Why? It functioned very well before. Perhaps so that parties can influence the
limited scope that the Lords already have? Perhaps places could be sold to the
highest bidders? Perhaps so that politicos can be "seen to be doing something"?
I'd like to see the House returned to how it was - membership by chance of
birth. If that's not acceptable, then how about recruiting members by the
same random method as juries are selected?
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Bill Sikes;542605 wrote: Why? It functioned very well before. Perhaps so that parties can influence the
limited scope that the Lords already have? Perhaps places could be sold to the
highest bidders? Perhaps so that politicos can be "seen to be doing something"?
I'd like to see the House returned to how it was - membership by chance of
birth. If that's not acceptable, then how about recruiting members by the
same random method as juries are selected?
I think it blocked one of TB's pet bills (no, not you Bill, the other bill) once too often - it had to go!
limited scope that the Lords already have? Perhaps places could be sold to the
highest bidders? Perhaps so that politicos can be "seen to be doing something"?
I'd like to see the House returned to how it was - membership by chance of
birth. If that's not acceptable, then how about recruiting members by the
same random method as juries are selected?
I think it blocked one of TB's pet bills (no, not you Bill, the other bill) once too often - it had to go!
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Bryn Mawr;542620 wrote: I think it blocked one of TB's pet bills (no, not you Bill, the other bill) once too often - it had to go!
Perfectly functional as was, then.
Perfectly functional as was, then.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Bill Sikes;542671 wrote: Perfectly functional as was, then.
Of course - have to have some counterbalance to the popularist vote.
Of course - have to have some counterbalance to the popularist vote.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
The House of Lords hasn't functioned well, imo, since David Lloyd George's proposal for an introduction of land tax which resulted in the Parliament Act of 1911 being passed that allowed the House of Commons to limit the legislation blocking powers of the House of Lords.
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
A HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM PROPOSAL
The chief aim of my proposals is to make a transition to a different form of second chamber, on the threefold principle that:
a) Such a transition needs to be a reasonably painless, evolutionary process.
b) Such a transition needs to produce a more effective, 'slim-line' revising chamber.
c) Such a transition needs to produce a chamber which contains a more interesting and varied mix of members.
Taking these three principles together, we need to take steps which will, so to speak, throw out the bath-water, but not the baby ... and, to stretch the analogy a little, create space for some fresh water, too:
Step One:
Retain current arrangements for Hereditaries and Bishops. Automatically grant a life-peerage to all members of the supreme court ; who become entitled to sit in the Lords (as ‘Law Lords’) upon their retirement from the court.
Step Two:
A Bill placing a limit on the total number of peers there can be (whether sitting in the Lords or not), at any one time. I suggest 1750 people.
Step Three:
The Life Peers to select 25% of their numbers to sit in the Lords (the remaining 'pool' of Life Peers could, like the pool of Hereditaries, be voted back into the chamber, upon the death of a sitting Life Peer).
Step Four:
100 New Category Peers, selected entirely at random, maybe by a form of national lottery, phased in 20 per year. Replaced one at a time, on the death of one of their number.
Democracy is good, but so also is a link with our history as a nation (which the already much-depleted 'Lords Spiritual' help to provide). Our main focus should be on the house continuing to do what it does best, and strengthening and improving upon those things. There is no public clamour now for the complete removal of the Hereditaries. It is the number of Life Peers which is becoming unwieldy. Meanwhile, the introduction of Random 'Jury' Peers would be a simple and direct way of engaging the general public in parliamentary business.
It would be good to get a bit more 'randomism' in public life. What a delightful thing it would be, and what a boost to public interest in politics, if, say, the local bin-man was suddenly ennobled, under my system. Certainly, the presence of these 'Jury Peers' would go a long way to making the 'feel' of the second chamber much less elitist.
For clarity, a Lords 'Lottery Winner' would have so many days (I'm open to suggestions on how many) to accept, in writing, the offer of a seat. Obviously, those who were going to find it too disruptive to their lives would most likely not bother to respond, which would be taken as declining the offer ~ with the offer passed on to the next on the list.
New entrants of this sort could well be over-awed to begin with, but I think they would soon get into the swing of things ... and before long, they would find themselves mentoring the next batch of entrants.
The possibility of dangerous/criminal/extreme types getting in there should be covered by clear proceedural rules in the house, and the law of the land, as and when any problems arise. I wouldn't want there to be any pre-vetting as such, because the virtue of the random intake is it's potential to bring forward some real free thinkers. This free thinking is enshrined by life-long occupation of the seat.
The opt-out that I mentioned earlier assumes that those who take their seats will want to participate. However, it does not ask anyone in advance about whether they would want to get involved, due to the old adage of 'those who seek power shouldn't be given it'. Thus random allocation comes as more of a pleasant surprise.
A sufficient (though not extravagant) salary would also need to be agreed upon, so that poorer people are not immediately put off ... but this again is a detail to be discussed. My hope is that the 'Jury Peers' would come into their own, over time, as guardians of the constitution, of basic liberties, and of common standards of decency ... They would begin as absolute beginners, and end their lives as national treasures.
Some idle musings now on what the approximate 'shape' (using slightly out-dated wikipedia figures!) of The Lords would be, following my slimming down of the number of Life Peers ~
Conservative: 83 (35 Life, 48 Hereditary)
Cross: 71 (38 L, 33 H)
Labour: 54 (52 L, 2 H)
Lib Dems: 22 (17 L, 5 H)
UKIP: 2 (1 L, 1 H)
Significantly, the current (2010) Coalition Government gets a much better 'showing' here ~ but by a process of reduction, rather than addition.
