didn't.

Ta, I was hoping not.

He is a PPS so unlikely to vote to get sacked.

Don't think he has ever Rebelled.

[mattnunn]

elster said:

mattnunn said:

elster said:

No he didn't.

Ta, I was hoping not.

He is a PPS so unlikely to vote to get sacked.

Don't think he has ever Rebelled.

His website says "I am a firm believer in small Government. People and communities should be left alone by Whitehall which too often tries to impose a "one size fits all" approach" to life. ...blah blah blah Government should be in the business of rewarding aspiration and not in the business of protecting privilege."

I was ready to pen a letter had he been against Lords reform.

[elster]

mattnunn said:

elster said:

mattnunn said:

elster said:

No he didn't.

Ta, I was hoping not.

He is a PPS so unlikely to vote to get sacked.

Don't think he has ever Rebelled.

His website says "I am a firm believer in small Government. People and communities should be left alone by Whitehall which too often tries to impose a "one size fits all" approach" to life. ...blah blah blah Government should be in the business of rewarding aspiration and not in the business of protecting privilege."

I was ready to pen a letter had he been against Lords reform.

I think that is reason enough to vote against it.

How does a PR voted single 15 year term party appointed list not protect privilege?

[mattnunn]

elster said:

mattnunn said:

elster said:

mattnunn said:

elster said:

No he didn't.

Ta, I was hoping not.

He is a PPS so unlikely to vote to get sacked.

Don't think he has ever Rebelled.

His website says "I am a firm believer in small Government. People and communities should be left alone by Whitehall which too often tries to impose a "one size fits all" approach" to life. ...blah blah blah Government should be in the business of rewarding aspiration and not in the business of protecting privilege."

I was ready to pen a letter had he been against Lords reform.

I think that is reason enough to vote against it.

How does a PR voted single 15 year term party appointed list not protect privilege?

It's a step up from inheriting a seat in the lords.

I'm really split on this issue, I just like to write my MP when I get a whiff of hypocrisy.

[elster]

mattnunn said:

elster said:

mattnunn said:

elster said:

mattnunn said:

elster said:

No he didn't.

Ta, I was hoping not.

He is a PPS so unlikely to vote to get sacked.

Don't think he has ever Rebelled.

His website says "I am a firm believer in small Government. People and communities should be left alone by Whitehall which too often tries to impose a "one size fits all" approach" to life. ...blah blah blah Government should be in the business of rewarding aspiration and not in the business of protecting privilege."

I was ready to pen a letter had he been against Lords reform.

I think that is reason enough to vote against it.

How does a PR voted single 15 year term party appointed list not protect privilege?

It's a step up from inheriting a seat in the lords.

I'm really split on this issue, I just like to write my MP when I get a whiff of hypocrisy.

I don't see it as a step up at all, I see it as a pointless waste of time.

If we do go for an elected house we need to completely rethink how the system works. An elected scrutiny committee has to be accountable to the electorate and thus a single term defeats the object of the election. If they are accountable will they be doing more than simply advice and revision of bills, could they be more involved in Government. Could the cabinet be made more from both houses? Could the PM be from the other place?

Normally those who scrutinise hold a higher power to those who bring to the table the suggestions, so our system will work the opposite way to all other democracies around the world.

The role that the other place should have needs to be decided how the are to be elected and if they want to be elected.

You also have the issue of change of government and the Lords will remain and if they are accountable to their electorate will make things awkward to score political points.