Re: Are these people a special case
 

how my post can be described as blinkered?.. we could go on all day about Blair and Brown, but this is about wether a small privilaged section of the population should be allowed to block laws proposed by an elected government... I kow you hate the idea of the EU commission being in a postition to question British law, should ancesters of some Baron or other who may knocked another bloke off his horse 500yrs ago, have a the right by birth to block British law? :confused:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Once again, you totally ignore the facts that are inconvenient to your political point of view. Yes, it is ridiculous that people should be able to block law because of who their ancestors were. It is equally ridiculous that people should be able to block law because they sucked up to Tony Blair. He promised to reform the Lords by like so much he promised, it proved to be no more than words...but you don't want to talk about that, becuase you might have to criticize your beloved Labour government.

And while we're at, could you, as a believer in socialist democracy, explain exactly why Mandelson is in such a powerful position in this government, despite having no mandate from the British people...or is that something else you want to conveniently ignore?

Re: Are these people a special case
 

There's none so blind as those who don't want to see Wyn:rolleyes:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

You missed your way.

What a cracker.

There's always work for a good double act.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Its the way I tell um Rindi:D:p

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Again, the Lords does not have the power you seem to think. The Commons is elected, and accountable to the electorate. They're the body that hold ultimate decision making power, and they can overrule any amendment suggested by the Lords.

We don't need an elected second chamber because the body with ultimate decision making power, is ultimately accountable to us, the people. When government make decisions we know exactly how to remove them if we disagree.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

A new law allowing the age of consent for homosexuals in Britain to be reduced from 18 to 16 has been forced through Parliament.

The Speaker told MPs that the rarely used Parliament Act had been invoked to get the measure onto the statute book.

It is only the fourth time since World War One that the Parliament Act has been used.

On this occasion it is against the background of bitter opposition from the House of Lords

Ministers were entitled to use the special powers granted under the Parliament Act after the measure was approved twice in the Commons, but blocked in the Lords

But Baroness Young, the former Tory minister who has led the Lords campaign against the Bill, said the government's decision was "a constitutional outrage".

BBC News | UK POLITICS | Gay consent at 16 becomes law

Just one of the example of the archaic, and immoral second chamber trying to block the elected Commons.

Happily on this occasion they were prevented from doing so, after a long struggle, and basic human rights regarding equality were passed.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

'Three years ago the House of Commons voted by a majority of 113 to reform the Lords and create an all-elected chamber. But that move was blocked by the Lords themselves, who voted instead for a fully appointed second *chamber.'
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Labour is planning to scrap House of Lords

'The Conservatives have also said that they would like to see a “mainly elected” second chamber.'

I wonder what 'mainly' means?

Either something is wrong, and needs changing, or it isn't.

Perhaps they're planning it will be wholly elected....but with a seat left for the soon to be Lord Mark Thatcher.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I'm glad I did my degree in art.

I hate to think how well informed I'd be now, if I'd studied politics at university.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Thank-you for proving my point, that the Commons have ultimate decision making power. They're the ones who are accountable to the electorate, and rightly so. Any decision they make, or don't make, that alters the lives of British people can be judged by the people at the ballot box.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Anyhow, back on with the subject of this thread...

'Lord Ashcroft is not the first wealthy peer to fall foul of public anger after being less than transparent over his non-domiciled tax status.
In 2007 the Scottish Tory Lord Laidlaw of Rothiemay was forced to take extended leave of absence from Westminster after it emerged that he had failed to keep a promise to become a UK tax resident but remained in tax exile in Monaco'

'Lord Laidlaw, a colourful figure who admitted to sex addiction after being caught in a Monaco hotel room with four prostitutes and a male gigolo in an April 2008 sting by the News of the World, ranked number 100 on the Sunday Times rich list in 2007 after selling his stake in his international conference business for £713 million.'

'He was nominated as a potential life peer by Iain Duncan-Smith in 2004.'
Labour fury as Lord Ashcroft escapes inquiry - contains video

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Bill introduced by Lord Joffe, not the elected government. The elected government could bring this bill to the table any day of the week and pass it into legislation, whether the House of Lords liked it or not. Don't give up on the art.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

A South African, unelected by the people of Britain, and yet given political power over it's people.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

'The row over Lord Ashcroft's donations to the Tory party threatened to erupt into a full-blown constitutional crisis last night as questions were raised over whether the Queen and the former prime minister, Tony Blair, had granted him a peerage under false pretences.
As David Cameron's aides confirmed that Ashcroft would be retiring as Tory deputy chairman after the election, the Liberal Democrats called on the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to publish all documents relating to the peerage as a matter of urgency, so that it could be established whether the sovereign had been misled.
In a letter to O'Donnell, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, said that, given the "overwhelming public interest" in how the Tories' biggest donor came to be elevated to the Lords, it was vital "to establish whether the Queen conferred a life peerage… under false pretences".
The monarch confers honours mostly on the advice of the Cabinet Office and the prime minister. Ashcroft's declaration last week that he was a "non-dom" has been seen to contradict "clear and unequivocal" assurances given to the then Tory leader, William Hague, that he would take up permanent residence in the UK before the end of 2000. This assurance was seen as crucial. Members of Blair's inner circle suggest the former prime minister now feels he has been misled.
"Hague told Tony that Ashcroft would pay huge amounts of tax," said a source. "That was the deal. That was what we all understood at the time.'
Queen and Tony Blair dragged into Michael Ashcroft peerage row | Politics | The Observer