Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 797197)

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.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 797213)

In the great random lottery which decides who is currently sitting in our second chamber, there either through accident of birth, or because, crony like, they they've licked their way right to the top of the slippery poll of sycophancy, for every good one sheer luck has placed there, there are a hundred more who are complete imbeciles, and I speak as someone who's met more than my fair share of them.

In the twenty first century, in what's supposed to be a democratic society, it is a total anachronism to be ruled by people whose birth is thought to be more 'noble' than anyone else's, or by those there because they've paid the going price, either financially, or by other, less salubrious means.

It is outdated, and from the outrageous actions of some of these 'noble' men and women we've seen recently, change can't come soon enough.

The people will decide if they are fit to sit there, and the people will decide when they're not fit to be there.

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates (Post 797202)

The House of Lords - was it broke? then why the hell did these prats that infest the lower house have to try and mend it. They have messed up their own house and are doing their best to screw up an institution that has served the country well during the years of it's life.
I have close experience of appointed Peers literally flogging themselves around to act as lobbyists - for a Blackburn Company even. I refused to take one drunken sot home from a reception for foreign customers at the Trafalgar - he had soiled his trousers, even though I was offered full valet service on my car.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 797230)

The people we elect to the Commons, which has enough problems of its own it needs to fix, are the ones who hold the decision making power. They're the ones who are accountable to the public. When decisions are made, it's clear who is responsible. That wouldn't happen if you elect a second chamber. It's less democratic if you don't know who to hold accountable for actions of government.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 797233)

It works perfectly well in other, less antiquated, democracies.

Giving the majority the right to decide who has power over them is at the very heart of what makes for a truer democracy.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 797239)

I can't think of any examples where people have been more able to hold accountable those who make law because of two elected chambers than the British system with one elected chamber holding all the power.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 797247)

That's an impressive sentence.

Might have been more impressive if punctuation had been used, and it made a little more sense, when attempting to read it.

(Just an observation. Don't run off for another couple of months, accusing people of pickin' on you.)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 797231)

I notice that you now live in a republic, that stripped power from those of 'noble' birth, over two hundred years ago.

:D:rolleyes::D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 797247)

That's an impressive sentence.

Might have been more impressive if punctuation had been used, and it made a little more sense, when attempting to read it.

(Just an observation. Don't run off for another couple of months, accusing people of pickin' on you.)

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates (Post 797285)

Why not stick with the thread rather than being a "nit-picker" over the grammar and punctuation of other posters?

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates (Post 797285)

Why not stick with the thread rather than being a "nit-picker" over the grammar and punctuation of other posters?

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates (Post 797284)

And look where it has got them:-))