Lordy Lordy - Page 6

Bernard Dawson · 01-02-2009, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

In theory yes. The only problem is that I can see it being abused.

Lords would be affiliated to political parties (the political parties have the money so would be able to finance their election campaigns). The Lords would end up have the same political persuasion as the Commons and would therefore, end up being little more than a talking shop.

The are ways around this Gayle. One way possibly a different voting system for the second chamber, some form of P.R maybe. Other Countries have two elected chambers that seem by and large to work well.

I just think Gayle that in modern democracy in the 21st century the argument that you can have an unelected second chamber that makes decisions that can effect millions of lives is unsustainable

andrewb · 01-02-2009, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

I just think Gayle that in modern democracy in the 21st century the argument that you can have an unelected second chamber that makes decisions that can effect millions of lives is unsustainable

Except it is the Commons whom make the decisions and have a final say on everything. The Commons are democratically elected.

Gayle · 01-02-2009, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

The are ways around this Gayle. One way possibly a different voting system for the second chamber, some form of P.R maybe. Other Countries have two elected chambers that seem by and large to work well.

I just think Gayle that in modern democracy in the 21st century the argument that you can have an unelected second chamber that makes decisions that can effect millions of lives is unsustainable

If you check back you'll find I wasn't defending the old feudal system either. I'm just wary that elections would end up producing a duplicate commons rather than an independent lords and I asked the question - how could this work.

Using a different system could well be an option.

Bernard Dawson · 01-02-2009, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Except it is the Commons whom make the decisions and have a final say on everything. The Commons are democratically elected.

Andrew A Government has a program of legislation that it has put to the country and received a mandate for. If some part of that legislation the Lords doesn't like, the Lords will do all in its power to stop the legislation being adopted.

Where does an unelected Lords get the authority to that from?

andrewb · 01-02-2009, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Owen

Andrew A Government has a program of legislation that it has put to the country and received a mandate for. If some part of that legislation the Lords doesn't like, the Lords will do all in its power to stop the legislation being adopted.

It does not have the power to stop it being adopted though. The government, with its mandate, can refuse to listen to the Lords. It is the government, the House of Commons, which has the ultimate power of decision and legislation and does not need the Lords to agree.

garinda · 02-02-2009, 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Having an elected house with no power shift ensures that whatever the government of the day is, cannot be scrutinised, as they would both have the same composition. Where as currently wise people can comment on legislation, but have no powers to halt it, the elected house, democracy, can overrule. Normally however it takes the Lords decisions into account, as the lords often think of useful things that MP's do not.

Again your deferential/forelock tugging use of the word 'wise', when describing the members of the House of Lords.

Some are, some aren't.

I'd question the 'wiseness' of the four Labour Lords who've recently been uncovered in the investigation by the Sunday Times.

If they were that 'wise' they'd never have been caught out, and made to look like greedy slime balls, by the publication of the transcripts of secretly recorded conversations.

Enough of a non-partisan condemnation for you?

garinda · 02-02-2009, 00:43

Two interesting articles from yesterday's Sunday Times.

Revealed: paid peers tried to change laws 50 times - Times Online

Lords for hire - Times Online

garinda · 02-02-2009, 00:46

Interestingly...

'2007 A government white paper proposes an upper house that is 50% elected and 50% appointed. But the Commons votes for a wholly elected Lords.'

Noble ravages: how the Lords has changed - Times Online

steeljack · 02-02-2009, 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Interestingly...

'2007 A government white paper proposes an upper house that is 50% elected and 50% appointed. But the Commons votes for a wholly elected Lords.'

Noble ravages: how the Lords has changed - Times Online

good link

jaysay · 02-02-2009, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Interestingly...

'2007 A government white paper proposes an upper house that is 50% elected and 50% appointed. But the Commons votes for a wholly elected Lords.'

Noble ravages: how the Lords has changed - Times Online

Although our system ain't perfect by a long way, I sooner have it than the Americans where one man can wield so much power, especially when that one man was George W. for 8 years

Bernard Dawson · 02-02-2009, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Again your deferential/forelock tugging use of the word 'wise', when describing the members of the House of Lords.

Some are, some aren't.

I'd question the 'wiseness' of the four Labour Lords who've recently been uncovered in the investigation by the Sunday Times.

If they were that 'wise' they'd never have been caught out, and made to look like greedy slime balls, by the publication of the transcripts of secretly recorded conversations.

Enough of a non-partisan condemnation for you?

You could also say Garinda the events in the Lords last week demonstrates what can happen in an unelected second chamber. The people who sit there are accountable to no one. An abuse of power I think they call it.

steeljack · 02-02-2009, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Although our system ain't perfect by a long way, I sooner have it than the Americans where one man can wield so much power, especially when that one man was George W. for 8 years

yep , not the sharpest knife in the box, but thought he was acting partly on information given to him by Tony Blair which resulted in the Iraq debacle

jaysay · 02-02-2009, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

yep , not the sharpest knife in the box, but thought he was acting partly on information given to him by Tony Blair which resulted in the Iraq debacle

So what your say SJ is the blind leading the blind then

steeljack · 02-02-2009, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

So what your say SJ is the blind leading the blind then

not really , when you look at history , the UK has had hundreds of years experience in duplicity/double dealing with foreign govts. the US State dept are innocent babies compared to the Whitehall Foreign office ...

MargaretR · 02-02-2009, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

not really , when you look at history , the UK has had hundreds of years experience in duplicity/double dealing with foreign govts. the US State dept are innocent babies compared to the Whitehall Foreign office ...

.....and the US government leads the way in brainwashing techniques