Road rules2 mins ago
So this was what modernising the House of Lords was all about!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1862176,00.html
here is a list of self serving, psychophantic, brown nosing, wealthy contributors to the Labour and Tory parties who have been nominated to sit in the house of Lords as peers and debate bills and legislation that will affect you and me. Those who have been defeated in the last elections are rewarded, the bit about the Green party is hilarious. They are all cut from the same cloth these politicians.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Dom Tuk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jan Bug.....just put down your thoughts. The best thing about the article is that it cuts across political lines and i thought you would like that. the question (if it is one) that i have posed is deliberately non political in that it is against all political parties and their deceit.
I presumed that your reluctance to post was because you were peered (if that is a term). hey i dont know your name, age, background you may well be in line for a title.
Go on let me know what you think.
'twas ever thus DT - remember, the original peers would have been great landowners the king wanted to keep onside; later they would have been Charles II's illegitimate sons, and more recently anyone who contributed enough to Lloyd George. But in each case, whatever the merits of the original holders of the rank, their descendants would have done nothing to earn it but to be the first-born son.
Exactly what alternative do you offer? Not being sarcastic here; there must be alternatives, eg the USA one (elected Senate), or having no second chamber at all. Do any of these function acceptably?
An alternative: How about if a random section of the population were chosen for a period (lets say two years) in the same way as a jury is selected. There will of course be certain people who will get out of it and certain people may not be entitled. But on the positive side it would be a real people's parliament and very fair.
Oh give me a BREAK - Dom Tuk you are having a LAUGH. I am not in line for a peerage any more than you are the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. However, if I said I WERE, you would simply have another weapon in your armour with which to attack me on your usual and regular basis.
As usual, people who may wish to disagree with you, are being made to (or at least you're trying) feel that they shouldn't speak out.
jan bug i cant see what you are on about in this thread.
While you are spewing niceties maybe you could consider this
if you have nothing to say try not to enter a thread
dont assume that disagreement with you on a different subject/thread has to necessarily spill on to a different thread on a different topic.
I dont care if you were Knighted/peered or whatever
know what i dont care much for what you have to say on this thread now. I may sound patronising but hey...look at your answers on this thread.
Ok - I don't for one minute believe that you don't have an opinion of me that will never change. But, I will say what I was going to say *hears Dom Tuk warming up the AK-47*. That is:-
"what do you propose instead?"
The system we have may not be perfect, but what do you suggest as an alternative? An elected HofL? But then how would that affect the power structure in the House of Parliament? Perhaps you also want an elected judiciary so that people (like certain ABers) can vote in judges who will sentence to death anyone in a hoody?
There are many peers (not all of them) who have a LOT to contribute to this country. They may have lost in the last elections because people did not vote for them because of their party, but they personally may have great expertise that we should value.
The anti-Lord arguments smack to me a little of inverted snobbery.
J-bug - am getting a bit worried about you. Your posts seem to be getting quite peculiar.
Are you now suggesting that unless you have a credible alternative, we should just put up with something.
DT has pointed out an article which points out how you can essentially buy a place in the lords. Personally I find it terribly sad but hardly shocking. It is with interest that maggie Jones will be in the Lords - she was foisted on a safe labour constituency - but the safe labour constituency decided to elect the independent former labour candidate who was ousted to give Maggie Jones a clear run.
I am not sure if you have had issues with DT in previous posts - i know I have - but for heavan's sake - either choose to post or don't choose to post.
Vic - to some extent YES - that's EXACLTY what I'm saying. Unconstructive whinging, is pointless in my opinion. If people are going to criticise something (I mean people generally, not anyone in particular) then they need to understand WHY they are doing so, and HOW they want it to be different. Otherwise it's like a petulatn teenager just saying "just cos".
Also, if one sits down to analyse the situation, the conclusion may well be, it's not perfect, but it's the best we can actually hope for at the present time. That at least it better than just "I don't like it.".
AB News is full of intelligent people who are MORE THAN capable of doing that.
