Forum menu
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hogg ]3rd Viscount Hailsham[/url]
Whooooooo? I hear you say, well let me refresh your memory. The principle thing for which is remembered for recently was of course, getting the plebs (for it is they) to pay for the cleaning of his moat...
Really? He's a suitable choice for stuffing the Lords....If ever there was a huge flashing signal that says "We live in a different world to you lot and we don't care what you think..." perhaps this might be it?
Tory voters? Happy with this turn of events?
Isn't democracy brilliant? Dave has now elevated so many of his mates to the House of Lords they're having to build another 3 of them to fit them all in
Mad isn't it. 45 new lords today and 26 are Tories, too. Very generously Labour get 8, less than the lib dems. Not that it matters because they can't get in the door. 826 Lords in total, the second biggest second chamber in the world... A system that only works because so many of them can be depended on to never turn up.
And this despite the fact that the Vetting Commission also blocked a record number of unsuitable candidates- in the last 15 years only 10 were blocked, in this one group there were 7! That's how selective Cameron is. I suppose he's running out of cronies and donors, having appointed over a hundred in his first year in office.
None of the parties will reform the Lords properly, they all went their former MPs/cronies/donors in there.
I like the idea of a second chamber to keep a check on Parliament, and there used to be a lot of experienced real world and pragmatic independent people in there, but that seems to have gone.
Maybe elect the Lords by PR?
I've often wondered what's the point of the lords, supposedly they can veto anything the Commons does, but as far as I can tell they've only tried it once and the commons changed the rules to make sure they don't do it again.
They're not all bad though, one of my childhood heroes and 'school mate' (in the broadest sense, we where there the same time but she's older and we never spoke) Tanni Grey Thompson is a member and if you believe her Twitter feed anyway puts in a lot of time and energy.
They must be getting desperate, they let Michelle Mone in.
"And this despite the fact that the Vetting Commission also blocked a record number of unsuitable candidates- in the last 15 years only 10 were blocked, in this one group there were 7! That's how selective Cameron is. "
Not really - for a fair comparison you'd need to apply the current vetting standards to all of the peers nominated over the last 15 years - the number would be far higher than the 10 blocked under the old rules and simply shows the vetting process is actually working. Since we don't know who was blocked jumping to the conclusion that all 7 were selected by Cameron is a bit presumptive.
simply shows the vetting process is actually working.
...and yet, there goes Moat Man resplendent in his cloak of [s]vermin[/s] sorry that should read ermine...
I've often wondered what's the point of the lords
They're supposed to be a second opinion on legislation. They can and do send a lot of it back to be reconsidered. The Commons doens't overrule them very often afaik.
It's a great idea in principle of course, and electing them might work but we really really really really REALLY mustn't have party elections like the commons
Tory voters? Happy with this turn of events?
As perhaps the only right-winger on this forum, I felt I had to respond as I take this as addressed to me.
Frankly I'm too concerned about the record-breaking scale of immigration to worry about a man who likes ducks sitting in the Lords.
You should be worrying about the 2500 people who've died since being declared fit to work by the people you voted for, but I expect it's unlikely you would care.
And there's plenty of right wingers on this forum. Mefty, jambalaya and THM (though he denies it of course) to name a few. Typical right-wing victim complex. 😉
You should be worrying about the 2500 people who've died since being declared fit to work by the people you voted for, but I expect it's unlikely you would care.
As it happens I didn't vote Tory, but I do classify myself as right wing. As for that particular issue, you seem to be suggesting Tory voters have moral culpability for this? Just so you are clear, i.e. they are responsible for these deaths because of who they voted for?
How many of those 2500 would have died anyway?
How many of those 2500 would have died anyway?
Don't know, but I will bet that at least a few of them were in the process of dying when some heartless bastard declared them fit for work, all so some private company could make a few extra quid.
Tory voters? Happy with this turn of events?
It is not a good state of affairs, the conservatives have tried to get as many people who would regularly vote for their policies as possible.
The reason for this is that there is an opposition majority in the Lords and, in defiance of all convention, the Labour peers have been blocking pieces of legislation in the government's manifesto. The conservatives I think would rather stick with convention than create a lot more lords, but they have a duty to deliver on their manifesto commitments.
Sadly, these cheap political games mean that we get a house of lords filled with more dull politicians, rather than more intelligent, open-minded people who have excelled in their chosen fields. The country is poorer for it.
Well. The government have to pay back all those election fund donors
They paid for their peerages,bthey should bally well get them!
1/3rd of peerages are bought...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/21/revealed-link-life-peerages-party-donations
examined the 303 Lords nominations between 2005 and the third quarter of 2014 and all donations since 2001. They isolated what they term the “usual suspects”: prominent people who would be expected to be in line for an honour,.......That left 92 “others”, who donated between them 97.9% (£33.83m) of all the donations coming from nominees to the Lords.
[i]I've often wondered what's the point of the lords, supposedly they can veto anything the Commons does, but as far as I can tell they've only tried it once and the commons changed the rules to make sure they don't do it again.[/i]
Yes, but I'm pretty sure you (and I) would be complaining if non-elected Peers did overrule the elected Commons.
Lords does a lot of good work. Makes sense to add the senior Lib Dems for their experience. I cannot imagine the balance Tory/Labour looks that different to when Labour where in power but reversed
@grum what percentage of people who die between the ages of 18-65 have been at work in the last 14 days
Too many of them as they are not popping off the mortal coil as fast as they used to. Time for a cull of the less active members. I'm not proposing sending them to the white light more like Eastbourne.
