Are these people a special case
 

'Expenses fraud' MPs and peer insist they should not face trial | Mail Online

Are these disgraced politicians a special case, should they have been allowed to stay out of the dock, and should they be dealt with at Crown Court or in house in Parliament;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

You can only blame the system.:rolleyes:

Instead of just a little Green Book(you will get away with this)They should have an Amber Book(you may get away with this on a good day)and a little Red Book(not a hope in hell,don't do it):hehetable

Re: Are these people a special case
 

They've been charged with offences under the Theft Act, so they should be tried in a court of law like us commoners would be if we were in the same position.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Yes, they are a special case, and should therefore feel the full weight of the law, as an example to the citizens they governed, that stealing is wrong.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

They really do make me sick, they claimed expenses they weren't entitled to so of course they should be tried in a court of law. I am a member of a couple of carers sites and god forbid any of them earn more than £95 a week and carry on claiming carers allowance they would soon be hauled before the courts and have to repay any overpayment. The arrogance of these MP's is astounding:mad:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Spot on

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Politicians getting preferential treatment in the eyes of the law over dodgy expenses.....yup, should sit well with the public in these stable times.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

No, they are no more special than any benefit fraudster being dealt with by any court in the land.......that they believe they are 'special' and should be treated in a different way(does that mean more leniently?) just shows how out of touch they are with public opinion and how far away from the real world they are.
They are despicable.
Baroness Uddin has been cleared of any wrong doing on a technicality....she claimed £100,000 pounds and has got away with it, only because there is no clear distinction in the parliamentary regulations as to what constitues a primary residence....so if she visited her flat in Maidstone Kent once a month, then this could be considered her primary residence and she was free to calim £174 per night for accommodation in the city.
More bl**dy neck than a giraffe!

Re: Are these people a special case
 

According to the BBC, this is down to a recent ruling by the Lords authorities which determined that peers could nominate a property as their "main" home even if they only "visit" it at least once a month.

Note that - a "recent" ruling. In other words, these greedy, snout-dipping sods are determined to keep on troughing at our expense.

Or how about this?

MPs’ expenses: Ann and Alan Keen told to repay just £1,500 - Telegraph

Despite all the fine words, it's abundantly clear that those who supposedly represent us have STILL not got the message.

If there's a low turn out and/or a large vote for fringe parties in a couple of months time, we'll know exactly who's to blame! :mad:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Take it your not a fan Wyn:rolleyes:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

What does the Representative for Hyndburn have to say on the matter - and all prospective ones for that matter - they seem to be very quiet on the matter - waiting, hoping to get their snouts in the Westminster trough?

Re: Are these people a special case
 

It appears Peers and MPs can get away with stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds, whilst others are jailed for stealing £18.

Accrington woman jailed for dodging £18 taxi fare (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Stealing is stealing, and everyone is (supposed to be) equal before the law.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for comments they seem very tight lipped on this subject:rolleyes:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I may be pushing my luck on this subject but would it be legal for me to claim Housing and Council Tax benefit for my flat if I stayed here for one night a month and spent the rest of the time doing a bit of Slippery in Europe.

I do have a Hereditary coat of arms, just short of a Diplomatic bag or two.:hehetable

Re: Are these people a special case
 

How this immoral, arrogant bitch has evaded criminal proceedings is down to the fact that those these people made up the rules, which they then abused.

Hang your head in shame, along with Blair for making you a Peer, and along with a government that allowed these abuses to flourish.

Sadly, if they'd have had their way, for they fought tooth and nail to keep their expenses shrouded in secrecy, we'd be none the wiser, and they'd still be milking the system.

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.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

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.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

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.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

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.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

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

Re: Are these people a special case
 

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.

People power.

The right to get rid of those not up to the job...whatever job that might be.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I totally see the need for total reform, and would passionately back the changes needed, regardless of whichever party had proposed this plan...unlike some.

:rolleyes:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Does it? 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. Not that there is or should be a one size fits all solution.

