FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Vote to kick out the Lords
Vote to kick out the Lords
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Should the Lords be kicked out of government x"
I'd vote to abolish it as it now stands. The way unelected peers have tried to wreck Brexit is disgraceful. The Lord's must be elected or abolished in my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Should the Lords be kicked out of government x
I'd vote to abolish it as it now stands. The way unelected peers have tried to wreck Brexit is disgraceful. The Lord's must be elected or abolished in my opinion. "
Yet you have previous said you voted for Brexit due to wanting parliamentary sovereignty (which we always have had), and now you want to abolish or reform 50% of it?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To be replaced with ?
I think have a second pair of (expert) eyes on legislation from people who either have no political allogences or, if they did, have less whip/career incentives to tow the line is a good thing.
I’d maybe reduce the hereditary peers (again). And consider the election process. But the principal works for me.
I would be worried if we didn’t have them. Put brexit aside (because people are too emotionally involved) but are people happy if a minoritity government who have pledged $1bn to get in bed with another party, could get any legislation they want in place, with no checks and balances ?
Let’s be honest, if the EU was doing this, many people would be in uproar. But because the system is holding to the government to account on Brexit, there’s another knee jerk reaction to scrap it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's always the same shout when it comes to the Lords, and always for the same reason, it needs serious reform, it needs scrapping! And this call is always led by those who feel that the Lords is standing in the way of the government. And funnily enough the demand is always the same, either make the second chamber an elected chamber or just get rid of it. The funny thing is this issue only arises when there is divisive, or ill thought out, legalisation that does not have the support of the country that the government of the day are steamrollering through the commons on a 'three line whip' and refusing to allow any amendments to or a meaningful debate on. It seems ironic really that where the second chamber works and stops the government of the day foisting bad legislation on the country the reaction is 'how dare they!'.
now let me point out a couple of very poignant facts. Like it or not every member of the commons is sponsored by a political party and requires reelection at every General Election. If the party that sponsors them withdraw that sponsorship they are gone. Therefore members of the commons are subservient to their parties instructions (as well as the electorate) and must always have one eye on the next election.
This is not the case with the Lords, once elevated to the lords you are there for life and as such are beholden to no one. This gives the Lords freedom to vote their conscience rather than a party line. It has served and still serves us well, and we would be very foolish to allow any government of any complexion to change it, especially when the government are reforming it in order to force divisive legislation onto the statute books.
Or maybe people want more 'come day, go day' politicians with one eye on the next election and the other on their party sponsorship acting as our chamber of amendment? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Isn't the point of the lords is they play the long game. They do not look at the short term wins since governments can change get every 5 years.
Do you want to abolish the lord's and just have parliament in charge? Or replace it with a different system?
I asked if any country didn't have two level system (lords/parliament or senate/government). My friends answered jokingly, "it's called dictatorships".
Is this true? Or are there fairer systems in the world. No use routing to abolish it if you can it think of a better solution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I think there needs to be some body revising or checking or advising on legislation.
One with wisdom and experience.
The general convention is the Lords will not block anything contained in the winning manifesto at a General Election.
That becomes a bit more problematic when the government is a minority.
My issue is with how the second chamber is composed.
Hereditary privilege, religious mullahs, political patronage, cronyism.
It has an extraordinary number of people entitled to attend and fiddle - oops, I mean, collect - their expenses.