Total: 232 (117 for majority vote, currently Cons plus Lib Dems = 105; which means support also needed from 12 cross-benchers).
Party Percentages:
Conservative: 35.8%
Cross: 30.6%
Labour: 23.3%
Lib Dems: 9.5%
UKIP: 0.9%
[Comparison To Commons:]
[Conservative: 46.9%]
[Labour: 39.7%]
[Lib Dems: 8.8%]
[Others: 4.6 %]
First Intake Of Random ('Jury') Peers: 20
Bishops: 25
Law Lords: 22
Total added on: 69
Total Life Peers: 143
Total Hereditary Peers: 91 (1 replacement pending)
Total House: 301
% Life Peers: 47.5 %
% Hereditary: 30.2 %
% First Intake Jury: 6.6 %
% Bishops: 8.3 %
% Law: 7.3 %
In Sweden, a 'Council on Legislation' considers:
1. the manner in which the draft law relates to the fundamental laws (i.e. Sweden's written and entrenched Constitution) and the legal system in general;
2. the manner in which the different provisions of the draft law relate to one another;
3. the manner in which the draft law relates to the requirements of the rule of law;
4. whether the draft law is so framed that the resulting act of law may be expected to satisfy the stated purposes of the proposed law;
5. what problems are likely to arise in applying the act of law.
I think all of those considerations could be usefully discussed by the Law Lords (and other peers with a legal background).
I think it unlikely that the Law Lords would want to do much voting in the divisions ~ this could be something for a Lords committee to keep an eye on.
I would also like to see a gradual movement towards one written constitution; which could incorporate those five key points.
Upon the completion of a written constitution, I would want any future alterations to that constitution to require the consent of both houses (maybe at a higher threshold than 50% plus 1).
On a final side point, it might be healthy to introduce a check-and-balance to the hereditary monarchy, by requiring the next in line to the throne to secure the approval of both houses, before becoming Head Of State. In the (highly unlikely) event of this approval not being granted, the next person along in line to the throne would go forward in the same way.
The chief aim of my proposals is to make a transition to a different form of second chamber, on the threefold principle that:
a) Such a transition needs to be a reasonably painless, evolutionary process.
b) Such a transition needs to produce a more effective, 'slim-line' revising chamber.
c) Such a transition needs to produce a chamber which contains a more interesting and varied mix of members.
Taking these three principles together, we need to take steps which will, so to speak, throw out the bath-water, but not the baby ... and, to stretch the analogy a little, create space for some fresh water, too:
Step One:
Retain current arrangements for Hereditaries and Bishops. Automatically grant a life-peerage to all members of the supreme court ; who become entitled to sit in the Lords (as ‘Law Lords’) upon their retirement from the court.
Step Two:
A Bill placing a limit on the total number of peers there can be (whether sitting in the Lords or not), at any one time. I suggest 1750 people.
Step Three:
The Life Peers to select 25% of their numbers to sit in the Lords (the remaining 'pool' of Life Peers could, like the pool of Hereditaries, be voted back into the chamber, upon the death of a sitting Life Peer).
Step Four:
100 New Category Peers, selected entirely at random, maybe by a form of national lottery, phased in 20 per year. Replaced one at a time, on the death of one of their number.
Democracy is good, but so also is a link with our history as a nation (which the already much-depleted 'Lords Spiritual' help to provide). Our main focus should be on the house continuing to do what it does best, and strengthening and improving upon those things. There is no public clamour now for the complete removal of the Hereditaries. It is the number of Life Peers which is becoming unwieldy. Meanwhile, the introduction of Random 'Jury' Peers would be a simple and direct way of engaging the general public in parliamentary business.
It would be good to get a bit more 'randomism' in public life. What a delightful thing it would be, and what a boost to public interest in politics, if, say, the local bin-man was suddenly ennobled, under my system. Certainly, the presence of these 'Jury Peers' would go a long way to making the 'feel' of the second chamber much less elitist.
For clarity, a Lords 'Lottery Winner' would have so many days (I'm open to suggestions on how many) to accept, in writing, the offer of a seat. Obviously, those who were going to find it too disruptive to their lives would most likely not bother to respond, which would be taken as declining the offer ~ with the offer passed on to the next on the list.
New entrants of this sort could well be over-awed to begin with, but I think they would soon get into the swing of things ... and before long, they would find themselves mentoring the next batch of entrants.
The possibility of dangerous/criminal/extreme types getting in there should be covered by clear proceedural rules in the house, and the law of the land, as and when any problems arise. I wouldn't want there to be any pre-vetting as such, because the virtue of the random intake is it's potential to bring forward some real free thinkers. This free thinking is enshrined by life-long occupation of the seat.
The opt-out that I mentioned earlier assumes that those who take their seats will want to participate. However, it does not ask anyone in advance about whether they would want to get involved, due to the old adage of 'those who seek power shouldn't be given it'. Thus random allocation comes as more of a pleasant surprise.
A sufficient (though not extravagant) salary would also need to be agreed upon, so that poorer people are not immediately put off ... but this again is a detail to be discussed. My hope is that the 'Jury Peers' would come into their own, over time, as guardians of the constitution, of basic liberties, and of common standards of decency ... They would begin as absolute beginners, and end their lives as national treasures.