The proposed Google Page Ranking system to elect the Lords just brings more problems. The British public would not be able to remove those it wants to, nor could they easily change the governing coalition. Google Page Ranking has a tendency to deliver the same government for decades.

I forgot to add to my original post that the way the Lords works today is very non-partisan. Scrutiny is done by agreement, and people are far less likely to have partisan punch and judy politics. They get down to business. This would obviously change with an elected system.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

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.)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I think.and I do not say this lightly that what Andrew means is that if you can get away with being a thief and lier in the lower house If you make it to the House of Lords you're bread is buttered.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

And look where it has got them:-))

Re: Are these people a special case
 

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

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Possibly because it made no sense at at all to the educated mass without punctuation.:confused:

As a under educated moron I myself can make no sense at all of the Jabberings having done my utmost to decipher and accommodate such foolishness :mosher:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

It seems that most people here think we live in a democracy still ..... amazing!

The illusion of one....maybe.

Why does the prospect of anarchy and revolution frighten you?
It may be the only way to purify the system for better things.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I'm sure it was heartfelt, and made perfect sense, just not to me.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Yes ferry load, after ferry load, of whinging les Ros Bifs, desparate to desert these class ridden shores, for life in post-revoltionary France.

;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Would you not class this as 'nit-picking', and veering from the thread's subject, or is it not applicable when it's being done by you.

If you understood what he said, it might have been more helpful, and still on topic, if you'd explained it for those of us who didn't.

;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I stand by this post.

After attempting, yet again, to understand what was said, either I've lost the ability to read English, or it's gobbledygook, and would welcome a simple explanation, from someone brighter than myself.

I thank you in advance, but I fear I might be missing some riveting information, if I miss out on what might be a very salient point.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

In order to lighten the tone
I will give knitting lessons

Re: Are these people a special case
 

See that's the trouble when you appoint toadies, creeps, and sycophants, to unelected postions of power.

No class.

(As your average, down-to-earth, right-wing, Alf Garnett type bigot, would say.)

Hereditary peers would always pay an underling to do the flogging for them.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I said 'towards truer democracy'.

;)

Does the man who dictates everything you write never have a night off, and allow you the freedom to say what you truly think?

It's terrible. You should search for other, similarly oppressed drones.

:D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

an·ar·chy (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)n. pl. an·ar·chies 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Well I'm afraid we can't accept you for the Anarchy in the UK tour, as your devout beliefs re:Bildenberg, and other conspiracy theories, are standard and common to many others, and therefore exempt you as an anarchist.

http://ksent.net/anarchy002.png

:mosher:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I hope Hyndburn Homes don't send round someone to polish your taps, and check the grouting, when your bathroom's finished. Who suddenly announces he's an Anarchist, and doesn't believe housing should be either social, organised, or even funded by anything so respectably bourgeois as paying rent, and then took a big sledge hammer, and started breaking up the new lav, in an act of wanton anarchic revolution!

:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Let's try to accomplish one small step at a time.

;)

:D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I need a functioning bathroom if I am ever to get a knitting circle going ;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I'm not getting at you, by the way.

I have the utmost respect for those with dearly held devout beliefs, be it religion, a New World Order, or whatever.

I understand that a blind faith in something, for some, is a crutch they need to function.

:D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Go and stick your needles in the spokes of the Queen's carriage, at the State opening of Parliament.

Sitting round making tea-cosies, hoping you might see a beheading, isn't really going to start your anarchistic revolution.

;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Does it? I can't think of any examples where government has been more accountable under two elected chambers. The British system with one elected chamber holding all the power, is far more accountable, as the public can throw out a government. Not that there is or should be a one size fits all solution.

I hope the paragraph is clearer now.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Much, thank you.