Did I read somewhere it is the biggest legislature in the world?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Having the lord's is a good thing I think, they don't have to worry about voting a certain way to remain elected like MP's do, they are free to vote on matters in their view to what's best for the country & not what's best to get re-elected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's always the same shout when it comes to the Lords, and always for the same reason, it needs serious reform, it needs scrapping! And this call is always led by those who feel that the Lords is standing in the way of the government. And funnily enough the demand is always the same, either make the second chamber an elected chamber or just get rid of it. The funny thing is this issue only arises when there is divisive, or ill thought out, legalisation that does not have the support of the country that the government of the day are steamrollering through the commons on a 'three line whip' and refusing to allow any amendments to or a meaningful debate on. It seems ironic really that where the second chamber works and stops the government of the day foisting bad legislation on the country the reaction is 'how dare they!'.
now let me point out a couple of very poignant facts. Like it or not every member of the commons is sponsored by a political party and requires reelection at every General Election. If the party that sponsors them withdraw that sponsorship they are gone. Therefore members of the commons are subservient to their parties instructions (as well as the electorate) and must always have one eye on the next election.
This is not the case with the Lords, once elevated to the lords you are there for life and as such are beholden to no one. This gives the Lords freedom to vote their conscience rather than a party line. It has served and still serves us well, and we would be very foolish to allow any government of any complexion to change it, especially when the government are reforming it in order to force divisive legislation onto the statute books.
Or maybe people want more 'come day, go day' politicians with one eye on the next election and the other on their party sponsorship acting as our chamber of amendment?"
 It is a well functioning accidental fudge.
What do the OP and Centaur think that the House of Lords does and what powers do they think it has? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Isn't the point of the lords is they play the long game. They do not look at the short term wins since governments can change get every 5 years.
Do you want to abolish the lord's and just have parliament in charge? Or replace it with a different system?
I asked if any country didn't have two level system (lords/parliament or senate/government). My friends answered jokingly, "it's called dictatorships".
Is this true? Or are there fairer systems in the world. No use routing to abolish it if you can it think of a better solution."
There are unicameral (one house systems), off the top of my head I remembered Israel has one, Wikipedia also lists Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, South Korea and many others also have unicameral systems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Should the Lords be kicked out of government x
I'd vote to abolish it as it now stands. The way unelected peers have tried to wreck Brexit is disgraceful. The Lord's must be elected or abolished in my opinion. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The irony as ever is strong with the hypocrisy of those who wanted our Parliament to be sovereign and our judiciary to be the arbiters of our destiny within our that's our statues that have served this country well for centuries but only if it doesn't disagree with what they think they want..
Moaning Minnie's.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They do nothing positive, and have become an obstacle in the government’s BREXIT negotiations. They should, I’m all honesty, have been dismantled a long time ago.
For now I’d lock the place down and put them all on gardening leave. They will be aware that the doors will never be open to them again.
I would then have a devolved English govt, to match those in Wales, Scotland, and in Northern Ireland (if and when they can agree).
I would also like to see proportional representation adopted for all elections in the UK, including our General Election.
You see, all I want is fairness, and a country ruled by politicians who are forced to remain honest, because they will be out on their ears if they are not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"They do nothing positive, and have become an obstacle in the government’s BREXIT negotiations. They should, I’m all honesty, have been dismantled a long time ago.
For now I’d lock the place down and put them all on gardening leave. They will be aware that the doors will never be open to them again.
I would then have a devolved English govt, to match those in Wales, Scotland, and in Northern Ireland (if and when they can agree).
I would also like to see proportional representation adopted for all elections in the UK, including our General Election.
You see, all I want is fairness, and a country ruled by politicians who are forced to remain honest, because they will be out on their ears if they are not."
You mean you want a system more like the EU? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"They do nothing positive, and have become an obstacle in the government’s BREXIT negotiations. They should, I’m all honesty, have been dismantled a long time ago.
For now I’d lock the place down and put them all on gardening leave. They will be aware that the doors will never be open to them again.
I would then have a devolved English govt, to match those in Wales, Scotland, and in Northern Ireland (if and when they can agree).
I would also like to see proportional representation adopted for all elections in the UK, including our General Election.
You see, all I want is fairness, and a country ruled by politicians who are forced to remain honest, because they will be out on their ears if they are not."
So what if it's "an obstacle" Brexit? It's been "an obstacle" to many things.
Would you care to write down what powers you believe that it has and what its purpose is?