Some idle musings now on what the approximate 'shape' (using slightly out-dated wikipedia figures!) of The Lords would be, following my slimming down of the number of Life Peers ~
Conservative: 83 (35 Life, 48 Hereditary)
Cross: 71 (38 L, 33 H)
Labour: 54 (52 L, 2 H)
Lib Dems: 22 (17 L, 5 H)
UKIP: 2 (1 L, 1 H)
Significantly, the current (2010) Coalition Government gets a much better 'showing' here ~ but by a process of reduction, rather than addition.
Total: 232 (117 for majority vote, currently Cons plus Lib Dems = 105; which means support also needed from 12 cross-benchers).
Party Percentages:
Conservative: 35.8%
Cross: 30.6%
Labour: 23.3%
Lib Dems: 9.5%
UKIP: 0.9%
[Comparison To Commons:]
[Conservative: 46.9%]
[Labour: 39.7%]
[Lib Dems: 8.8%]
[Others: 4.6 %]
First Intake Of Random ('Jury') Peers: 20
Bishops: 25
Law Lords: 22
Total added on: 69
Total Life Peers: 143
Total Hereditary Peers: 91 (1 replacement pending)
Total House: 301
% Life Peers: 47.5 %
% Hereditary: 30.2 %
% First Intake Jury: 6.6 %
% Bishops: 8.3 %
% Law: 7.3 %
In Sweden, a 'Council on Legislation' considers:
1. the manner in which the draft law relates to the fundamental laws (i.e. Sweden's written and entrenched Constitution) and the legal system in general;
2. the manner in which the different provisions of the draft law relate to one another;
3. the manner in which the draft law relates to the requirements of the rule of law;
4. whether the draft law is so framed that the resulting act of law may be expected to satisfy the stated purposes of the proposed law;
5. what problems are likely to arise in applying the act of law.
I think all of those considerations could be usefully discussed by the Law Lords (and other peers with a legal background).
I think it unlikely that the Law Lords would want to do much voting in the divisions ~ this could be something for a Lords committee to keep an eye on.
I would also like to see a gradual movement towards one written constitution; which could incorporate those five key points.
Upon the completion of a written constitution, I would want any future alterations to that constitution to require the consent of both houses (maybe at a higher threshold than 50% plus 1).
On a final side point, it might be healthy to introduce a check-and-balance to the hereditary monarchy, by requiring the next in line to the throne to secure the approval of both houses, before becoming Head Of State. In the (highly unlikely) event of this approval not being granted, the next person along in line to the throne would go forward in the same way.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Thank you Matt. Presumably you see yourself as a single issue poster.
Why ForumGarden?
Why ForumGarden?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Nope - I have many views about many things, but have a particular interest in constitutional matters, so am wanting to spread my ideas as far and wide as possible! 
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
That username might end up an encumbrance then.
Why ForumGarden? I'm just interested, that's all, it's not posed aggressively.
Why ForumGarden? I'm just interested, that's all, it's not posed aggressively.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
I'm mainly interested in as many casual internet searchers as possible being introduced to some ideas that i've given a lot of thought to, is all.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
If Prescott does recieve his peerage - even if it is to please Pauline - I would like to see it burnt to the ground. Making that useless fat bastard a peer is an abomination, especially as he is supposed to be "a working class hero" who has repeatedly said he would not accept it.
Its the hypocrasy that sticks in my craw as well as the jobs for the boys (even when they underachieved)
Its the hypocrasy that sticks in my craw as well as the jobs for the boys (even when they underachieved)
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Snowfire;1314522 wrote: If Prescott does recieve his peerage - even if it is to please Pauline - I would like to see it burnt to the ground. Making that useless fat bastard a peer is an abomination, especially as he is supposed to be "a working class hero" who has repeatedly said he would not accept it.
Its the hypocrasy that sticks in my craw as well as the jobs for the boys (even when they underachieved)
I'm half way through watching last week's HIGNFY that John Prescott guest presented. Good for Ian Hislop, he won't let the matter go.
Its the hypocrasy that sticks in my craw as well as the jobs for the boys (even when they underachieved)
I'm half way through watching last week's HIGNFY that John Prescott guest presented. Good for Ian Hislop, he won't let the matter go.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Please note that, under my proposals, Prescott would face the additional hurdle of having to be voted into the second chamber, by his fellow labour life peers. He would most likely succeed in this - but thoroughly dis-credited types, like Lord Archer, would most likely not.
Also, the phasing in of the random peers would provide an extra injection of working-class people, to keep lord prescott in check.
Also, the phasing in of the random peers would provide an extra injection of working-class people, to keep lord prescott in check.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Rapunzel;542803 wrote: The House of Lords hasn't functioned well, imo, since David Lloyd George's proposal for an introduction of land tax which resulted in the Parliament Act of 1911 being passed that allowed the House of Commons to limit the legislation blocking powers of the House of Lords.
That was rather the point of the parliament act was it not ?- to prevent the lords blocking altogether the expressed will of the people through the commons. As it happens they have helped preserve us from some of the worst excesses of tony Blair.
We need reform of both houses. Tony blair had promised proportional representation but changed his mind when he realised he didn'y need it. If the coalition go ahead with plans to block scottish MP's voting on purely english issues (which imo they should) it means labour will never be able to govern again - so maybe the new leader will change their position.
That was rather the point of the parliament act was it not ?- to prevent the lords blocking altogether the expressed will of the people through the commons. As it happens they have helped preserve us from some of the worst excesses of tony Blair.
We need reform of both houses. Tony blair had promised proportional representation but changed his mind when he realised he didn'y need it. If the coalition go ahead with plans to block scottish MP's voting on purely english issues (which imo they should) it means labour will never be able to govern again - so maybe the new leader will change their position.
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
I am broadly in support of the coalition's planned changes for the commons, including the alternative vote.
I regret that John Major did not have the wit to work out a more sensible line on Scotland and Wales matters ~ this could have been devolved to commons commiteees of all scottish/welsh mp's.
One of the things the Lords retain a complete veto over is the extension of a parliament beyond five years. I think there is a case for extending this principle to guardianship of a written constitution.
I regret that John Major did not have the wit to work out a more sensible line on Scotland and Wales matters ~ this could have been devolved to commons commiteees of all scottish/welsh mp's.
One of the things the Lords retain a complete veto over is the extension of a parliament beyond five years. I think there is a case for extending this principle to guardianship of a written constitution.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Snowfire;1314522 wrote: If Prescott does recieve his peerage - even if it is to please Pauline - I would like to see it burnt to the ground. Making that useless fat bastard a peer is an abomination, especially as he is supposed to be "a working class hero" who has repeatedly said he would not accept it.
Its the hypocrasy that sticks in my craw as well as the jobs for the boys (even when they underachieved)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has been proven time and again.
Its the hypocrasy that sticks in my craw as well as the jobs for the boys (even when they underachieved)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has been proven time and again.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
I hear this morning that all those former MP's that either lost their seat or were "sacked" for being inventive with their expenses, have been given handsome pay-outs to help them resettle in the "real" world.
On average about £40,000
First £30,000 tax free
We are still paying for the excesses of the vultures in the commons. Well the ex vultures
On average about £40,000
First £30,000 tax free
We are still paying for the excesses of the vultures in the commons. Well the ex vultures
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Snowfire;1314721 wrote: I hear this morning that all those former MP's that either lost their seat or were "sacked" for being inventive with their expenses, have been given handsome pay-outs to help them resettle in the "real" world.
On average about £40,000
First £30,000 tax free
We are still paying for the excesses of the vultures in the commons. Well the ex vultures
Thats what is so bad. The illusion of a classless society. Why doesnt anyone over here realise that this 'civilised, modern' society is one of last to still have 'working class'? Everything here is based on class. Knowledge and skills are doled out depending on your class and your parents class. Whereas across the pond, knowledge and skills are doled out according to ambition. The only limit to acheivement is yourself. Knowledge is power, and the politicos of this country dont want you to have any, so they keep you silent by throwing you 'bones' occasionally.
On average about £40,000
First £30,000 tax free
We are still paying for the excesses of the vultures in the commons. Well the ex vultures
Thats what is so bad. The illusion of a classless society. Why doesnt anyone over here realise that this 'civilised, modern' society is one of last to still have 'working class'? Everything here is based on class. Knowledge and skills are doled out depending on your class and your parents class. Whereas across the pond, knowledge and skills are doled out according to ambition. The only limit to acheivement is yourself. Knowledge is power, and the politicos of this country dont want you to have any, so they keep you silent by throwing you 'bones' occasionally.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
On the question of the House of Lords being reformed, it occurs to me that it should be abolished entirely.
On class - yes Britain is a classist society, but then so is the United States (and my country). It just depends on the factors chosen to create the stratification. The main difference between Britain and the US on classist stratification is that Britain has an identifiable aristocracy while the US has no aristocracy but has an elite which is in effect its ruling class.
On class - yes Britain is a classist society, but then so is the United States (and my country). It just depends on the factors chosen to create the stratification. The main difference between Britain and the US on classist stratification is that Britain has an identifiable aristocracy while the US has no aristocracy but has an elite which is in effect its ruling class.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Raven;1314723 wrote: Thats what is so bad. The illusion of a classless society. Why doesnt anyone over here realise that this 'civilised, modern' society is one of last to still have 'working class'? Everything here is based on class. Knowledge and skills are doled out depending on your class and your parents class. Whereas across the pond, knowledge and skills are doled out according to ambition. The only limit to acheivement is yourself. Knowledge is power, and the politicos of this country dont want you to have any, so they keep you silent by throwing you 'bones' occasionally.
To be honest its as much the working class's fault, as it is the upper classes' intention to keep the status quo. There is an inverted snobbery, if you like, amongst the left wingers, who dont approve of ambition and achievment, rather despise it. They prefer the higher echelons to be dragged down rather than the lower classes achieve a higher standard
I dont want to derail this thread but I find it quite ironic that the head of the union in the BA strikes wflew on holiday last week
On Easyjet.
Just another example of "one rule for me, one rule for you" attitude
To be honest its as much the working class's fault, as it is the upper classes' intention to keep the status quo. There is an inverted snobbery, if you like, amongst the left wingers, who dont approve of ambition and achievment, rather despise it. They prefer the higher echelons to be dragged down rather than the lower classes achieve a higher standard
I dont want to derail this thread but I find it quite ironic that the head of the union in the BA strikes wflew on holiday last week
On Easyjet.
Just another example of "one rule for me, one rule for you" attitude
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Snowfire;1314731 wrote: To be honest its as much the working class's fault, as it is the upper classes' intention to keep the status quo. There is an inverted snobbery, if you like, amongst the left wingers, who dont approve of ambition and achievment, rather despise it. They prefer the higher echelons to be dragged down rather than the lower classes achieve a higher standard
I dont want to derail this thread but I find it quite ironic that the head of the union in the BA strikes wflew on holiday last week
On Easyjet.