Now I can clearly see that you don't have a clue.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

but can you name any name any other democracy (in what we call "the west") that has hereditary Lords changing and sometimes refusing laws imposed by an elected government... no one is born to impose laws (by the way, you would do a good job as the sheriff of Nottingham)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Now that you mention it, we do have something similar here. We have the Canadian Senate. Senators are appointed by the Lieutennant Govenor in Council (the PM in other words). They are not elected, and they do have the same powers as your House of Lords. They are not hereditary, and they are not lords; but they do perform the same (dis)function.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Any other? That doesn't happen in our democracy. They can amend bills to suggest alternatives. The Lords are very good at line by line scrutiny, many of the changes are accepted by the Commons. It is the elected Commons who have the ultimate say on which bills become legislation. Thus the general public know exactly who is in government, who is responsible and who to hold accountable at the ballot box with the current system.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I have a strange feeling that if Dave, caring, sharing, embracing of all minorities, hug-a-hoodie, Cameron had proposed these much needed changes, some people would think it was the best thing for democracy since the vote was given to all those eligible, regardless of their class, wealth, or gender.

This isn't about party politics. It's about dragging government out of an antiquated past, and into the twenty first century.

It is morally wrong to have people in power who weren't elected to that position by the greater majority, but there either because of their 'noble' birth, or the fact that they've been rewarded, for whatever reason. Which usually involves some sort of payment, either financial, or verbal.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

If you ever get an Anarchist driver, who decides to redistribute your online supermarket order, in an act of revolutionary anarchy, send me a message and I'll arrange to have some pies and bread to be delivered to you, by a non-revolutionary baker.

;):D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

That's nice of you,
but I make my own bread, pies, cakes and biscuits - using organic ingredients.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Yes, but if you have an anarchist driver, who gives all your ingredients away, as an act of revolution, you'll be stumped.

;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

You put forward an interesting case but you're still agreeing with having a very, very old system essentially greasing the wheels of modern-day politics. The two-tier system does work but it's long past time for the hereditary peers idea to be scrapped in favour of something less elitist. Many of those in the House of Lords have been kicked upstairs from the Commons and it defies belief to think that they suddenly become impartial.

Electing our Lords instead of simply slipping into it might also keep them a little more on their toes. It's a safe job for life and has very little in the way of evaluating whether they do a good or bad job. The public have grown deeply resentful of a system which gives preferential treatment to politicians at any level.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

It's wrong to blur accountability so that the public no longer know who to hold accountable. It's the core principle of democracy to be able to throw out a government.

I'm sure you wouldn't think the first part of your post about myself, because if you did, you'd have deeply misunderstood who I am, what my politics are and what I stand for. ;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

If you did have a delivery driver who was a fellow anarchist, he might be more tempted to deliver your order if he was delivering to a squat, or commune, rather than state organised social housing, funded and paid for by a capitalist state.

If I was you I'd be burning my pension book/card, to prove my credentials as a rebel, and a true anarchist, and then preparing to go at squat at Jaysay's.

:D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I don't think we should have a hereditary system by no means. Who your parents are does not represent the scrutiny skills you can bring to the House of Lords. It's an interesting point you make about MPs moving to the upper house and therefore politicising it. When they first move this is indeed what they try and do, but they soon become socialised into a less partisan, less punch and judy way of scrutinising.

I can see where you come from. I don't think the public want another tier of paid government though, just at a time when so many people are struggling. It would mean taxpayer wages for Lords which they don't currently receive, and would mean wages for staff which they cannot currently hire. I agree with the current system, yes old, but tested. It's worked well for a very long time. I don't question alterations, I simply question complete reform. Taken as a whole within our parliamentary system, I do feel, as I have said previously, the core principle of our democracy is that we can throw out a government for its wrongdoings, whichever party it may be. This principle of accountability would be made incredibly difficult if we chose to blur responsibility among two chambers with two different electoral systems.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I've met well over fifty peers, either through work or socially, both hereditary and appointed.

One or two of them I'd describee as good and capable people.

Others I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoe laces properly.

It's a total lottery, and as a concept, it is wrong.

