Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Today in the House of commons theres to be a debate on the H.O.L. should it have 80% elected as the lib dems want.
Lot's of tories upset at the lack of support by the lib dems recently, are threatening to vote against the cobbled together govt.
Now, whilst the issue may not be the strongest cameron wants to keep the cuddly lib dems on board, leading lib dems including its present leader, have made it clear this is a cobbled together agreement mde between the 2 parties, and cameron has said he will honour these agreements(but looks like cameron is out of tune with his own party)
will be interesting to see how this one goes
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i see that they are planning to cut the numbers dramatically which must be a good thing.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
howard;
how they get there is probably a good question, letting politicians impose them is probably the wrong route, and im sure a lot of favours take place when this happens, and if its to carry out its role it needs to be realy inpartial not the 2 major parties putting there members there to try to make sure they get an easy ride.
if the numbers are cut im sure there will be few comlaints
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
getting a bit complicated now with cleggy's people threatening to block the reduction in m.p's proposal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-rebels-set-to-defy-whip-on-lords-reform-7923537.htmlKeith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
howard;
not just is it getting complicated, but now the lady who gave cameron notice to december to change course or face a leadership election has re appeared.
now tory mp's are being encouraged not to back down.
vince can try to play it down, but this could be a serious blow to the co ollition
and showing that if the vote is lost today, the lib dems are likely to re act to tory proposals on the reduction of mp's.
this one could go on and on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
This item just in from Laura Sandys Conservative MP for Thanet South...
Many thanks as ever.
With the House of Lords Reform debate looming, Laura Sandys MP, Member of the Joint Committee, has said: "This week, we have an unprecedented opportunity to instill democracy at the heart of our Parliament.
"This is not a Liberal Democrat Bill - restoring power to the people is at the heart of Conservatism. In this Parliament we have already introduced legislation for elected police commissioners and have promoted city mayors. It is absurd to criticise the EU's lack of democratic mandate but to turn a blind eye to the 825 members who sit on the red benches as a result of some form of patronage.
"Reform is an essential component of strengthening Parliament in the face of a stronger executive. With greater resources and more activism in the House of Lords, both chambers will have an increased capacity to hold Government to account. However, as we approach this historic vote, the gap between opponents and reformers is narrowing "
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Good to see that the Bill is now firmly headed for defeat.
It is reported that in no10 they are now, sensibly, planning for the aftermath of the defeat rather than fight to the end for this.
I note that no-one above has mentioned that the Bill provides for 15 year terms for Lords elected by PR which will give Party machines unprecedented power to pick time-serving failed politicians for their lists. There are too many time servers now while what we need are more cross-bench experts who are at the top of their own professions to conduct the business of the Upper House, specifically to review and amend legislation.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Its worth posting a copy of a letter signed by over 70 'rebels' - not all of them natural rebels either, that gives concisely the reasons they are against.
It is a bit difficult to read so I will 'paraphrase' the 3 key reasons for opposing this:
1/ It undermines the primacy of the Commons
2/ It creates hundreds more unaccountable elected politicians
3/ It would result in a 'less expert, less diverse and more expensive Chamber.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
In the words of the immortal ditty from Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang... [a Chitty-ditty?]
"...from the dung-hill of destruction grow the roses of success." Or words very like it.
From this it is plain to see that as long as there is enough [Mmmmm?] down-right-daft proposals there is scope too for the mediocre to shine forth. This is as true for the pros and cons of this issue as it is for poor primary legislation being amended by the HoL again and again.
I would make the immediate and absolute removal of the HoL a top priority. [If called upon to promote Democracy]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
And leave democracy to parliament eh Tom?
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Agree.... the HoL`s is past it`s used by date...long overdue....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
And, leave legislation without being reviewed by an Upper house?
Your faith in politicians is far too great.
Look at what has been achieved by the Lords even in the last decade can testify to the folly of both getting rid of the reviewing Chamber and of allowing the political parties too great a power in its operations.
Whether you agree with the individual issues the HoL has played an important role in trimming the ambitions of governments over the decades.
42 Day detention being just one example.... there are many more and you can see on this pdf that all governments have suffered defeats.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=government%20defeats%20in%20the%20house%20of%20lords&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CFsQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FSN03252.pdf&ei=-tf6T8HyFsWu8QPfp_SMBw&usg=AFQjCNF25JFPaa-GiLUSN-n0LFRkIQcbjA&cad=rjaGuest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Be careful reg, if you're happy to leave law making to our MPs we're in big trouble. The Lords are there to oversee and approve, now you can disagree with how we decide who the Lords are, but abolishing them is a very dangerous move.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Whoops, Barry got there before me
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
It is vital for democracy that we have an independent minded and expert second chamber, in an ideal world it would be solely occupied by independents. however in the less than ideal world we live in we need to limit political party influence by not going down the road that his bill proposed.
Whilst I am of the view that at least part of the second chamber should be elected, I also feel that part should be selection/co-option.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Baaaa Humbug!!! [but mostly Baaaaa]
"and of allowing..." Ne'er passed my lips.
I have dealt with your paltry hum-buggery with regard to "trimming (ambitions)" with my mention of the dung-heap and the roses that spring there from.
Any and all fools know, even union reps during wage negotiations, that when approaching any 'corrupt' grouping which, for some reason or other lost in the mists of time, are set-up to decide a matter, it is the done thing to over-egg the petition to con the masses that the end result is a fair one...HUMBUG!!
I could expound further, but dare not, for fear of spending my whole day cleansing the resultant vomitus from my key-board.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would go with 16 but adding on no hereditary peers.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
I dont have a clue what Tom means
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#15, do you mean Howard? @#17
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I would be happy to see an elected Senate replace the HoL as long as the following were disqualified from standing:
Anyone who has ever been an MP
Anyone sponsored by a political party
Anyone sponsored by a trade union
Anyone who is a director of or who has financial ties to a major corporation
Anyone who is not a full UK resident and taxpayer.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