Have the current elected politicians been serving us well with long term planning? Is a five year cycle or a daily news and publicity cycle or hourly twitter reaction the best way to run a country? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Yes 
Funny. Pointless, but funny 
I just awnserd the question. What was wrong with that. Anyway I added an afterthought above "
I'm interested to know what you think the role of the House of Lords has in the law making process. I'm interested to know what powers you think that it has. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Yes
The lords should be where the English sit to govern England. It's perfect right next to the commons "
It's a ready-made chamber.
England is the only nation of the UK that has not devolved its domestic business, leaving it instead in the hands of UK politicians.
A federal solution is the only workable approach I can see to recalibrate the UK and bring it back into some sort of balance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes
Funny. Pointless, but funny
I just awnserd the question. What was wrong with that. Anyway I added an afterthought above
I'm interested to know what you think the role of the House of Lords has in the law making process. I'm interested to know what powers you think that it has."
I don't care, there is no need for lords and ladies in this day and age. 300 pounds a day so they can have a sleep. Waste of good space so give it to our mp's and make it the home of the English parliamentary seat. And the house of commons should be the seat of our UK parliament. The only people who should be voting on English items should be MEP'S AS WE WON'T NEED THAT ABBREVIATION ANYMORE) IT WILL stand for member of English parliament.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should the Lords be kicked out of government x
I'd vote to abolish it as it now stands. The way unelected peers have tried to wreck Brexit is disgraceful. The Lord's must be elected or abolished in my opinion. "
And that's the thing. You only want to abolish or reform the Lords because they're not doing what you want. If they were doing what you wanted you'd probably be saying no. Not everything is about BREXIT. I've never been in favour of abolition of the Lord's always been in favour of radical reform. As it stands now the Lords does a good job but it lacks democratic legitimacy. A reformed Lords would hopefully have more democratic legitimacy which would mean that it would be easier and more legitimate for it to stand up to Government, Commons or People if it believed that they had made a serious mistake. That is the job that the Lords is ment to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example...."
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example....
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep."
Why halve the numbers? What purpose does that serve?
What's the point of the desks?
Personally I do like the shouting and booing, a bit of theatre never hurt anyone, but to each their own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example....
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep.
Why halve the numbers? What purpose does that serve?
What's the point of the desks?
Personally I do like the shouting and booing, a bit of theatre never hurt anyone, but to each their own."
In which case go to the theatre. I'd prefer the country to be run in a proffesional modern manner. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example....
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep.
Why halve the numbers? What purpose does that serve?
What's the point of the desks?
Personally I do like the shouting and booing, a bit of theatre never hurt anyone, but to each their own.
In which case go to the theatre. I'd prefer the country to be run in a proffesional modern manner."
we probably should look at the HoC first then ...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example....
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep.
Why halve the numbers? What purpose does that serve?
What's the point of the desks?
Personally I do like the shouting and booing, a bit of theatre never hurt anyone, but to each their own.
In which case go to the theatre. I'd prefer the country to be run in a proffesional modern manner."
And the other questions? Wanna have a pop at those? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example....
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep.
Why halve the numbers? What purpose does that serve?
What's the point of the desks?
Personally I do like the shouting and booing, a bit of theatre never hurt anyone, but to each their own.
In which case go to the theatre. I'd prefer the country to be run in a proffesional modern manner.
And the other questions? Wanna have a pop at those?"
No. I want both houses modernising.
If you like the theatre of it, then that's your opinion. I prefer organisations I'm paying for and affect all our lives to be efficient, modern and sensible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Yes
The lords should be where the English sit to govern England. It's perfect right next to the commons
It's a ready-made chamber.
England is the only nation of the UK that has not devolved its domestic business, leaving it instead in the hands of UK politicians.
A federal solution is the only workable approach I can see to recalibrate the UK and bring it back into some sort of balance."