Just another example of "one rule for me, one rule for you" attitude
Or Arthur Scargill's Jaguar.
I think the left hasn't got much of a connection with the working class now - but of course I could be very wrong. I see Gerald Kaufman did okay for himself, materially I mean, wonder if he's got a cloth cap at home. Perhaps the last decent lefties that gave a hoot about the working class were in the Attlee government.
I dont want to derail this thread but I find it quite ironic that the head of the union in the BA strikes wflew on holiday last week
On Easyjet.
Just another example of "one rule for me, one rule for you" attitude
Or Arthur Scargill's Jaguar.
I think the left hasn't got much of a connection with the working class now - but of course I could be very wrong. I see Gerald Kaufman did okay for himself, materially I mean, wonder if he's got a cloth cap at home. Perhaps the last decent lefties that gave a hoot about the working class were in the Attlee government.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Raven;1314723 wrote: Thats what is so bad. The illusion of a classless society. Why doesnt anyone over here realise that this 'civilised, modern' society is one of last to still have 'working class'? Everything here is based on class. Knowledge and skills are doled out depending on your class and your parents class. Whereas across the pond, knowledge and skills are doled out according to ambition. The only limit to acheivement is yourself. Knowledge is power, and the politicos of this country dont want you to have any, so they keep you silent by throwing you 'bones' occasionally.
A situation about to be made worse if the proposed academies get the go ahead. But I think you'll find a lot of people in this country are not taken in by any illusion of a classless society. The states also has a class ridden society it's just on a different basis of wealth and privilege rather than the remnants of an old aristocracy.
Tony Benn had the right of it - it wasn't selective grammar schools they should have done away with it was the fee paying ones.
A situation about to be made worse if the proposed academies get the go ahead. But I think you'll find a lot of people in this country are not taken in by any illusion of a classless society. The states also has a class ridden society it's just on a different basis of wealth and privilege rather than the remnants of an old aristocracy.
Tony Benn had the right of it - it wasn't selective grammar schools they should have done away with it was the fee paying ones.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Snowfire;1314731 wrote: To be honest its as much the working class's fault, as it is the upper classes' intention to keep the status quo. There is an inverted snobbery, if you like, amongst the left wingers, who dont approve of ambition and achievment, rather despise it. They prefer the higher echelons to be dragged down rather than the lower classes achieve a higher standard
I dont want to derail this thread but I find it quite ironic that the head of the union in the BA strikes wflew on holiday last week
On Easyjet.
Just another example of "one rule for me, one rule for you" attitude
Exactly so! As for the House of Lords, it has all but changed in it's identity anyway hasnt it? I mean when prats like Prescott get a Lordship, what is that saying? Didnt the House of Lords used to be by noble birth? Today for a barrony or earldom, all you need to be is a prat! Nothing noble about John Prescott! Makes it a worthless house, so get rid of it and elect a senate with a congress, I say! At least you would not have to put up with the nonsense of 'lord' Sugar, or 'lord' Prescott! :yh_rotfl
I dont want to derail this thread but I find it quite ironic that the head of the union in the BA strikes wflew on holiday last week
On Easyjet.
Just another example of "one rule for me, one rule for you" attitude
Exactly so! As for the House of Lords, it has all but changed in it's identity anyway hasnt it? I mean when prats like Prescott get a Lordship, what is that saying? Didnt the House of Lords used to be by noble birth? Today for a barrony or earldom, all you need to be is a prat! Nothing noble about John Prescott! Makes it a worthless house, so get rid of it and elect a senate with a congress, I say! At least you would not have to put up with the nonsense of 'lord' Sugar, or 'lord' Prescott! :yh_rotfl
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
gmc;1314747 wrote: A situation about to be made worse if the proposed academies get the go ahead. But I think you'll find a lot of people in this country are not taken in by any illusion of a classless society. The states also has a class ridden society it's just on a different basis of wealth and privilege rather than the remnants of an old aristocracy.
Tony Benn had the right of it - it wasn't selective grammar schools they should have done away with it was the fee paying ones.
Interesting. As for the States, the wealthy got that way through education and ambition. You could too. If you went to America and wanted to. Here that is an near impossible task. Over there, you are what you make of yourself. For example, here, Nurses have a tier system based upon class. Nurses over there are knowledge based. What I mean by that, is over here you dont get the knowledge until you raise in rank. Over there you start your career with all the knowledge you need. The class system has saturated the whole entire way of life here.
Please bear in mind, I am just making the comparison having worked in both systems. Not trying to insult, just making comparisons.
Tony Benn had the right of it - it wasn't selective grammar schools they should have done away with it was the fee paying ones.
Interesting. As for the States, the wealthy got that way through education and ambition. You could too. If you went to America and wanted to. Here that is an near impossible task. Over there, you are what you make of yourself. For example, here, Nurses have a tier system based upon class. Nurses over there are knowledge based. What I mean by that, is over here you dont get the knowledge until you raise in rank. Over there you start your career with all the knowledge you need. The class system has saturated the whole entire way of life here.
Please bear in mind, I am just making the comparison having worked in both systems. Not trying to insult, just making comparisons.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Royd Fissure;1314742 wrote: Or Arthur Scargill's Jaguar.
