 |
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"What's your opinion on the topic them thinking about scrapping the lord's so the public have more say "
Certainly could do with slimming down. The public elect parliament and look at the state of that place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucka39 OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle |
"What's your opinion on the topic them thinking about scrapping the lord's so the public have more say
Certainly could do with slimming down. The public elect parliament and look at the state of that place"
It would save a lot of money if they did cut back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
Why should the public have any say?
They already vote for MPs and party policies.
The Upper House is to review the legislation to make sure that it is well thought out and workable.
It needs actual experts not more amateurs selected in a beauty/popularity contest. It would be filled with "celebrities".
Transparent appointments committee deliberately seeking a plurality of knowledge and experience and backgrounds. Medicine to Trades unions, to engineers to poets.
No political appointments at all. No requirement to be popular, be influenced by the press or brown nose.
Indifferent about hereditary peers if it is down to single figures as they do represent a historical thread that has some significance to this country.
Total numbers don't matter as they don't all have to sit all the time. They only come in when they have expertise to contribute. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This is hardly a new idea.
There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.
In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.
Well, until they ducked out of it.
Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"A chamber of government that the common man has no say in electing? Honestly surprised the farce has taken so long to come to the public eye."
Why do you want a second chamber with the same kinds of people chosen in the same way as the first chamber?
Do you think that out MPs are good? Do you want more of them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"This is hardly a new idea.
There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.
In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.
Well, until they ducked out of it.
Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards"
What actually needs to be reformed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"This is hardly a new idea.
There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.
In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.
Well, until they ducked out of it.
Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards
What actually needs to be reformed?"
who and how people are appointed to the lords for a start less party donors and cronys from left or right and more people from industry science education and yes arts and sport plus people from charities voulenteer groups etc .a broad spectrum from accross the populace |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why should the public have any say?
They already vote for MPs and party policies.
The Upper House is to review the legislation to make sure that it is well thought out and workable.
It needs actual experts not more amateurs selected in a beauty/popularity contest. It would be filled with "celebrities".
Transparent appointments committee deliberately seeking a plurality of knowledge and experience and backgrounds. Medicine to Trades unions, to engineers to poets.
No political appointments at all. No requirement to be popular, be influenced by the press or brown nose.
Indifferent about hereditary peers if it is down to single figures as they do represent a historical thread that has some significance to this country.
Total numbers don't matter as they don't all have to sit all the time. They only come in when they have expertise to contribute."
In high numbers, they all trooped in, sometimes helped in off ambulances, in the 1990s to block the equalising of the gay age of consent because of their 'expertise' on the matter. Tony Blair's democratically elected New Labour Government had to force the legislation through using the Parliament Act, since the Commons must always have it's way.
As long as the replacement really does contain a 'plurality of knowledge and experience' rather than a plurality of prejudice, I don't suppose reasonable members of the electorate will be too bothered.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"This is hardly a new idea.
There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.
In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.
Well, until they ducked out of it.
Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards
What actually needs to be reformed?who and how people are appointed to the lords for a start less party donors and cronys from left or right and more people from industry science education and yes arts and sport plus people from charities voulenteer groups etc .a broad spectrum from accross the populace "
I agree with that. The more engaged and competent members of the Lord's are exactly these people.
It's the political appointees that are the problem.
However, an elected chamber will never accomplish this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Why should the public have any say?
They already vote for MPs and party policies.
The Upper House is to review the legislation to make sure that it is well thought out and workable.
It needs actual experts not more amateurs selected in a beauty/popularity contest. It would be filled with "celebrities".
Transparent appointments committee deliberately seeking a plurality of knowledge and experience and backgrounds. Medicine to Trades unions, to engineers to poets.
No political appointments at all. No requirement to be popular, be influenced by the press or brown nose.
Indifferent about hereditary peers if it is down to single figures as they do represent a historical thread that has some significance to this country.
Total numbers don't matter as they don't all have to sit all the time. They only come in when they have expertise to contribute.
In high numbers, they all trooped in, sometimes helped in off ambulances, in the 1990s to block the equalising of the gay age of consent because of their 'expertise' on the matter. Tony Blair's democratically elected New Labour Government had to force the legislation through using the Parliament Act, since the Commons must always have it's way.
As long as the replacement really does contain a 'plurality of knowledge and experience' rather than a plurality of prejudice, I don't suppose reasonable members of the electorate will be too bothered.
"
That's why the seats held by the hereditary peerage was cut so drastically on 1999.
That is also why the Parliament Act exists. So that the elected House remains primary.
That's why it's selection should be as far away from politics and the press and transient opinion as possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the House of Lords should be left alone.
You don't even want to remove the political appointees?"
I think it should be left alone, that's all. IMHO
I have read the other comments on this thread, which I have learnt from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
