Lordy Lordy - Page 4

MargaretR · 28-01-2009, 15:43

It is clear that their loyalty lies with whosoever pays them the most and that isn't us, and they aren't breaking any rules by doing that, because there aren't any rules

andrewb · 28-01-2009, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

then please explain how "Jobs fer the Boys" as is now, is preferable to n elected body? seems to me they get in now by arse-licking n towing someones line.

I don't regard it as jobs for boys. It's preferable because they can scrutinise laws properly for the good of the country, rather than trying to get votes for the next election. It also ensures that there is not a government majority in the house, the decisions are more independent, and party whips have no control over the peers. The Lords do a fantastic job and often suggest amendments to legislation and point things out, which the commons had never thought of. There are very wise people in that house, it is a shame that these few who flaunt the rules, make the rest look bad.

Margaret, there are rules, there is a code of conduct which I cannot recall word for word but goes to the effect of: 'You cannot attempt to change, or vote, on legislation, if you are to make any financial or other gains from it'. Problem is, there is no punishment..

garinda · 28-01-2009, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

There are very wise people in that house

Having met quite a few of them, either through work or socially, there is a wide range of intellect in the Lords.

Some may be wise, some are as thick as pig muck, and most are somewhere in the middle, which reflects our society as a whole.

The only difference is that now instead of being there by their aristocratic birthright, most are there because they've been very generous with their donations to party coffers, or they're very good at kissing the greasy political pole.

Wynonie Harris · 28-01-2009, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

The only difference is that now instead of being there by their aristocratic birthright, most are there because they've been very generous with their donations to party coffers, or they're very good at kissing the greasy political pole.

Hit the nail right on the head there...which makes it curious that a forward-thinking type like AndrewB should be supporting what is essentially an anachronism in a 21st-century democracy. Still, as a budding politico, maybe he's looking 40 years ahead.

SPUGGIE J · 28-01-2009, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Hit the nail right on the head there...which makes it curious that a forward-thinking type like AndrewB should be supporting what is essentially an anachronism in a 21st-century democracy. Still, as a budding politico, maybe he's looking 40 years ahead.

What as PM or leader of the Lords? Mind you 40 years from now both uper and lower houses might not be there. Mr B has his eye on being life president by then.

Wynonie Harris · 28-01-2009, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

they can do and say things without needing to think about re-election

With a political philosophy like this, I'd say he fancied himself as a dictator!

accyman · 28-01-2009, 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

With a political philosophy like this, I'd say he fancied himself as a dictator!

nope just a dic

Gayle · 29-01-2009, 08:29

I do agree in the principal of a two tier system so that there is a scrutiny process but clearly existing methods don't work or aren't acceptable. So, just a thought but what would work

Inherited peers - tested and not appropriate for today's society
Business leaders - tend to be selected by the government so open to corruption

Alternatives

Elected - most likely would follow the voting pattern of the House of Commons, i.e. if Labour were elected to the HoC, it is likely that the public would vote Labour peers in. This wouldn't allow for any controls i.e. Labour pass a law through the commons and chances it would be passed by their counterparts in the Lords.

Selected from top universities and think tanks - oh, my goodness, we don't want things over analysed.

Public figures - we could have all our most important decisions made by Davina McCall.

Random members of the public - a bit like jury service.

Any other suggestions?

garinda · 29-01-2009, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

Any other suggestions?

An elected second house seems to work perfectly well in the largest democratic country on the planet.

Gayle · 29-01-2009, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

An elected second house seems to work perfectly well in the largest democratic country on the planet.

Yes, but they do not vote their Senators in based on who the President is going to be. In our country we vote the party in and then whoever is leader of that party is Prime Minister. Let's face it, Greg Pope's position as our Labour MP is probably in jeopardy, but it will be nothing to do with the quality of his work, it will based on whether people want Gordon Brown or David Cameron in charge.

Change that system and then people can actually start voting for the politician that they think will do the best for them in their own area.

jaysay · 29-01-2009, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

Yes, but they do not vote their Senators in based on who the President is going to be. In our country we vote the party in and then whoever is leader of that party is Prime Minister. Let's face it, Greg Pope's position as our Labour MP is probably in jeopardy, but it will be nothing to do with the quality of his work, it will based on whether people want Gordon Brown or David Cameron in charge.

Change that system and then people can actually start voting for the politician that they think will do the best for them in their own area.

Couldn't agree more Gayle, I have always been of the opinion that you don't always get the best voting on party lines, especially at local level, but there is little or no chance of a change to no party franchise happening any time soon. There are good councillors who do a first class job for the people who elect them, Its well known on here that I ain't a fan of Graham Jones, but from what I've heard and read about him, he does a very good job in and around Peel Ward and I think that goes for most councillors of all parties

garinda · 29-01-2009, 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

Yes, but they do not vote their Senators in based on who the President is going to be. In our country we vote the party in and then whoever is leader of that party is Prime Minister. Let's face it, Greg Pope's position as our Labour MP is probably in jeopardy, but it will be nothing to do with the quality of his work, it will based on whether people want Gordon Brown or David Cameron in charge.

Change that system and then people can actually start voting for the politician that they think will do the best for them in their own area.

Besides the United States it apparently works very well in Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia and Switzerland.

Gayle · 29-01-2009, 13:14

I would dispute that it works very well in a lot of those places.

And I looked into a couple of them and they're not quite the same as here - for example, Australia elects their Prime Minister after the general elections. So people elect their local politicians or party and then the Prime Minister is selected from the whole of the senate.

The good thing about the current system, certainly on the surface is, that each person in the House of Lords is independent - i.e. not a member of a political party. I know that in practice that's not quite right as they were 'placed' there by Labour and so have a certain allegiance.

I am just unsure whether an 'elected' House of Lords would be impartial. I know the current system isn't ideal and I know the past system of hereditary peers wasn't either - I'm personally just not convinced that 'elected' by the public would be the right way either.

Gayle · 29-01-2009, 13:17

And I tried to understand the Swiss system but sorry, it's beyond me!

garinda · 29-01-2009, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

The good thing about the current system, certainly on the surface is, that each person in the House of Lords is independent - i.e. not a member of a political party.

I'd totally dispute that claim.

Even before New Labour half-heartedly reformed the Lords, most of the noble Lords were very much aligned to the various political parties.