Bin the House of Lords?

#2
Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is ready to unveil a draft bill on Lords reform in the next few weeks, a move designed to put the Tories on the back foot during the election campaign.

Although the plan is unlikely to become law before parliament is dissolved, Labour strategists hope it will open up a dividing line with the Conservatives, who will be reluctant to back any Labour reforms.
Seems to be a tactic for the election.

And what's Labour's stance on Mandelson? Unelected member of the Lords that he is.
 
#4
I don't think Labour really intend to do it.

It is one of the many “we will do this if you elect us” policies that they will ditch if they are elected.

The main reason that an elected second chamber will never happen is that the House of Commons likes being the superior chamber, and it can only justify that as long as the House of Lords is undemocratic.

If we could change things my preferred solution would be for lords to be appointed by local government. That would go some way to counteract over centralisation and make voters take local elections more seriously.
 
#5
I would'nt be surprised if this idea came from the EU. They dont like our political system and are slowly through New Labour as their puppet changing our political landscape.
Also, Devolution is just a fancy word, the Scottish, Welsh and now Irish Parliement's will be nothing more than EU regional councils.
Been reading alot of books by "Vernon Coleman", very good author, hated by the establishment and he makes sense of alot of things. Worth a look.
 
#6
I thought that the House of Lords was better when it was hereditary. Yes it was unelected. Yes it was undemocratic. But it was full of people that had the long-term best interests of the Country at heart. What have we got now? Is it better?
 
#7
OOMPALOOMPA said:
I would'nt be surprised if this idea came from the EU.
I would, on the other hand, be very surprised if you were able to present the slightest shred of hard evidence that it had.

All the best,

John.
 
#8
I used to be against this lot. I was completely in favour of their abolition, the nonsense they used to pass out, made my head hurt.
These days not so much, they seem to be the only body capable of sound political reason in the country.
Don't know if that's because I'm getting older, or maybe the laws being shunted out by that arse Broon and his wanky mates are getter more and more ludicrous.

Don't bother going and digging out daft examples of idiocy they've passed out, or sensible laws they've held back...they generally keep more the feral aspects of labour in check.

Mind you...what do the old codgers get paid for dozing off?
 
#9
brilliant idea.

I have so much confidence in our House of Commons and think we really need a second house made up on similar lines with the same scumbags who currently make up our government and along with other failed politicians and hangers on.

:x
 
#10
John_D said:
OOMPALOOMPA said:
I would'nt be surprised if this idea came from the EU.
I would, on the other hand, be very surprised if you were able to present the slightest shred of hard evidence that it had.

All the best,

John.
I said I would'nt be surprised, the EU is very sneaky and secretive in their dealings. So no, I dont have any hard evidence, just speculation. Or maybe, I'm just thinking outside the box, reading between the lines, call it what you want. You keep on reading the Daily Mail, vote Conservative at the next election, nothing is gonna change.
 
#11
The HoL was at its best when it herditary, its "checks and balances" keeps the government of the day under control.
Although if scrapping it meant getting rid of Mandlebum, then were do I sign.
Getting rid of the HoL really would unleash the government control freaks; 1984, big brother et al.
 
#12
StickyEnd said:
I thought that the House of Lords was better when it was hereditary. Yes it was unelected. Yes it was undemocratic. But it was full of people that had the long-term best interests of the Country at heart. What have we got now? Is it better?
Sort of agree but there is no going back. But then it got screwed up by a number of things, including the GOATs and some highly questionable ennoblements. It no longer serves as a useful check and balance of the rash crap coming out of the Commons.

Furthermore, you have to question the automatic presence of the Law Lords and Bishops in particular - what value do they add in a secular society?

Probably worth binning IMHO and reform focussing on making one House efficient, credible and of the sort of integrity we deserve. Can't see many of our politicians (Lords or Commoners) surviving such a raising of the bar, sadly.
 
#14
StickyEnd said:
I thought that the House of Lords was better when it was hereditary. Yes it was unelected. Yes it was undemocratic. But it was full of people that had the long-term best interests of the Country at heart. What have we got now? Is it better?
Have to say I agree with you sticky. The House of Lords exists as a 'balance' against the house of commons. The Lords are supposed to be above party politics and therefore in favour of doing right by the country.

Not so sure if it always works this way but hey ho, what are we going to replace them with? More party puppets who will do as the leader says?
 
#15
Isn't this another of Browns spoiling tactics, and it pampers to the Lib Dims giving them a grip so should it be a hung Parliament they can still cling onto some form of power. Labour seems to have adopted the view of lets piss all over this nation and wreck it permanently, I rather think Labour in their dying throws have gone Feral!
 
#16
WE must still have someone to keep the F**king idiots in the house of commons in check
 
#17
The House of Lords was an example of trying to fix something that wasn't broken. It worked perfectly well up to 1997, with a mixture of members from all walks of life, the only difficulty for Tony Blair was that there were many who were cross benchers, and not tied to any political party.

It worked to defeat many of the policies of the previous Conservative government who reformed the legislation until it gained approval and was successfully passed through the House of Lords, Tony Blair's government on the other hand reached for the Parliament Act to achieve a number of its aims.

Far from abolishing this once great chamber we should restore the balance back to pre 1997 days. The system worked well for many years as a reforming chamber until New Labour started to interfere.
 
#18
Alsacien said:
Or is it just party political?
It would be just party political I fear.

At the moment there is a good mix of political peers, but also captains of industry and people who have excelled in their area of expertise; it all serves to have a more sensible, wiser second house to water down some of the ludicrousness proposed in the Commons!
 
#20
codbutt said:
...and then bin the House of Commons too. It's all run from Brussels nowadays anyway isn't it?
Well Brussels seem to over-turn quite a few rules & regs that Labour seem to propose/implement, so your not far from hitting the nail on the head there!

Do Labour really think the British public are 'that niave' to believe all this party political trash & proposals, has'nt society learn't 'any' lessons from the:

"we'll promise to do this if were elected/kept in power" :roll:

Mind you there are still plenty of fickle Labour supporters still out there & satisfied to see Labour ruin this country even further, mind you all the parties are just as bad at this significant time, but a Government with at least a proper backbone would be a refreshing change.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top