Re: Are these people a special case
 

I'm totally opposed to the House of Lords being peopled by those there because of their birthright, and am against hereditary peerages, but when you have replaced (most) of them with snivelling lackys, cronies, toadying sycophants, and people so lacking in morals such as Baroness Uddin, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, and Lord Ashcroft, we're really no better off.

The sooner we have an elected second Chamber, with people accountable to the public that put them there, the better.

(If only to stop that other waste of space, Mark Thatcher, from eventually taking his seat, and lording it over us.)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

It really is time we found a new Guy Fawkes.
Thay are all a shower of you know what.
The elected MP's are money grubbing sleaze baskets.....who do not listen to the wishes of the people who elected them, in fact I am sure that most of them think we are mindless mugs.
I am sure that if there was a second elected house it would be no better.....unless of course we could come up with some sure fire way of making them take notice of the electorate........wonder if there are any spare Guillotines hanging around in a French museum somewhere!

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Maybe, but at least we get the chance to boot 'em out when they don't come up to scratch, rather than pay for them to sit there until they become dust, albeit dust with a taste for unlimited expenses.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I never thought I would see the day when Margaret P advocates revolution:eek::D

I slipped the word 'anarchy' into threads a few times and Tealeaf branded me a commie terrorist

Re: Are these people a special case
 

...not to mention Lord Paul - this of course illustrates yet another bone of contention. The fact that both Labour and Tory parties have been quite happy to get their greedy, grasping hands on tax-free party funds provided by non-doms, while expecting us peasants to stump up our taxes as usual. Do as I say, not as I do. :rolleyes:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I'm so angry I would have headbutted the screen if I had to list all the snake's names.

:mad::mad::mad:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Just wait 'til they come around canvassing! ;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

What did I tell you? Our Labour candidate who is up for MP's position has choosen to ignore this thread once again. Does make one wonder if any of our local councillors are one bit bothered :(

Re: Are these people a special case
 

'Absurd' rules allow expenses fiddling peers to dodge justice | Mail Online
This tells you all you need to know about the ignoble Lords:mad:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

'PLANS to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a wholly elected, 300-seat second chamber are set to be unveiled by the government before the general election.'
'The government’s reform blueprint would have all members directly elected, ending the tradition of party patronage. A proportional representation system would be used to select members, with voting taking place at the same time as general elections.'
'One-third of the new chamber would be elected on each occasion, with members serving three terms — 15 years — in a system similar to the one used to select members of the United States Senate.'
'The new “peers” could also be subject to a US-style “recall ballot” that would disqualify them for incompetence.'
Jack Straw plots to abolish House of Lords - Times Online

Well that news has certainly cheered up my Sunday afternoon.

About time.

:)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Well considering it was one of their main aim 13 years ago it took them long enough, and given they were so anti Lords enough couldn't wait the don the Ermine, Even Gorbals Mick

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I agree. Just the thought of Blair ennobling that immoral woman, Uddin, makes my skin crawl, as I said earlier.

However I'd fully support these plans.

An elected second chamber, voted for under proportional representation, with the chance to kick 'em out mid-term if they're not up to scratch, brilliant.

It might be late, centuries in fact, but better late than never.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

It's reported in today's Sunday Times that the TaxPayers' Alliance are considering bringing private prosecutions against the fiddling peers. Who thought they'd got away scot free, after they've recently changed the definition of second home to 'somewhere that was visited regularly'.

According to the new definition I'm suprised none of them put down 'brothel' or 'Fortnum & Mason's Food Hall' as their second home, if they happen to pop in their quite frequently.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

This really made me laugh out loud, considering Wikipedia have recently clamped down on inaccuracies, for fear of litigation.


Baroness Uddin

I'm sure she's arranging to sue them this very minute.

:rolleyes:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

An elected House of Lords would be terrible for British democracy. For hundreds of years the public have been in no doubt about who is to blame or congratulate for the path our country has taken. Clear majorities in the House of Commons have always given the public a clear view of who to hold accountable.

An elected House of Lords muddies that view. No longer will the public be able to hold government properly accountable and boot them from office, as it will never be clear who is to blame, with both houses blaming the other. Democracy is about accountability with representation. Currently it is very easy and simple to hold government accountable.

As a side note, the House of Lords does a better job at scrutinising legislation than the Commons does. It often recommends amendments the Commons had never thought of, yet are crucial to good legislation. The cost of the Lords is less than 1/4 that of the Commons. Adding another paid tier of government to get second rate party hacks, rather than those with expertise in the areas of legislation they scrutinise, would be a terrible route to go down during the current economic climate. I suspect the government are only finally proposing these ideas 13 years after they've had chance to implement, simply to avoid having this debate with the electorate, avoid giving them the pros and cons, as there are far more important issues on the agenda. Sorting out our economy should be their aim, not muddying the water.