truman Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Let's hope the Lords vote against this bill today and do what they are suppose to do, act a third impartial chamber and protect the public against such bad bills. <devil's advocate> So you're happy for an unelected chamber to reject proposals put forward by the elected government?</devil's advocate> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 When a large proportion of the elected government are also against this bill, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 When a large proportion of the elected government are also against this bill, yes. Again,playing DA, it was passed by parliament..why should an unelected house have sway over the peoples' representatives..? Should they be able to reject any decision of the House that wasn't unanimous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Again,playing DA, it was passed by parliament..why should an unelected house have sway over the peoples' representatives..? Should they be able to reject any decision of the House that wasn't unanimous? The purpose of the "un-elected house" is to review laws passed by the Government, sometimes they get passed back to the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 When a large proportion of the elected government are also against this bill, yes. A government was voted in with a majority on a platform, amongst other cuts, welfare cuts. The bill was passed through the democratically elected HoC, so under what grounds could the HoL reject it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ladd Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Hardly any bankers, in this country anyway, responsible for the crunch have faced the consequences for their actions, yet those lower down the food chain are penalised. In the grand scheme of things no it's not fair. However I'm much more concerned about the disabled and vulnerable who are about to be hammered. And unlike the middle classes in receipt of tax credits, very few in the House of Commons will speak up for them. As to do so risks looking 'anti aspirational'. The Tories have done more to sanction and control the banks than Labour ever dreamed of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Again,playing DA, it was passed by parliament..why should an unelected house have sway over the peoples' representatives..? Should they be able to reject any decision of the House that wasn't unanimous? But are this government representative of the electorate? 34% of the electorate, eligible to vote, chose not to. Only 24% the electorate voted for this government, also if you add up the number of votes cast for this government compared to those who voted for other parties, you will find that this government does not have the votes of the majority of the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 But are this government representative of the electorate? 34% of the electorate, eligible to vote, chose not to. Only 24% the electorate voted for this government, also if you add up the number of votes cast for this government compared to those who voted for other parties, you will find that this government does not have the votes of the majority of the electorate. That could be said for just about any government we've ever had .... most of the electorate don't vote for it... at least more people voted for the government than voted for those sat in the HoL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 A government was voted in with a majority on a platform, amongst other cuts, welfare cuts. The bill was passed through the democratically elected HoC, so under what grounds could the HoL reject it? The HOLs is there to protect the public against bad legislation. Why do you think many Tory MPs are also against it. They have the right to send it back to the HOC for revision, that is why they are there. Would you object if a government decided to abolish all future general elections and the HOLs? ---------- Post added 26-10-2015 at 10:22 ---------- That could be said for just about any government we've ever had .... most of the electorate don't vote for it... at least more people voted for the government than voted for those sat in the HoL... True, but then again the HOLs will just be propped up with a majority of the incoming government's cronies by making more Tory peers, to allow their legislation to get past, so hardly democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Is there a site out there that can give you an estimate of what effect these changes may have on your own credits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now