I think the left hasn't got much of a connection with the working class now - but of course I could be very wrong. I see Gerald Kaufman did okay for himself, materially I mean, wonder if he's got a cloth cap at home. Perhaps the last decent lefties that gave a hoot about the working class were in the Attlee government.
I am convinced the only interest in the working class that ANY politician has is, the amount of taxes that can be squeezed from it like an orange.:-2
I think the left hasn't got much of a connection with the working class now - but of course I could be very wrong. I see Gerald Kaufman did okay for himself, materially I mean, wonder if he's got a cloth cap at home. Perhaps the last decent lefties that gave a hoot about the working class were in the Attlee government.
I am convinced the only interest in the working class that ANY politician has is, the amount of taxes that can be squeezed from it like an orange.:-2
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Raven;1314751 wrote: Exactly so! As for the House of Lords, it has all but changed in it's identity anyway hasnt it? I mean when prats like Prescott get a Lordship, what is that saying? Didnt the House of Lords used to be by noble birth? Today for a barrony or earldom, all you need to be is a prat! Nothing noble about John Prescott! Makes it a worthless house, so get rid of it and elect a senate with a congress, I say! At least you would not have to put up with the nonsense of 'lord' Sugar, or 'lord' Prescott! :yh_rotfl
Again, under my more 'gently-does-it' proposals, three out of every four life peers would lose their sitting and voting status. This would follow exactly the same procedure as happened for the hereditaries, ie, - everyone would have to put their case for staying in the house, in 75 words. See: You Tube - A Lord's Tale. There is no doubt in my mind that the hereditaries who did survive this 'getting rid of the dead-weight' vote (eg, the truly illustrious earl ferrars), continue to make a superb contribution to our legislature.
PS Lord Sugar has got other fish to fry - I can't imagine that he would be bothered to stand at all.
Again, under my more 'gently-does-it' proposals, three out of every four life peers would lose their sitting and voting status. This would follow exactly the same procedure as happened for the hereditaries, ie, - everyone would have to put their case for staying in the house, in 75 words. See: You Tube - A Lord's Tale. There is no doubt in my mind that the hereditaries who did survive this 'getting rid of the dead-weight' vote (eg, the truly illustrious earl ferrars), continue to make a superb contribution to our legislature.
PS Lord Sugar has got other fish to fry - I can't imagine that he would be bothered to stand at all.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
house of lords reform;1314767 wrote: Again, under my more 'gently-does-it' proposals, three out of every four life peers would lose their sitting and voting status. This would follow exactly the same procedure as happened for the hereditaries, ie, - everyone would have to put their case for staying in the house, in 75 words. See: You Tube - A Lord's Tale. There is no doubt in my mind that the hereditaries who did survive this 'getting rid of the dead-weight' vote (eg, the truly illustrious earl ferrars), continue to make a superb contribution to our legislature.
PS Lord Sugar has got other fish to fry - I can't imagine that he would be bothered to stand at all.
It's an antiquated system based on feudal land owners and a ruling monarchy. Since none of the above exist in any real form, Britiain is not even a United Kingdom anymore! It's time to let the Ermine keep their fur, and let the past go.
PS Lord Sugar has got other fish to fry - I can't imagine that he would be bothered to stand at all.
It's an antiquated system based on feudal land owners and a ruling monarchy. Since none of the above exist in any real form, Britiain is not even a United Kingdom anymore! It's time to let the Ermine keep their fur, and let the past go.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Raven;1314769 wrote: It's an antiquated system based on feudal land owners and a ruling monarchy. Since none of the above exist in any real form, Britiain is not even a United Kingdom anymore! It's time to let the Ermine keep their fur, and let the past go.
I just don't think we need to waste too much energy on an overly-strenous attempt to be modern, or ideologically 'tidy' ... Stick with what works: the reducttion-via-election of the hereditaries worked, and establishes a precedent for the life peers.
I just don't think we need to waste too much energy on an overly-strenous attempt to be modern, or ideologically 'tidy' ... Stick with what works: the reducttion-via-election of the hereditaries worked, and establishes a precedent for the life peers.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
house of lords reform;1314773 wrote: I just don't think we need to waste too much energy on an overly-strenous attempt to be modern, or ideologically 'tidy' ... Stick with what works: the reducttion-via-election of the hereditaries worked, and establishes a precedent for the life peers.
Thats the whole point in a nut shell. It does not work. With Britain so ensconced in the EU, Britain does not need so many managers. As a matter of fact, whitehall has reduced itself to groundskeeper versus government. The only law making government Britain has today is in Brussels. Why wont anyone own up to that sorry fact? Because if it is known, then the whitehall fat cats loose their income. The Lords? There is really nothing for them to do. So why have them? The deficit will come down then!
Thats the whole point in a nut shell. It does not work. With Britain so ensconced in the EU, Britain does not need so many managers. As a matter of fact, whitehall has reduced itself to groundskeeper versus government. The only law making government Britain has today is in Brussels. Why wont anyone own up to that sorry fact? Because if it is known, then the whitehall fat cats loose their income. The Lords? There is really nothing for them to do. So why have them? The deficit will come down then!
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Raven: chuckle - We have rarely if ever been a truly United Kingdom. But it sounds better than Just About Holding It Together Looking Serene On The Surface Paddling Like Hell Underneath Kingdom.
Fascinating seeing my country through your eyes. Thank you! Honestly, I don't recognise parts of what you describe, but that may well be my failing.