Nice theory but it the real world will not happen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example....
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep.
Why halve the numbers? What purpose does that serve?
What's the point of the desks?
Personally I do like the shouting and booing, a bit of theatre never hurt anyone, but to each their own.
In which case go to the theatre. I'd prefer the country to be run in a proffesional modern manner.
And the other questions? Wanna have a pop at those?
No. I want both houses modernising.
If you like the theatre of it, then that's your opinion. I prefer organisations I'm paying for and affect all our lives to be efficient, modern and sensible."
So, there's no actual reason to halve the numbers, you just reckon that'll make things "efficient, modern and sensible" just because.
Same with adding desks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole lot needs modernising and streamlining for cost and effectivity.
For example....
Desks. Half the numbers. No shouting out or booing, no getting paid hundreds of pounds to turn up and sleep.
Why halve the numbers? What purpose does that serve?
What's the point of the desks?
Personally I do like the shouting and booing, a bit of theatre never hurt anyone, but to each their own.
In which case go to the theatre. I'd prefer the country to be run in a proffesional modern manner.
And the other questions? Wanna have a pop at those?
No. I want both houses modernising.
If you like the theatre of it, then that's your opinion. I prefer organisations I'm paying for and affect all our lives to be efficient, modern and sensible."
You mean like the EU Parliament? They all have desks, there is room for every one and there's not a lot of booing and shouting either, except by UKIP MPs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Yes
The lords should be where the English sit to govern England. It's perfect right next to the commons
It's a ready-made chamber.
England is the only nation of the UK that has not devolved its domestic business, leaving it instead in the hands of UK politicians.
A federal solution is the only workable approach I can see to recalibrate the UK and bring it back into some sort of balance."
Alas federalism is a very misunderstood form of government to most UK voters and makes them shit their pants in fear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you like the theatre of it, then that's your opinion. I prefer organisations I'm paying for and affect all our lives to be efficient, modern and sensible.
You mean like the EU Parliament? They all have desks, there is room for every one and there's not a lot of booing and shouting either, except by UKIP MPs."
Yes, like the EU parliament, and most other modern democracies.
What's your opinion on the lords?
Do you support keeping the remaining hereditary peers and bishops? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?"
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
"
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
You mean like the EU Parliament? They all have desks, there is room for every one and there's not a lot of booing and shouting either, except by UKIP MPs."
The UK Parliament is laid out to be confrontational.
The rulers on one side, the challengers on the other.
The distance between them set by sword lengths.
The horseshoe design removes the confrontational feel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
"
What's your opinion, do you have one? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You mean like the EU Parliament? They all have desks, there is room for every one and there's not a lot of booing and shouting either, except by UKIP MPs.
The UK Parliament is laid out to be confrontational.
The rulers on one side, the challengers on the other.
The distance between them set by sword lengths.
The horseshoe design removes the confrontational feel."
Correct. All emphasis seems to be on chidish point scoring, 'us and them' . Time to move on and realise they are all employees paid to improve the country that employs them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
"
What if we doubles the number? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What's your opinion, do you have one?"
In order to have an opinion on your idea, you'll need to actually make a case for it.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with you on the state if the lords, your ideas are very much in the vein of
" we must do something. This is something, therefore we should do this" unless you can actually explain yourself.
Now, if you wouldn't mind, at what is probably the fifth asking.
How would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern, and sensible"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What's your opinion, do you have one?
In order to have an opinion on your idea, you'll need to actually make a case for it.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with you on the state if the lords, your ideas are very much in the vein of
" we must do something. This is something, therefore we should do this" unless you can actually explain yourself.
Now, if you wouldn't mind, at what is probably the fifth asking.
How would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern, and sensible"? "
So basically you just want to ask question after question on anything I comment.
You dont have an opinion just want to troll endlessly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What's your opinion, do you have one?
