llamatron Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 What is the point in a second elected chamber:huh: We have one of those full of people that will say anything to get a tick in their box. Is it just me that thinks a wholly unelected chamber of experts in their field would be better. Maybe with a set proportion of teachers, nurses, ..... anything but more politics "experts"! I think fewer with pay by attendence would be an improvement but a second chamber of power hungry idiots is just not what we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I can’t see the point in doing anything other than scrapping the House of Lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Localman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 It may or may not be. Certainly: (1) a 15 year term of office is more akin to North Korea than democracy; and (2) a regional list PR system is a guaranteed way of handing your vote to political party bureaucrats. Perhaps Mr Clegg thinks this is the only way he'll ever get elected again? House of Lords reform? Yes. These proposals? Absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's easy sometimes to forget how much reform has already happened recently. The number of hereditary peers has been greatly reduced, now down to about 90. We also have to remember that both Labour and the LibDems had an election manifesto pledge to reform the Lords. And that in 2007 the commons voted for an all-elected upper house. Cameron's preference was for an 80%-elected house of lords. Hard not to feel sorry for Nick Clegg. He is being used as a political football by Labour and the Tory rebels. As for should it be reformed - yes. But it shouldn't become a 100%-elected senate. There has to be something to balance against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 One of the great falsism's is that Britain's laws are passed by unelected and even hereditary peers; the house of lords is merely a rivising chamber, it examines, scrutinise's and analyse's bills, often ammending or even rejecting them, but ultimately it is the Commons that has the final say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 One of the great falsism's is that Britain's laws are passed by unelected and even hereditary peers; the house of lords is merely a rivising chamber, it examines, scrutinise's and analyse's bills, often ammending or even rejecting them, but ultimately it is the Commons that has the final say. thats why it makes more sense for them to be experts not party members. One good reform (in my opinion) would be that anyone that had been an mp could not be a lord (reducing the party politics)! That wouldn't be popular with them though would it:D Prescot wouldn't get to swan about in a robe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defunct Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Hereditary peers should be totally abolished ...period. They should take the royal family with them too. We cannot afford to be encouraging privilege. We should strive for a fairer society where everyone has equal opportunities. The establishment must go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 Hereditary peers should be totally abolished ...period. They should take the royal family with them too. We cannot afford to be encouraging privilege. We should strive for a fairer society where everyone has equal opportunities. The establishment must go! there will never be equal opportunities, the rich will always be there because some people are more intelligent than others or more business minded. They are always going to want to ensure their children get the best possible start (and why shouldn't they). We have a system where the poorest children can go to university but they may well have to work harder to get there as they are less likely to get tutors etc. Life ain't fair, get over it and make the best of what you have! I agree that heredity peers are mental though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I agree that heredity peers are mental though! Ah .. but are they? People who don't have to strive for re-election and are therefore not beholden to any party .... who cannot be removed from office and are therefore immune to threats ... and who have an entire lifetime to prepare for the role because the position is guaranteed for them from birth. There are a lot of flaws with an aristocratic system, but it does actually have a kernel of usefulness behind it - the same kernel which makes a King far, far preferable to an elected President. Nobody can browbeat, or bribe, the King into doing what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 All they do is clock-in,get the attendance payment,and fall to sleep. Out to pasture,the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.