Fascinating seeing my country through your eyes. Thank you! Honestly, I don't recognise parts of what you describe, but that may well be my failing.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Raven;1314778 wrote: Thats the whole point in a nut shell. It does not work. With Britain so ensconced in the EU, Britain does not need so many managers. As a matter of fact, whitehall has reduced itself to groundskeeper versus government. The only law making government Britain has today is in Brussels. Why wont anyone own up to that sorry fact? Because if it is known, then the whitehall fat cats loose their income. The Lords? There is really nothing for them to do. So why have them? The deficit will come down then!
The UK parliament remains ultimately sovereign, and that is why it is imperative to work towards a written constitution, to re-assert this.
The UK parliament remains ultimately sovereign, and that is why it is imperative to work towards a written constitution, to re-assert this.
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
gmc;1314747 wrote:
Tony Benn had the right of it ........
Maybe thats what's missing in British politics. The likes of Tony Benn. He was never lured by the ermine, in fact he rejected his title of Viscount and pretty much stayed true to his beliefs.
It was the tabloids that made him and his fellow Lefties pretty much unelectable, otherwise we may not have to suffer the pain of Thatcherism
He made me wince occasionally but I think he's intrinsically an honourable man, who saw very well, the failings of both Houses. Quite a rare beast in Westminster
Tony Benn had the right of it ........
Maybe thats what's missing in British politics. The likes of Tony Benn. He was never lured by the ermine, in fact he rejected his title of Viscount and pretty much stayed true to his beliefs.
It was the tabloids that made him and his fellow Lefties pretty much unelectable, otherwise we may not have to suffer the pain of Thatcherism
He made me wince occasionally but I think he's intrinsically an honourable man, who saw very well, the failings of both Houses. Quite a rare beast in Westminster
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Snowfire;1314785 wrote: Maybe thats what's missing in British politics. The likes of Tony Benn. He was never lured by the ermine, in fact he rejected his title of Viscount and pretty much stayed true to his beliefs.
It was the tabloids that made him and his fellow Lefties pretty much unelectable, otherwise we may not have to suffer the pain of Thatcherism
He made me wince occasionally but I think he's intrinsically an honourable man, who saw very well, the failings of both Houses. Quite a rare beast in Westminster
Yes, I'm a great fan of Tony Benn, too ... note however that his title passes on, even though he has chosen to relinquish it for himself. Bear this in mind whenever a royal family person complains about the way the press portrays them ~ they are quite free simply to drop their titles, and become a mr, mrs, ms or miss.
It was the tabloids that made him and his fellow Lefties pretty much unelectable, otherwise we may not have to suffer the pain of Thatcherism
He made me wince occasionally but I think he's intrinsically an honourable man, who saw very well, the failings of both Houses. Quite a rare beast in Westminster
Yes, I'm a great fan of Tony Benn, too ... note however that his title passes on, even though he has chosen to relinquish it for himself. Bear this in mind whenever a royal family person complains about the way the press portrays them ~ they are quite free simply to drop their titles, and become a mr, mrs, ms or miss.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
house of lords reform;1314781 wrote: The UK parliament remains ultimately sovereign, and that is why it is imperative to work towards a written constitution, to re-assert this.
I don't know why you'd want a written constitution, more trouble than it's worth. If a dictator gets into power then no constitution, written or cobbled together from custom, common law and bits and pieces of ancient legislation, will stop them. The parliament is sovereign, that's traceable in the law back to the time of Charles the First I think, and as long as everyone accepts that then it's all good.
I don't know why you'd want a written constitution, more trouble than it's worth. If a dictator gets into power then no constitution, written or cobbled together from custom, common law and bits and pieces of ancient legislation, will stop them. The parliament is sovereign, that's traceable in the law back to the time of Charles the First I think, and as long as everyone accepts that then it's all good.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Snowfire;1314785 wrote: Maybe thats what's missing in British politics. The likes of Tony Benn. He was never lured by the ermine, in fact he rejected his title of Viscount and pretty much stayed true to his beliefs.
It was the tabloids that made him and his fellow Lefties pretty much unelectable, otherwise we may not have to suffer the pain of Thatcherism
He made me wince occasionally but I think he's intrinsically an honourable man, who saw very well, the failings of both Houses. Quite a rare beast in Westminster
I'll second that. He dropped the Wedgewood a long time ago, remarkable that he stayed true to his principles in the face of temptations to just loll back and enjoy his aristocratic entitlements.
It was the tabloids that made him and his fellow Lefties pretty much unelectable, otherwise we may not have to suffer the pain of Thatcherism
He made me wince occasionally but I think he's intrinsically an honourable man, who saw very well, the failings of both Houses. Quite a rare beast in Westminster
I'll second that. He dropped the Wedgewood a long time ago, remarkable that he stayed true to his principles in the face of temptations to just loll back and enjoy his aristocratic entitlements.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Royd Fissure;1314938 wrote: I don't know why you'd want a written constitution, more trouble than it's worth.
I entirely agree with this.
I entirely agree with this.
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Royd Fissure;1314938 wrote: I don't know why you'd want a written constitution, more trouble than it's worth. If a dictator gets into power then no constitution, written or cobbled together from custom, common law and bits and pieces of ancient legislation, will stop them. The parliament is sovereign, that's traceable in the law back to the time of Charles the First I think, and as long as everyone accepts that then it's all good.
Surely the fault-line in your own thinking here is, '...as long as everyone accepts that ...'?? The conventions of individual and collective responsibility for cabinet ministers, for example, was disregarded by Blair and Company on many occasions.