Whilst the fitness for work test is without doubt flawed and inconsistently applied, plenty of people work till they die, even under left wing governments.
If those 2,500 died because they were made to work, then you have a story but I'm not sure anyone has claimed that.
Reluctantlondoner - as a right wing Telegraph reader I'll agree with all your points except number 2. The housing crisis has been caused by successive governments - of all colours - selling off social housing and failing to replace it, and then failing to keep a lid on the housing benefit bill by introducing reforms that removed several of the safeguards for both tenants and the public purse. Despite the white paper response from those of us on the front line.
So we can declare unwell people fit for work as long as we dont work them to death
Tory compassion ...gawd bless it
As for the Lords its ridiculous
Almost everyone agrees it needs reforming sadly we just cannot agree how
The lords cannot block it can only delayThe reason for this is that there is an opposition majority in the Lords and, in defiance of all convention, the Labour peers have been blocking pieces of legislation in the government's manifesto
Its one convention and its called the salisbury convention and it applies to the final reading of major legislation passed third reading by commons.
Given how new the govt is , and the disarray of the labour party, there has not been enough time for this to occur
Can you either site a labour party announcement on this or the list of legislation "blocked" as I think you are mistaken.
Calm down JY, that isn't what I said.
I said the system is flawed, but if you are well enough to work, you should work. No one is claiming that working caused these 2,500 deaths as far as I can see.
. The hyperbole being driven by the predominantly right wing media sickens me.
We have to bear some responsibility for the mess we have contributed to making in their countries, and the least we can do is to help these poor people.
Very few of us are pure Anglo-Saxon stock...
Frankly I'm too concerned about the record-breaking scale of immigration to worry about a man who likes ducks sitting in the Lords.
Why? Germany seems to be doing pretty well taking 10 times as many migrants as the UK. Perhaps the way out of deficit is to take more migrants?
[quote=MoreCashThanDash opined]Calm down JY, that isn't what I said.
I said the system is flawed, but if you are well enough to work, you should work. No one is claiming that working caused these 2,500 deaths as far as I can see.
Replying to you does not indicate that one is any way worked up.
As they were involved with the DwP as claimants clearly they were not working.
I agree that no unemployed person ever died due to work.
Tbh I dont know what you are actually trying to say but it is clearly not what you just said.
No offence meant as that reads as a bit antagonistic and I dont mean it in that way. Sorry
Frankly I'm too concerned about the record-breaking scale of immigration
Someone on Facebook posted something similar (coming over here, taking our jobs, etc) so I replied. This was the next comment.
How these immigration come empty handed but paid bkack market illegal got phone they not if go high commission foreign office embassies
I have no idea where to begin. Hope that some of the immigrants are translators?
For the record that was not me commenting
I said the system is flawed, but if you are well enough to work, you should work. No one is claiming that working caused these 2,500 deaths as far as I can see.
I never claimed the system caused their deaths although it's possibly arguable in some cases. However people on death's door being declared fit for work then having their benefits stopped and their final days being made a misery because they're not working.... Well it takes a special kind of arsehole to think that that's ok.
Still, these inheritance tax cuts for the wealthy won't pay for themselves will they?
MoreCashThanDash - MemberNone of the parties will reform the Lords properly, they all went their former MPs/cronies/donors in there.
I agree and I share in your pessimism.
There is however a glimmer of hope :
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-backs-snp-bid-to-reform-or-axe-lords-1-3847265 ]Jeremy Corbyn backs SNP bid to reform or axe Lords[/url]
[i]Corbyn’s support has added momentum to a new SNP drive to challenge the Westminster system with its un-elected second chamber at a time when the reputation of the Lords is at an all-time low.
David Cameron has indicated that Lords reform is not on his agenda by announcing plans to expand the number of peers to more than 1,000.
Corbyn said he would stop nominations to the Lords should he become Labour leader.
“A thorough and comprehensive review of the House of Lords is long overdue. We as a Labour Party must be at the forefront of a much-needed progressive constitutional reform agenda,” he said.
“I propose that in opposition the Labour Party convene a constitutional convention to move toward a more democratic devolution settlement across the regions and a more representative parliament.”
There were further concerns last week about the pay to individual peers after it emerged that £1.6 million has been paid over the last five years to peers who did not speak at all.
The row saw Lord Kirkhill, another former Labour Scotland Office minister, defend receiving £156,900 for attending the Lords, despite speaking in only two debates, plus £78,747 in travel expenses from Aberdeen.[/i]
.
A failed politician who not only resigned once in disgrace but then came back only to resign a second time, again in disgrace, he eventually gave up and instead took up a top EU job with no democratic accountability :
[img] 
[/img]
What reluctantlondoner said.
I am sick to death of this xenophobic attitude being normalised by the right-wing press and the Tories. The real villains in this country are much nearer to the top of the pile, not the the bottom. Blame the poor for all our ills, eh?
Bang on! Sick of it too.
So all of the tax I've paid to HMRC over the past five years (and then some) has gone just to pay for Lord Kirkhill to make two speeches.
We're supposed to live in a democracy - absolutely ridiculous. Well done Tory voters.
Yup very well said reluctantlondoner. Shame so many people are so blinded by the hateful bile our national media puts out.
Err, well done Nick for bringing this to our attention and thanks (as always) to Ernie for expanding on it.