Are these people a special case

[garinda]

I have a strange feeling that if Dave, caring, sharing, embracing of all minorities, hug-a-hoodie, Cameron had proposed these much needed changes, some people would think it was the best thing for democracy since the vote was given to all those eligible, regardless of their class, wealth, or gender.

This isn't about party politics. It's about dragging government out of an antiquated past, and into the twenty first century.

It is morally wrong to have people in power who weren't elected to that position by the greater majority, but there either because of their 'noble' birth, or the fact that they've been rewarded, for whatever reason. Which usually involves some sort of payment, either financial, or verbal.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

It seems that most people here think we live in a democracy still ..... amazing!

The illusion of one....maybe.

Why does the prospect of anarchy and revolution frighten you?
It may be the only way to purify the system for better things.

If you ever get an Anarchist driver, who decides to redistribute your online supermarket order, in an act of revolutionary anarchy, send me a message and I'll arrange to have some pies and bread to be delivered to you, by a non-revolutionary baker.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by garinda

If you ever get an Anarchist driver, who decides to redistribute your online supermarket order, in an act of revolutionary anarchy, send me a message and I'll arrange to have some pies and bread to be delivered to you, by a non-revolutionary baker.

That's nice of you,
but I make my own bread, pies, cakes and biscuits - using organic ingredients.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

That's nice of you,
but I make my own bread, pies, cakes and biscuits - using organic ingredients.

Yes, but if you have an anarchist driver, who gives all your ingredients away, as an act of revolution, you'll be stumped.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Any other? That doesn't happen in our democracy. They can amend bills to suggest alternatives. The Lords are very good at line by line scrutiny, many of the changes are accepted by the Commons. It is the elected Commons who have the ultimate say on which bills become legislation. Thus the general public know exactly who is in government, who is responsible and who to hold accountable at the ballot box with the current system.

You put forward an interesting case but you're still agreeing with having a very, very old system essentially greasing the wheels of modern-day politics. The two-tier system does work but it's long past time for the hereditary peers idea to be scrapped in favour of something less elitist. Many of those in the House of Lords have been kicked upstairs from the Commons and it defies belief to think that they suddenly become impartial.

Electing our Lords instead of simply slipping into it might also keep them a little more on their toes. It's a safe job for life and has very little in the way of evaluating whether they do a good or bad job. The public have grown deeply resentful of a system which gives preferential treatment to politicians at any level.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

I have a strange feeling that if Dave, caring, sharing, embracing of all minorities, hug-a-hoodie, Cameron had proposed these much needed changes, some people would think it was the best thing for democracy since the vote was given to all those eligible, regardless of their class, wealth, or gender.

This isn't about party politics. It's about dragging government out of an antiquated past, and into the twenty first century.

It is morally wrong to have people in power who weren't elected to that position by the greater majority, but there either because of their 'noble' birth, or the fact that they've been rewarded, for whatever reason. Which usually involves some sort of payment, either financial, or verbal.

It's wrong to blur accountability so that the public no longer know who to hold accountable. It's the core principle of democracy to be able to throw out a government.

I'm sure you wouldn't think the first part of your post about myself, because if you did, you'd have deeply misunderstood who I am, what my politics are and what I stand for.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

That's nice of you,
but I make my own bread, pies, cakes and biscuits - using organic ingredients.

If you did have a delivery driver who was a fellow anarchist, he might be more tempted to deliver your order if he was delivering to a squat, or commune, rather than state organised social housing, funded and paid for by a capitalist state.

If I was you I'd be burning my pension book/card, to prove my credentials as a rebel, and a true anarchist, and then preparing to go at squat at Jaysay's.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

You put forward an interesting case but you're still agreeing with having a very, very old system essentially greasing the wheels of modern-day politics. The two-tier system does work but it's long past time for the hereditary peers idea to be scrapped in favour of something less elitist. Many of those in the House of Lords have been kicked upstairs from the Commons and it defies belief to think that they suddenly become impartial.

Electing our Lords instead of simply slipping into it might also keep them a little more on their toes. It's a safe job for life and has very little in the way of evaluating whether they do a good or bad job. The public have grown deeply resentful of a system which gives preferential treatment to politicians at any level.

I don't think we should have a hereditary system by no means. Who your parents are does not represent the scrutiny skills you can bring to the House of Lords. It's an interesting point you make about MPs moving to the upper house and therefore politicising it. When they first move this is indeed what they try and do, but they soon become socialised into a less partisan, less punch and judy way of scrutinising.

I can see where you come from. I don't think the public want another tier of paid government though, just at a time when so many people are struggling. It would mean taxpayer wages for Lords which they don't currently receive, and would mean wages for staff which they cannot currently hire. I agree with the current system, yes old, but tested. It's worked well for a very long time. I don't question alterations, I simply question complete reform. Taken as a whole within our parliamentary system, I do feel, as I have said previously, the core principle of our democracy is that we can throw out a government for its wrongdoings, whichever party it may be. This principle of accountability would be made incredibly difficult if we chose to blur responsibility among two chambers with two different electoral systems.

[garinda]

I've met well over fifty peers, either through work or socially, both hereditary and appointed.

One or two of them I'd describee as good and capable people.

Others I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoe laces properly.

It's a total lottery, and as a concept, it is wrong.

The best people for the job should be selected, and deselected, by the people.

[garinda]

The House of Lords has always been 'politicised', with the government of the day attempting to give weight to their own party in the Lords, by whatever means.

[garinda]

'She (Baroness Uddin) had lived within four miles of the House of Lords for 20 years but she has claimed almost £200,000 by saying that her main home was outside London. Before 2005, she claimed her brother’s home in Frinton-on-Sea, Essex, was her main residence and then later she bought a flat in Kent that neighbours say was left empty and unused.'
Fraud inquiry killed off as peers closed ranks - Times Online

...and there she will continue to sit in the House of Lords, with others like her, safe in the knowledge that she'll enjoy these privileges of power until she dies.

Or until someone has the guts to change this absurd system, and let the electorate decide who's fit to sit in the second chamber.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't think the public want another tier of paid government though, just at a time when so many people are struggling. It would mean taxpayer wages for Lords which they don't currently receive, and would mean wages for staff which they cannot currently hire.

I do feel, as I have said previously, the core principle of our democracy is that we can throw out a government for its wrongdoings, whichever party it may be.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument to why reform would require another tier of government simply to funnel information from A to B and any adequate reforms should be able to circumvent unneccessary additional expenses.

Regarding your view of democracy, the whole point of wanting to reform the Lords is that we, the little people, have no power at all over them at the moment.

It's a creaking old system full of creaking old monuments. I'm all for heritage and preserving a British way of life but we're in an age where the public are now looking at all those who are getting vast amounts more than the majority of the populace and wondering if they're worth the money.

All systems need rebooting from time to time.

[Benipete]

Getting back to the original question should these thieves be allowed to get away with their crimes because of who they are.I think not.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Benipete

Getting back to the original question should these thieves be allowed to get away with their crimes because of who they are.I think not.

They've even got the ideal place outside parliament on the green

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Mancie

but can you name any name any other democracy (in what we call "the west") that has hereditary Lords changing and sometimes refusing laws imposed by an elected government... no one is born to impose laws (by the way, you would do a good job as the sheriff of Nottingham)

I notice that you confine your criticism to the hereditary Lords. No mention of Blair's broken promise to reform the Lords. No mention of the way he replaced one form of injustice with another by stuffing the place with his bootlickers and toadies. No mention of the way Labour troughers like Uddin are allowed to continue raking in expenses while Brown and the rest of his bunch look the other way.

Red blinkers obscuring your view, Mancie?