The House of Lords.......

#3
Are there not enough criminals in Salford already, without importing more ?
 
#5
Well, I suppose moving the Lords up there would help gentrify the place a bit. Its full of lowlife criminals and thugs since the BBC moved to The Quays. Must say I'd love to see Lord Mandy of Darkness walk into the Spreadeagle in Ordsall and order a spritzer....
 
#6
The House of Lords should be disbanded.
Either that, or, a wholly elected second chamber with limited powers of revision and proposing important legislation.
The term "Lords" should be done away with and something similar to senate instituted.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Bare in mind that these are people who think less than £26,000 per year is abject poverty and £300 per day is normal expences for a day in the house.
Take them away from there and it could kill some off them.
 
#8
Oooh yes! More elected officials, the current set of party clones and politically appointed peers have proved so effective.

Line up a set of backbenchers, publish their CVs with political party lines excised, and I'll bet a pound to a pinch of pigshit that the average man in the street would be hard put to distinguish the men from the women, let alone which party or political view is their own. Greedy lying scum the lot of them.

At least the hereditary peers tend to have some committment to the UK and are less likely to follow theparty line for a job at Brussels. Baroness Ashton anyone?
 
#9
Personally I'd keep the Lords. Unpopular but there you go.
 
#10
Well, moving it to Salford would solve the Cash for Peerages at a stroke. Nobody would want to be a pseudo-Lord in that place.
Bring back the "real" Lords. Much better to have us ruled over by the likes of the Marquess of Blandford and the Marquess of Bath. The first in nick for drug taking, the second has (d?) "wifelets". Unlike Lord Archer, Lord Ahmed and Lord Taylor, all in nick for either lying or stealing from the public.
 
#11
Every now and then Mr_deputy says something that makes sense. This is one of those occasions. Well done. Pass the canapés, please?

As for the House of Lords, where would we be without them, eh? The senior house that is supposed to stop the government of the day from riding roughshod over common sense and the electorate. Where were they when we needed them, when Brown was selling gold like it was a boot sale, when Blair was declaring war on Iraq for no other reason that he wanted to fill his own bank account. I could go on.

But the house of bloody Lords was so intent on getting its own snout in the trough, they did bugger all.

And the majority of them still do bugger all except fill their own pockets.

Give them to a newly independent Scotland as a gift with my compliments.
 
#13
At least the hereditary peers tend to have some committment to the UK and are less likely to follow theparty line for a job at Brussels. Baroness Ashton anyone?
Errr... the hereditary peers are a minority [92] less than twenty percent and their effectiveness is being further diminished by the creation of new party donors -sorry noble life peers- since the HoL Act of 1999.
Noblesse oblige has long gone, as the grasping at the greasy pole by dodgy monied plutocrats wanting to become peers.
If there is to be a revising second chamber then imho it should be held accountable to the electorate and not self-electing by the purchase of a seat on red leather - the Groucho, Sloan Club etc has enough of these new 'nobles', but hardly makes them the sort who should be determining laws of the land.
 
#14
Either that, or, a wholly elected second chamber with limited powers of revision and proposing important legislation.
The term "Lords" should be done away with and something similar to senate instituted.
Its fine the way it is. Its less biased that if it where elected. more to the point i for one would not like to see an American style system of grid lock in what ever government we have.
 
#15
I was thinking back to the days before Lloyd George got his hands on them followed by further emasculation of their powers. Up until the end of the last century, now they are like the monarch, theoretically a check on govt intentions but only if they don't do anything.

I do base my opinion of them on the trial scene from 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' I was very disappointed to find they don't wear Ermine as working dress.
 
#16
Its fine the way it is. Its less biased that if it where elected. more to the point i for one would not like to see an American style system of grid lock in what ever government we have.
Agreed, more time is spent looking at legislation in the House of Lords than the Commons and everybody who's a member can have a say which is different in the Commons.

There is also a strong crossbench presence in the Lords chamber. An elected chamber will make it party dominated like the House of Commons and there will be a small amount of independents. Although it may be undemocratic I'd rather see ex professionals appointed to scrutinise legislation who can use their expertise than elected politicians with less experience.
 
#17
I was thinking back to the days before Lloyd George got his hands on them followed by further emasculation of their powers. Up until the end of the last century, now they are like the monarch, theoretically a check on govt intentions but only if they don't do anything.

I do base my opinion of them on the trial scene from 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' I was very disappointed to find they don't wear Ermine as working dress.
The House of Lords is excellent - the quality of the debate is so much better than in the Commons.

If people are going to mess about with the system I would actually be tempted to opt for a tricameral system - Commons, Lords and Senate. Lord Hennessy was right on the money - at some point in the legislative process you're going to have to have people involved who are there because they know things and not just because they believe things.

The House of Lords deliberates in the open. Give it a pre-legislative scrutiny role before handing over to the two elected chambers.

Get rid of the political appointees would also help. Sayeeda Varsi? Give me a ****ing break!
 
#18
It's a telling point that the Times report today indicates that Polls taken around the HoL question reveal only 6% support for doing anything with the HoL in polls that prompt for an answer. Left to their own devices poll samples gve a 0% response to HoL reform. Quite frankly HoL reform is only of interest to a tiny handfull of political class freaks interested in securing another job for life on the taxpayers wallet.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#19
The House of Lords should be disbanded.

Why? They're the only line of defence between you and those ****ing lunatics in Parliament, who'd love to get shot of them...as they could then run through any Bill they ****ing fancied. Do you really want the Theresa May's of this world to operate unopposed?
 
#20
Why? They're the only line of defence between you and those ****ing lunatics in Parliament, who'd love to get shot of them...as they could then run through any Bill they ****ing fancied. Do you really want the Theresa May's of this world to operate unopposed?
Spot on. That is the whole point of the reform of course, not "democracy" or "justice" but because governments don't like being opposed by anybody!

I find that incredible about the British system of government - people believe if they secure a majority they should be able to pass any law they wish and spend in any way they wish. An almost uniquely British phenomenon.

By "majority" I mean Parliamentary majority, which usually translates to around (or slightly less than) 40% of voting consent! Another uniquely British phenomenon!
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top