The best people for the job should be selected, and deselected, by the people.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

The House of Lords has always been 'politicised', with the government of the day attempting to give weight to their own party in the Lords, by whatever means.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

'She (Baroness Uddin) had lived within four miles of the House of Lords for 20 years but she has claimed almost £200,000 by saying that her main home was outside London. Before 2005, she claimed her brother’s home in Frinton-on-Sea, Essex, was her main residence and then later she bought a flat in Kent that neighbours say was left empty and unused.'
Fraud inquiry killed off as peers closed ranks - Times Online

...and there she will continue to sit in the House of Lords, with others like her, safe in the knowledge that she'll enjoy these privileges of power until she dies.

Or until someone has the guts to change this absurd system, and let the electorate decide who's fit to sit in the second chamber.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I have yet to hear a convincing argument to why reform would require another tier of government simply to funnel information from A to B and any adequate reforms should be able to circumvent unneccessary additional expenses.

Regarding your view of democracy, the whole point of wanting to reform the Lords is that we, the little people, have no power at all over them at the moment.

It's a creaking old system full of creaking old monuments. I'm all for heritage and preserving a British way of life but we're in an age where the public are now looking at all those who are getting vast amounts more than the majority of the populace and wondering if they're worth the money.

All systems need rebooting from time to time.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Getting back to the original question should these thieves be allowed to get away with their crimes because of who they are.I think not.:behead:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

They've even got the ideal place outside parliament on the green:D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I notice that you confine your criticism to the hereditary Lords. No mention of Blair's broken promise to reform the Lords. No mention of the way he replaced one form of injustice with another by stuffing the place with his bootlickers and toadies. No mention of the way Labour troughers like Uddin are allowed to continue raking in expenses while Brown and the rest of his bunch look the other way.

Red blinkers obscuring your view, Mancie?

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

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I'm blessed, being multi-skilled, while others struggle to master one.

If they're lucky enough to find out what it is.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I know what powers the Lords have..the Commons does have the ultimate power to overide the Lords.. but the Lords can block, or slow down legislation in some cases for years.
Andrew does put up a good case against having another elected house.. but there's no getting away with the fact that no one in this society should have the power to slow down, block laws, on the basis of whatever family they were born into.. it's just not on.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

You've got me lost now Wynonie.. I'm not ignoring anything about Blair or Mandelson, and it maybe thier antics are ridiculous, but no more or less that other Governments red or blue have done in the past.

Re: Are these people a special case
 

I'm a democrat like you Mancie and the Lords is a joke to any forward-thinking democrat - an anachronism from an earlier age when us 'umble folks knew our place and doffed our caps to t'master. But what I'm saying is, your lot had a great chance to change it and bring it kicking and screaming into the modern era. But what did they do?...they got rid of some, but not all, of the hereditary crew and replaced them with toadies and bootlickers. You seem curiously silent on that. Now it looks like the Tories will be coming back in and there's no way they're going to reform it - you can see that from AndrewB's comments - so we'll be stuck with the likes of Uddin indefinitely. :(

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Mancie's a traditionalist at heart, and changing the order of things, would probably upset him.

If you break down the 'us and them' barriers, he wouldn't know which way to turn.

:rolleyes::D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

It will most certainly be LEFT Rindi:D

Re: Are these people a special case
 

...and now the ultimate insult for us hard pressed taxpayers...we have to cough up for their legal costs! Not surprisingly, the boy David is milking it for all he's worth and equally not surprisingly, the gurning inadequate is ignoring questions on it. :rolleyes:

Re: Are these people a special case
 

The thing is Wyn, things like that, win votes FACT, the knobs will say- thats good, those with any brain cells will say- it sounds ok, but whats underlying with this legal aid thing? thing is too find out what or if owt else suffers n then decide on that basis if its ok or not.;)

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Seems that legal aid was previously available to anyone who was in danger of going to prison. Now it's being means tested but the change is only being introduced gradually and hasn't reached Southwark County Court yet. Still, IF they are found guilty, they'll have to pay it all back. Let's see how it plays out...

Re: Are these people a special case
 

Thought was always means tested in some way?:confused: