ousefox Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 Sometimes, when you see what we elect, I have no problem with unelected bodies. I find it difficult to see how electing the HoL will make it any different in make up to the HoC, unless the HoL elections are between general elections, then the people can elect an opposition if needed. But that could lead to a lot more vote winning populist policies, career politicians and a greater influence of the fickle whim of public favour. For those who want an elected second house, how do you see it working? A proportionally elected upper chamber could work relatively well, but then we'd have a problem of which house is democratically superior. I think having experts is the best way, but the issue of selecting them fairly brings difficulties. It's a tough one and probably why reform has been continually put off.
Guest MattP Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 The HoL debate is great isn't it? In reality we all know it needs and we want reform, but we have no idea how to reach the common goal. Meanwhile a cracking start at the Scottish Labour conference in Perth, the opening video....the incompetence just absolutely baffles, how can this manage to slip past without anyone noticing?
Bettsj2 Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 The HoL debate is great isn't it? In reality we all know it needs and we want reform, but we have no idea how to reach the common goal. Meanwhile a cracking start at the Scottish Labour conference in Perth, the opening video....the incompetence just absolutely baffles, how can this manage to slip past without anyone noticing? Maybe it doesnt need reform? We're always keen to reform things that have been around for ages but as nobody seems able to agree on what that reform should entail, it suggests that the reform would need compromise which suggest imperfections which in turn suggests maybe we should just leave it alone?
Buce Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 Meanwhile a cracking start at the Scottish Labour conference in Perth, the opening video....the incompetence just absolutely baffles, how can this manage to slip past without anyone noticing? Staggering.
Guest MattP Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 Staggering. You do have to wonder if the person in charge of this isn't quite fully committed to the Labour cause, I just don;t seriously think that can happen by accident, it's too obvious. Nicola Sturgeon was also on it within 3 minutes according to Twitter taking the piss. Maybe it doesnt need reform? We're always keen to reform things that have been around for ages but as nobody seems able to agree on what that reform should entail, it suggests that the reform would need compromise which suggest imperfections which in turn suggests maybe we should just leave it alone? Certainly a viewpoint that holds some clout, but how and why they are there still needs to be sorted. Having unelected vicars voting to overturn government policy is barmy.
Bettsj2 Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 You do have to wonder if the person in charge of this isn't quite fully committed to the Labour cause, I just don;t seriously think that can happen by accident, it's too obvious. Nicola Sturgeon was also on it within 3 minutes according to Twitter taking the piss. Certainly a viewpoint that holds some clout, but how and why they are there still needs to be sorted. Having unelected vicars voting to overturn government policy is barmy. Well if you cant trust a priest....
Rincewind Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 What's your opinion on an unelected second chamber? As others have said who I repped, it keeps the HoC in check and stops them pushing any unpopular policy regardless of party they like through.
Webbo Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 As others have said who I repped, it keeps the HoC in check and stops them pushing any policy they like through. So if the beardy weirdo ever gets elected you'll be quite happy if the unelected peers stop him from pushing through his policies?
Rincewind Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 [quote So if the beardy weirdo Jeremy Corbyn ever gets elected you'll be quite happy if the unelected peers stop him from pushing through his policies? It depends on the policy. I did not mention any political party just the HoC which covers them all. Post edited to make it clearer.
Guest MattP Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 So basically you're happy for them to overturn anything you don't agree with Real man of principle.
Dr The Singh Posted 30 October 2015 Posted 30 October 2015 So basically you're happy for them to overturn anything you don't agree with Real man of principle. Just like Corbyn
Rincewind Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 So basically you're happy for them to overturn anything you don't agree with Real man of principle. I never said that. I was agreeing with other posters. Take it up with them and not just me.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 It's exactly what you said, Webbo asked if you thought this was fine and you said it depends on the policy. No other poster I can see has taken such a clearly inconsistent position.
Rincewind Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 If I do not know the policy i cannot give an answer. theessexfox, on 29 Oct 2015 - 11:37 PM, said: Arguably the secondary, revising chamber have served a purpose in standing up to legislation passed by a government in the House of Commons, who were elected whilst concealing this specific policy. Yes you could argue that they pledged to cut welfare spending, however it's clear that they didn't include specifics like the tax credit cuts because they would be unpopular and render them less likely to get elected. More or less what I said. Because the Tories agree with the cuts they are up in arms about the HOL blocking it. It would be the same if a Labour policy was blocked.You would be saying what a great thing the HoL is. Overall I think the HoL is out of date. If politicians on all sides could be trusted not to mislead then there would be no need for a secondary revising chamber.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 So you are happy for the House of Lords to overrule the House of Commons then. As I say, that's fine but don't start moaning if they do the same to Jezbollah.
Buce Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 So you are happy for the House of Lords to overrule the House of Commons then. As I say, that's fine but don't start moaning if they do the same to Jezbollah. I asked this before, but didn't get an answer: If the HoLs is not there to veto government legislation, what exactly is its purpose?
Strokes Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 I asked this before, but didn't get an answer: If the HoLs is not there to veto government legislation, what exactly is its purpose? I think thats what everyone is asking now. Put this specific policy to one side and answer honestly. My opinion is that it was within their remit, although I don't agree with it. I think now and thought before this that the HOL should be reformed in way that is more democratic but I'd rather focus on the EU right now.
davieG Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 I always thought the HOLS in recent times was there to scrutinise legislation to ensure it was workable and legal hence the attempt to have a cross section of 'skills and experience' not to totally reject stuff but that's what I thought they'd done here. Of course it's original creation was to protect the landed gentry from any legislation that might reduce their finances and influence. Bishops being very much part of that.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 Sorry Buce. I think their purpose is to advise and suggest amendments, that's generally what they have always done. Not outright block, and certainly not block financial matters which is a long established tradition. They've done the Tories a massive favour though long term, it would have been a poisoness policy in swing seats, Cameron is the luckiest PM in history, Labour blocked him bombing Assad and marching ISIS to Damascus and then when his chancellor nearby inflicts what would we be can disaster at the ballot box he gets stopped there as well.
Rincewind Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 I wont argue with that Matt. Reforms were needed but I think they have gone far enough.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 Gone far enough with what? There haven't been any reforms yet.
Rincewind Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 Gone far enough with what? There haven't been any reforms yet. Where have you been the last few years?
MooseBreath Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 I'm still not convinced it would have actually been an unpopular policy. Hopefully they just stagger it a little so the large planned living and minimum wage rises offset the losses slightly more. It would be a tragedy if this government was prevented from continuing the superb job they have done at getting people into work by a bunch of bishops and academics.
Rincewind Posted 31 October 2015 Posted 31 October 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/junior-doctors-who-work-the-longest-hours-will-actually-have-their-pay-cut-jeremy-hunt-admits-a6713136.html
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.