Well, much as I feel that, sadly, the random selection process is the only viable way of selecting juries, I feel it could potentially be disastrous for a House that currently has the power to block bills conceived by the lower House and to draft and table bills of its own. You say certain people excluded - I presume you mean under 18s, prisoners and the mentally insane (or whatever the PC phrase is, you know what I mean!) - i.e., we would work from a random selection of those eligible to vote.
Now, people could get out of it (fair enough)- so, doctors, nurses, teachers, police etc would probably all get out of it. Anyone running a small business, if they left for a year, could return to find that their business had gone bust - they could not fully commit to both at the same time. So we'd have to decide if they get out of it, or if their business should go bust, leading to job losses, or if they're given money to support their family while they're away. Would the people get the same amount or would Upper House salaries simply match what people were on when they "went in"?
I fear that we would be left with the same people who sit on juries - "housewives", retired folk, and the unemployed. Don't get me wrong, these people have (or had) a lot to contribute to society, and they can do a brilliant job on juries and supporting the community in many other ways. But running the Upper House - I'm just not sure.
I really do see where you're coming from, and if we were to have a TRULY random selection of people, and we could some how sort it that their lives would be there to return to after their year was up*, it MIGHT be workable.
*A year means relatively little continuity, this could be disastrous. But any longer and more people would try to get out of it, and with good reason.
Vic - I feel very bad picking apart your suggestion, when at least you bothered to make one! I see where you're heading and I would want to head that way too, but whilst the idea is very fair (you are spot on) it would, I feel, be totally unworkable in practice. Sorry.
*A year means relatively little continuity, this could be disastrous. But any longer and more people would try to get out of it, and with good reason.
Vic - I feel very bad picking apart your suggestion, when at least you bothered to make one! I see where you're heading and I would want to head that way too, but whilst the idea is very fair (you are spot on) it would, I feel, be totally unworkable in practice. Sorry.
Personally I find the thought of having an upper house full of housewives, retired folk and the unemployed (and I would point out that I was called for Jury service which I attended while I was employed by a large company) a lot more sensible than a house of lords full of wealthy contributors who also have no clue.
The sort of people who can give a 'sensible' excuse eg your small business man, a carer etc should be able to get out of it. The majority of people in this country though work for large organiations (including governement) and these people will not allowed to be excluded unless a very good reason can be given - I don't believe that doctors, nurses, policeman etc should be allowed to get out of it - after all we are only talking about around 600 people across the nation.
At least this way, 'the mass' of people who live in the real world would benefit as opposed to a select few.
I would be curious as to how many of the members of the house of lords use public transport, use the nhs and use state education. I would think it a minority.
(and don't feel bad about picking it apart - all ideas come from somewhere and must have a starting point - reform here we come)
I suppose you are right - a majority of people would not be missed!! Though I personally would be rather annoyed if my operation (hypothetical thank goodness!) were cancelled because my surgeon was off to run the country.
I agree that many people would prefer to have bills approved and debated by people OTHER than those who do so at the at the moment. Like you, many would probably rather the "Jury service usual suspects" to be in charge, than the stereotypical Lord - white, male, 60+, public school educated, lives in a big country house (butobviously has a flat in Kensington & Chelsea) and is pro hunt.
At risk of REALLY offending people (sorry in advance), I do feel that there are large numbers of people who aren't actually intellectually able, and many more who simply aren't willing, to get THAT involved in things. Apathy is a huge threat to the success of a country, and turn out at the elections shows that we are a very apathetic nation of (non)voters. We could hardly IQ test people to see if they're smart enough to work in the Upper House and going by level of education would also ruin your idea of representing everyone.
However, I do feel (and fair enough many may [will] disagree) that random selection would lead to many problems in which we could end up with 600 people, of whom well over 500 either didn't want to be there, or were genuinely not up to processing the complex ideas in a way that would result in good decisions for the rest of us. (I hasten to add that hereditary peerage is certainly no better than that process, but at least this has been phased out, even if decades later than it should have been!).
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.