In order to have an opinion on your idea, you'll need to actually make a case for it.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with you on the state if the lords, your ideas are very much in the vein of
" we must do something. This is something, therefore we should do this" unless you can actually explain yourself.
Now, if you wouldn't mind, at what is probably the fifth asking.
How would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern, and sensible"?
So basically you just want to ask question after question on anything I comment.
You dont have an opinion just want to troll endlessly."
If you don't want to defend your ideas, then keep them to yourself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What if we doubles the number?"
Do you have an opinion on the whole subject? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You dont have an opinion just want to troll endlessly.
If you don't want to defend your ideas, then keep them to yourself.
I'll post what I want, who do you think you are?"
Do as you see fit, but you can't continue to hide behind the asinine objection that it's beyond the pale to be asked questions about the ideas you put forward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What if we doubles the number?
Do you have an opinion on the whole subject?"
Yeah, I'm a small c conservative. Keep it. It's part of British history and constitutional make up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What if we doubles the number?
Do you have an opinion on the whole subject?
Yeah, I'm a small c conservative. Keep it. It's part of British history and constitutional make up. "
Slavery was part of our history too. We have to do what's right now imo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What if we doubles the number?
Do you have an opinion on the whole subject?
Yeah, I'm a small c conservative. Keep it. It's part of British history and constitutional make up.
Slavery was part of our history too. We have to do what's right now imo."
Slavery isn't part of our constitutional make up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What if we doubles the number?
Do you have an opinion on the whole subject?
Yeah, I'm a small c conservative. Keep it. It's part of British history and constitutional make up.
Slavery was part of our history too. We have to do what's right now imo.
Slavery isn't part of our constitutional make up. "
No, that part was just the 'history' bit. Point being just because we did cetain things in the past doesn't mean we should do them now.
It was changed to remove lots of the hereditary peers, so continue that evolution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Again: What purpose would halving the numbers serve?
Getting rid of the hereditaries, getting rid of the bishops, getting rid of the likes of Lord Tebbit.
Do you think it is fit for purpose as it stands?
Again, what do you think?
And how would halving the number of lords make things "efficient, modern and sensible"?
What if we doubles the number?
Do you have an opinion on the whole subject?
Yeah, I'm a small c conservative. Keep it. It's part of British history and constitutional make up.
Slavery was part of our history too. We have to do what's right now imo.
Slavery isn't part of our constitutional make up.
No, that part was just the 'history' bit. Point being just because we did cetain things in the past doesn't mean we should do them now.
It was changed to remove lots of the hereditary peers, so continue that evolution."
Perhaps tradition would have been a better choice of words than history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It was changed to remove lots of the hereditary peers, so continue that evolution.
Perhaps tradition would have been a better choice of words than history. "
Ok, fair enough. Still dont see why just because we did something another way in the past as being a reason not to modernise.
Surely you don't support keeping hereditary peerage? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
It was changed to remove lots of the hereditary peers, so continue that evolution.
Perhaps tradition would have been a better choice of words than history.
Ok, fair enough. Still dont see why just because we did something another way in the past as being a reason not to modernise.
Surely you don't support keeping hereditary peerage?"
Hereditary peers are only part of the mix of the Lords now (90 out of 800), and when dies, their replacement is elected.
I'm happy with this arrangement.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We need a second house, however it's established. If the question was solely about kicking out male Lords, not Bishops or women etc, then it's a different matter. As is their financial remuneration, which many are hesitant over.
A second house would be better if at least part elected. The influence of a church seems suspect, especially in a country where most don't worship at it.
I'd probably go for progressive replacement of most of them, immediate removal of some of them and consultation to ensure it's representative and has a good restraint on the commons, where ill-divided and poorly drafted legislation is pushed to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And what about reducing the number of lords makes it the right thing to do?
Constant trolling is against forum rules"
Good to know.
Now, about the idea that the number of lords ought to be reduced. Why do you feel that this is that something that should be done? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
