|
|
Post by The Lockie on Apr 24, 2018 19:37:19 GMT
If you feel that an unelected bunch of privileged old farts, has the right to interfere, in the workings of government fine. If on the other had you think it might be a good idea to get rid of them, sign the petition below. It already,unsurprisingly has the requisite number of votes to force a debate in the chamber , however the bigger the number of signatures on the petition just might show the arrogant old farts the strength of feeling, and contempt that they are held in.  UK Government and Parliament Petition Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords The House of Lords is a place of patronage where unelected and unaccountable individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence and power which can be used to frustrate the elected representatives of the people petition.parliament.uk/petitions/209433 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 20:01:01 GMT
Would you or many of the supporters of the petition still feel the same if another Party was leading the Government? My view is that whilst it could be reformed I'd not want it abolished.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 24, 2018 20:10:46 GMT
I can think of several occasions in the past when I have felt grateful for the presence of "those old farts" who have slowed down and amended some dreadfully thought out bits of legislation by those self serving professional blowhards in the commons
|
|
|
|
Post by sabcat on Apr 24, 2018 20:25:30 GMT
They're an anachronism, it's time they were gone. That's not really controversial. They do perform a function though so the real question is, what are they replaced with? The obvious solution would be to have an elected second chamber perhaps with elections staggered to halfway through the election cycle for the commons. The other anachronism that needs sorting is the royal prerogative which the death of the queen will provide an obvious point to tackle this, not that it's got much to do with the monarch. It's a weird constitutional quirk that allows the prime minister to swap the dispatch box for a throne.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lockie on Apr 24, 2018 20:31:04 GMT
Would you or many of the supporters of the petition still feel the same if another Party was leading the Government? My view is that whilst it could be reformed I'd not want it abolished. I don’t have a problem with a second chamber as a scrutineer of government. I do have a problem that it is an unelected old boys/girls club that carries out that function |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2018 20:37:40 GMT
They're an anachronism, it's time they were gone. That's not really controversial. They do perform a function though so the real question is, what are they replaced with? The obvious solution would be to have an elected second chamber perhaps with elections staggered to halfway through the election cycle for the commons. The other anachronism that needs sorting is the royal prerogative which the death of the queen will provide an obvious point to tackle this, not that it's got much to do with the monarch. It's a weird constitutional quirk that allows the prime minister to swap the dispatch box for a throne. That is pretty much the American model. Has it's own faults especially when a political party controls both houses. I'd much rather see the Lords based upon some sort of vote that somehow reflected the percentage of votes for the Commons, how that could be achieved would be an interesting debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Apr 24, 2018 20:40:05 GMT
Feck Off I'm a Lord.....I own twelve square inches In Scoootland (Birthday present)  |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 24, 2018 20:44:46 GMT
MPs in the commons tend to do what is best for their own careers and their party, not the country. The Lords chaps are old enough to not care about their careers, and those who were previously MPs seem to mellow substantially and suddenly develop a conscience. They tend to do what they feel is best for the country even if it’s not always a trendy lefty sandalistic agenda (although of course, sometimes it is).
Anyway, there is that nice chap Joel Barnett who, apart from being the dad of one of my sister’s best friends, and despite being ludicrously tiny, also arranged for Scotland to get loads of English money. Thanks Lord Barnett for your formula!