In the very process of 'cobbling together' (and yes, that's what it would be) a constitution, opportunites would arise to make refinements in the law which would, at the very least, place a few more hurdles in the way of those with authoritarian tendencies.
Surely the fault-line in your own thinking here is, '...as long as everyone accepts that ...'?? The conventions of individual and collective responsibility for cabinet ministers, for example, was disregarded by Blair and Company on many occasions.
In the very process of 'cobbling together' (and yes, that's what it would be) a constitution, opportunites would arise to make refinements in the law which would, at the very least, place a few more hurdles in the way of those with authoritarian tendencies.
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
house of lords reform;1315023 wrote: Surely the fault-line in your own thinking here is, '...as long as everyone accepts that ...'?? The conventions of individual and collective responsibility for cabinet ministers, for example, was disregarded by Blair and Company on many occasions.
In the very process of 'cobbling together' (and yes, that's what it would be) a constitution, opportunites would arise to make refinements in the law which would, at the very least, place a few more hurdles in the way of those with authoritarian tendencies.
I can always be trapped by my own thinking. Come to think of it, I think it happens frequently and it’s good to have it pointed out to me. Now, to the point I made and it’s a fair criticism, just what can we do when someone doesn’t play by the rules? I suppose the obvious answer is, apply the rules. But does it matter if the rules are from a written or an unwritten constitution?
The first objection I have to a written constitution, that is a single piece of legislation that is supposed to encompass all the rules for governing a nation, is that it would destroy everything that was formerly in place, the legislation, the customs, that make up the English/British constitution. The second objection I have is that one would be subjected to the endless debate such as in the US that takes place between the various schools of interpretation.
I like the English/British approach primarily because since it is very much a collection of ancient legislation, more modern legislation and reasonably recent legislation, that most of the issues that government (in the various forms it has been in England and Britain since the Norman invasion) can come up against have been addressed and settled and there are times when an appeal to antiquity or previous experience, is warranted.
In the very process of 'cobbling together' (and yes, that's what it would be) a constitution, opportunites would arise to make refinements in the law which would, at the very least, place a few more hurdles in the way of those with authoritarian tendencies.
I can always be trapped by my own thinking. Come to think of it, I think it happens frequently and it’s good to have it pointed out to me. Now, to the point I made and it’s a fair criticism, just what can we do when someone doesn’t play by the rules? I suppose the obvious answer is, apply the rules. But does it matter if the rules are from a written or an unwritten constitution?
The first objection I have to a written constitution, that is a single piece of legislation that is supposed to encompass all the rules for governing a nation, is that it would destroy everything that was formerly in place, the legislation, the customs, that make up the English/British constitution. The second objection I have is that one would be subjected to the endless debate such as in the US that takes place between the various schools of interpretation.
I like the English/British approach primarily because since it is very much a collection of ancient legislation, more modern legislation and reasonably recent legislation, that most of the issues that government (in the various forms it has been in England and Britain since the Norman invasion) can come up against have been addressed and settled and there are times when an appeal to antiquity or previous experience, is warranted.
-
house of lords reform
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 am
Why should the House of Lords be reformed?
Royd Fissure;1315520 wrote: I can always be trapped by my own thinking. Come to think of it, I think it happens frequently and it’s good to have it pointed out to me. Now, to the point I made and it’s a fair criticism, just what can we do when someone doesn’t play by the rules? I suppose the obvious answer is, apply the rules. But does it matter if the rules are from a written or an unwritten constitution?
The first objection I have to a written constitution, that is a single piece of legislation that is supposed to encompass all the rules for governing a nation, is that it would destroy everything that was formerly in place, the legislation, the customs, that make up the English/British constitution. The second objection I have is that one would be subjected to the endless debate such as in the US that takes place between the various schools of interpretation.
I like the English/British approach primarily because since it is very much a collection of ancient legislation, more modern legislation and reasonably recent legislation, that most of the issues that government (in the various forms it has been in England and Britain since the Norman invasion) can come up against have been addressed and settled and there are times when an appeal to antiquity or previous experience, is warranted.
I agree entirely with the value of appealing to antiquity and experience. There would be no need for a written constitution to destroy everything formerly in place .. it would, in most matters, either simply incorporate the precedents and conventions wholesale, or put them into black-and-white for the first time.
These things are already subject to endless debate and investigation by the House Of Lords Constitution Committee. Much of the ground-work has been done, and many of the 'raw materials' are already in place.
The first objection I have to a written constitution, that is a single piece of legislation that is supposed to encompass all the rules for governing a nation, is that it would destroy everything that was formerly in place, the legislation, the customs, that make up the English/British constitution. The second objection I have is that one would be subjected to the endless debate such as in the US that takes place between the various schools of interpretation.
I like the English/British approach primarily because since it is very much a collection of ancient legislation, more modern legislation and reasonably recent legislation, that most of the issues that government (in the various forms it has been in England and Britain since the Norman invasion) can come up against have been addressed and settled and there are times when an appeal to antiquity or previous experience, is warranted.
I agree entirely with the value of appealing to antiquity and experience. There would be no need for a written constitution to destroy everything formerly in place .. it would, in most matters, either simply incorporate the precedents and conventions wholesale, or put them into black-and-white for the first time.
These things are already subject to endless debate and investigation by the House Of Lords Constitution Committee. Much of the ground-work has been done, and many of the 'raw materials' are already in place.