Originally Posted by accyman (Post 672482)

give people a chance to catch up jaysay , all these scandles are coming in too fast to keep up with

a bit like when the tories were in charge you could say lol

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 672506)

I've said many times on here that I don't agree with having an unelected upper house of parilament.

Replacing hereditary buffoons with toads, free loaders and flunkies hasn't changed my opinion on this matter.

If found guilty of breaking the rules the four Labour Lords should be prosecuted and stripped of any power.

I've also said on here before that the present government reminds me of the last years of the Conservative government of John Major, when it was Conservatives accused of asking questions for cash.

Sadly power seems to corrupt all political parties...I'm just glad I'm not, nor ever have been, a member of any political party, and therefore remain incorruptible, and therefore free to criticise or praise as I see fit, freed from any political affiliations...unlike some.;)

I didn't know there was a time scale, or people waited with bated breath, for my take on any recent news stories.

How sweet of die hard Tories like Jaysay to care so much about my opinion.

:D

Originally Posted by polly (Post 672508)

Perhaps it says it all that nobody bothered to start at thread on this topic?

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 672509)

Of course I care about your opinion Rindi, it means we can have an informed debate:D
The only thing is when Tony came into power in 1997 he said he would reform the Lords, well he did sort of, he just put loads of his cronies in their to even up the balance, and Gordon is carrying on the good work, arise Lord Mandy:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 672480)

Given that Rindi is the paragon of what is right and wrong in public life, I thought he would be the first to jump in, or maybe not seeing they are Labour Peers and not Tory:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 672512)

As stated earlier, and as I have many times before on AW, the reform of the House of Lords hasn't satisfied me.

The only blessing is that when Mark Thatcher inherits his mother's title he won't be sitting there lording it over us.;)

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J (Post 672668)

How else can they afford their lavish life style. Mind you £330 in allowances a day aint a lot is it.

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J (Post 672668)

How else can they afford their lavish life style. Mind you £330 in allowances a day aint a lot is it.

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 672670)

All politicians, of whatever ilk, are only interested in lining their personal pockets at the expense of the gullible, long suffering tax-payer.

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 672701)

well those that are as crooked as a £3 note that is which sadly seems to be quite a lot of them

its unfair to say all of them are crooks or scamming the system but theres quite a lot of them it would seem that are and do

Originally Posted by flashy (Post 672704)

quite a lot of them? dont you mean 'the majority of them'?

Originally Posted by Greg Pope (Post 672667)

Originally Posted by Stumped (Post 672762)

Fairness in politics! Pull the other one, Greg. You are subservient to an unelected Prime Minister who has now proved to be a failed chancellor who sold off the family silver to make himself and his murdering sidekick, Blair look good on the world stage. That being the case, then the views of the electorate are shown to have been sidelined in the intersts of no-one but Gordon Brown.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 672506)

incorruptible
:D

Originally Posted by flashy (Post 672699)

another scandal from yet more politicians, it never changes does it

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 672764)

I'll think it's generally acknowledged that it was Thatcher who sold off the family silver, when she privatised the nationalised industries and utilities.

The most you can accuse Brown of selling off was the polish that was used to clean the silver, for that's all that was left.;)

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 672705)

I disagree - there are probably only a small minority of them that are in it for themselves, but the majority are hard working and dedicated to their job. If the majority of them were like that then the country would come to a standstill and we'd be hearing about different scandals every day. As it happens the scandals may be biggies but they're actually quite rare, only three or four a year (and usually the same ones involved).

It possibly just seems like they're all on the make because the papers like to make it look like it and because you don't hear about the ones that are just getting on and doing their job.

Originally Posted by katex (Post 673072)

Don't think it is fair to pre-judge this situation just yet Jaysay ... if it is proved then we will all have a go at sticking the needles in ... :D

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 673086)

if it aint proved then justice will have been ignored once more fer the chosen ones, the tapes give the game away in my book.;)

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 673086)

if it aint proved then justice will have been ignored once more fer the chosen ones, the tapes give the game away in my book.;)

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 673086)

if it aint proved then justice will have been ignored once more fer the chosen ones, the tapes give the game away in my book.;)

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 673122)

as margaret said earlier, the lords should be done away with,jobs fer the boys has never cut it with me.:cool: if a second house is needed it should be an elected one that works fer legislation, NOT sleeps through it or takes backhanders like some of these owd *******.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673125)

Labour's half hearted attempt at reforming the Lords has failed in my book, and sadly none of the other parties have made known any of their intentions to sort out this outdated relic of an institution.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 673266)

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.:confused:

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 673285)

There are very wise people in that house

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673294)

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.

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris (Post 673337)

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. ;)

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 673264)

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

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris (Post 673376)

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

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 673479)

Any other suggestions?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673480)

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

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 673492)

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.

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 673492)

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.

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 673543)

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.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673518)

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.;)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673548)

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.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673548)

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.

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 673557)

And I think that's probably the very crux of the problem. The House of Lords needs to be independent (and in theory it was with hereditary lords - whether it was in practice or not is irrelevant and that's why I said 'on the surface').

Only an independent members of House of Lords, i.e. not affiliated to any party, can be above the petty politics of the day, and scrutinise any of the laws.

The only problem is that the current system with Labour toadies (and let's be honest if the Tories get in they'll do exactly the same) doesn't stand up against the House of Commons.

I think a publically elected House of Lords would be even worse because they would be more aligned to party politics and less able to be independent but I don't know what the solution is that would remove party politics from the equation.

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674739)

What is wrong Gayle with an elected House of Lords.We are supposed to live in democratic country.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 674743)

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674750)

Andrew The House Of Lords not only comments but can also change legislation. The problem I have with this is that the Lords have no mandate from the electorate to change anything. Also Andrew believe you me, age and wisdom are necessarily the same thing

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674750)

Andrew The House Of Lords not only comments but can also change legislation. The problem I have with this is that the Lords have no mandate from the electorate to change anything. Also Andrew believe you me, age and wisdom are necessarily the same thing

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 674755)

The Lords can change or make legislation, but the democratic house (commons) has the final say. It can simply refuse to take the Lords opinion into account. Therefore the democratic process is ensured.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 674755)

The Lords can change or make legislation, but the democratic house (commons) has the final say. It can simply refuse to take the Lords opinion into account. Therefore the democratic process is ensured.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 674758)

please explain how then Lords can change or make legislation?:confused:

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674761)

Whilst in theory what you say Andrew is correct. There has however been many occasions where the Government of the day have had to drop legislation because they have been unable to get the Lords approval, or the Lords have simply talked the legislation out.

I still maintain that any second legislative chamber should not only be elected, but also accountable

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674739)

What is wrong Gayle with an elected House of Lords.We are supposed to live in democratic country.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 674755)

The Lords can change or make legislation, but the democratic house (commons) has the final say. It can simply refuse to take the Lords opinion into account. Therefore the democratic process is ensured.

Originally Posted by Gayle (Post 674769)

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674775)

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

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674775)

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

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 674777)

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

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674788)

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.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 674743)

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.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 674824)

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

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 674824)

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

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 674821)

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?

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 674873)

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:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by steeljack (Post 674892)

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 ;)

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 674894)

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

Originally Posted by steeljack (Post 674897)

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 ...:D ;)

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 674901)

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

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 674873)

Although our system 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:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674907)

George Bush as bad as he was at least got people to vote for him. An elected Government is always preferable to an unelected one.

Originally Posted by Robert Owen (Post 674889)

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.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 674914)

That would be when they get to make decisions for us, fortunately they don't, that's the commons. If we want to have a go at unelected, unaccountable decision makers, we need to look no further than the European Union.