I also know another Hereditary Peer, and his dad before him. They both take/took their roles very seriously and tried to do their best in the Lords. Neither were the “waster” type who clocked on for their £300 a day before dozing off moments later as per the caricature. Obviouslynthere are a few like that, but most aren’t and do possess the wisdom of old age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 24, 2018 20:47:12 GMT
Would you or many of the supporters of the petition still feel the same if another Party was leading the Government? My view is that whilst it could be reformed I'd not want it abolished. I don’t have a problem with a second chamber as a scrutineer of government. I do have a problem that it is an unelected old boys/girls club that carries out that function So is the currently elected lower house something you are pleased with? Does our democracy satisfy all your expectations? One advantage of not being elected is that you can do what you think is right, not what you think you local Sun and Daily Mail reading electorate think you ought to do |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 24, 2018 20:53:46 GMT
Feck Off I'm a Lord.....I own twelve square inches In Scoootland (Birthday present) The missus is a Lady but that only makes me an honourable |
|
|
|
Post by sabcat on Apr 24, 2018 20:58:30 GMT
MPs in the commons tend to do what is best for their own careers and their party, not the country. The Lords chaps are old enough to not care about their careers, and those who were previously MPs seem to mellow substantially and suddenly develop a conscience. They tend to do what they feel is best for the country even if it’s not always a trendy lefty sandalistic agenda (although of course, sometimes it is). Anyway, there is that nice chap Joel Barnett who, apart from being the dad of one of my sister’s best friends, and despite being ludicrously tiny, also arranged for Scotland to get loads of English money. Thanks Lord Barnett for your formula! I also know another Hereditary Peer, and his dad before him. They both take/took their roles very seriously and tried to do their best in the Lords. Neither were the “waster” type who clocked on for their £300 a day before dozing off moments later as per the caricature. Obviouslynthere are a few like that, but most aren’t and do possess the wisdom of old age. They don't somehow exist as a group of people with no agenda or purpose but steering Albion on a true course. They have business interests etc and are every bit as susceptible to corruption as any other set of politicians. We can't get rid of them though so they don't have to care about their political careers. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 24, 2018 21:00:24 GMT
I don’t have a problem with a second chamber as a scrutineer of government. I do have a problem that it is an unelected old boys/girls club that carries out that function So is the currently elected lower house something you are pleased with? Does our democracy satisfy all your expectations? One advantage of not being elected is that you can do what you think is right, not what you think you local Sun and Daily Mail reading electorate think you ought to do the current system is a biased, unelected bunch of often bloody minded "old farts". Fortunately they are biased in different directions. They are also an incredibly varied bunch It's a crappy system .......... but I have yet to hear of another system that is less crappy. as above there are disadvantages to an elected second house |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 24, 2018 21:06:23 GMT
MPs in the commons tend to do what is best for their own careers and their party, not the country. The Lords chaps are old enough to not care about their careers, and those who were previously MPs seem to mellow substantially and suddenly develop a conscience. They tend to do what they feel is best for the country even if it’s not always a trendy lefty sandalistic agenda (although of course, sometimes it is). Anyway, there is that nice chap Joel Barnett who, apart from being the dad of one of my sister’s best friends, and despite being ludicrously tiny, also arranged for Scotland to get loads of English money. Thanks Lord Barnett for your formula! I also know another Hereditary Peer, and his dad before him. They both take/took their roles very seriously and tried to do their best in the Lords. Neither were the “waster” type who clocked on for their £300 a day before dozing off moments later as per the caricature. Obviouslynthere are a few like that, but most aren’t and do possess the wisdom of old age. They don't somehow exist as a group of people with no agenda or purpose but steering Albion on a true course. They have business interests etc and are every bit as susceptible to corruption as any other set of politicians. We can't get rid of them though so they don't have to care about their political careers. Of course they aren’t perfect. Some have business interests. A few are susceptible to corruption but most don’t need the money. Sounds just like the House of Commons to me, except that last bit. Before wanting to abolish something that serves some purpose, you have to create/invent a better alternative, otherwise you are just iconoclastic for the sake of it, very negative and unhelpful, and easily confused with an envious person. |
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Apr 25, 2018 0:15:35 GMT
MPs in the commons tend to do what is best for their own careers and their party, not the country. The Lords chaps are old enough to not care about their careers, and those who were previously MPs seem to mellow substantially and suddenly develop a conscience. They tend to do what they feel is best for the country even if it’s not always a trendy lefty sandalistic agenda (although of course, sometimes it is). Anyway, there is that nice chap Joel Barnett who, apart from being the dad of one of my sister’s best friends, and despite being ludicrously tiny, also arranged for Scotland to get loads of English money. Thanks Lord Barnett for your formula! I also know another Hereditary Peer, and his dad before him. They both take/took their roles very seriously and tried to do their best in the Lords. Neither were the “waster” type who clocked on for their £300 a day before dozing off moments later as per the caricature. Obviouslynthere are a few like that, but most aren’t and do possess the wisdom of old age.
They have business interests etc and are every bit as susceptible to corruption as any other set of politicians...Agree We can't get rid of them though, so they don't have to care about their political careers...Top Banana  |
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 25, 2018 7:34:43 GMT
|
|
