Reforming the House of Lords., The peasants are getting restless again. Options

[lordtup]

Bit of a personal grouse this one . You will all have no doubt seen in the press that the vacuous members of the coalition have decided to kick a few titled gentry out of the upper chamber and replace them with elected ones.

To say this has made me incandescent is a bit of an under statement . B.....Y H..l !!! What in God's name does Cameron's poodle think he's doing ? He should stick to doing what comes naturally and that's rogering his masters leg while the important matters of state are attended to by the tea boy.

The Tups have graced the Lords since the 17th century and taken our responsibilities seriously and now I will be reduced to canvassing electoral support from the local council estate .LadyTup has already purchased a mobile phone to stick in her ear.

By all means get rid of some of those Life members , you know the ones that slept with someone they shouldn't and given a title to keep them quiet or made pots of money and donated a bit to their political friends , but have faith in those who are there by right .Lord Howarth first entered in 1865 and has not moved since 1907 which shows trues devotion . I trust that the contributors to this site will show their solidarity to my plight in the recognised manner .

Next they will calling me by my first name !!!!!!!

[Timbo]

Next they will calling me by my first name !!!!!!!

What, like every other member of society?
Oh no....

[Jayjay]

Bit of a personal grouse this one . You will all have no doubt seen in the press that the vacuous members of the coalition have decided to kick a few titled gentry out of the upper chamber and replace them with elected ones.

To say this has made me incandescent is a bit of an under statement . B.....Y H..l !!! What in God's name does Cameron's poodle think he's doing ? He should stick to doing what comes naturally and that's rogering his masters leg while the important matters of state are attended to by the tea boy.

The Tups have graced the Lords since the 17th century and taken our responsibilities seriously and now I will be reduced to canvassing electoral support from the local council estate .LadyTup has already purchased a mobile phone to stick in her ear.

By all means get rid of some of those Life members , you know the ones that slept with someone they shouldn't and given a title to keep them quiet or made pots of money and donated a bit to their political friends , but have faith in those who are there by right .Lord Howarth first entered in 1865 and has not moved since 1907 which shows trues devotion . I trust that the contributors to this site will show their solidarity to my plight in the recognised manner .

Next they will calling me by my first name !!!!!!!

An elected house, goodness how common, but that is what you get with this blasted democracy. It should be to the manor born, which you obviously are. I for one will always refer to you and your good lady as m'lord.

[Cognosco]

Bit of a personal grouse this one . You will all have no doubt seen in the press that the vacuous members of the coalition have decided to kick a few titled gentry out of the upper chamber and replace them with elected ones.

To say this has made me incandescent is a bit of an under statement . B.....Y H..l !!! What in God's name does Cameron's poodle think he's doing ? He should stick to doing what comes naturally and that's rogering his masters leg while the important matters of state are attended to by the tea boy.

The Tups have graced the Lords since the 17th century and taken our responsibilities seriously and now I will be reduced to canvassing electoral support from the local council estate .LadyTup has already purchased a mobile phone to stick in her ear.

By all means get rid of some of those Life members , you know the ones that slept with someone they shouldn't and given a title to keep them quiet or made pots of money and donated a bit to their political friends , but have faith in those who are there by right .Lord Howarth first entered in 1865 and has not moved since 1907 which shows trues devotion . I trust that the contributors to this site will show their solidarity to my plight in the recognised manner .

Next they will calling me by my first name !!!!!!!

Suggest you raise an army of true and loyal strong armed locals and storm Parliament!

[Newbelly]

If the US Senate can manage with 100 members, why do we need nearly 800 in the House of Lords?

[Nothing Much]

As Newbelly points out The House of Lords is stuffed. So is the House of Commons.
So are local governments.
Everyone is a researcher waiting for their turn to join the gravy train
and own a second home. (An earlier point).
Laws used to be mulled over, maybe in a club with a good claret.
Generally a sensible outcome was achieved. Those were the days. TOO much government.
They should chill out more.

Maybe there should be a fifth estate... Citoyen , A culling of MPs would be more popular than Benyon's birds of prey.

As for Andy and his spelling. There are worse than you. A German who served in the German Air Force after the war.
Lives in the Norfolk Broads. Totally hard work to make sense of his prose. He is very passionate about some subjects.
ce

[Nothing Much]

I guess Follet and Hodge would make a good team. In the Upper House.
Both millionaires. Maybe a screenplay there. Nothing wrong with being rich.
I hasten to add.....(Unless you are a Tory). Both are worth a google.
ce.

[Simon Kirby]

Having the good fortune to be born into the family of a robber-baron, slave merchant, or royal rent boy isn't obviously a recipe for a successful upper chamber, but hereditary peers have mostly made a decent fist of getting the commons to look again at what they're proposing and reformists are so often those ernest dissatisfied ineffectuals who would serve us all much better if they just stuck to organising the socks in their sock draw. I'd have left the lords well alone, and I certainly wouldn't want the political parties deciding who got in.

[Nothing Much]

It is hard to say Simon Kirby, I think the lawyers employed by the Civil Service
spent months over every phrase of policy In decades gone by.

I know for a fact as I mentioned some time ago that Tony Blair rode over everything..
"I want it done" Tinpot with a daft wife,drunk son. And he handed over to Gordon Brown
Clegg and Cameron are just schoolboys
Are we in Africa with Goodluck Jonothan in charge?
ce

[TKMAX]

I got this from the Newbury Debating Society, which is holding an event on this topic.

It will be held at the Hogshead pub in Market Square from 7.30pm tonight (Wednesday 11 July).

Why not go along and have a face-to-face debate?

"House of Lords reform is on the agenda once again. A parliamentary committee has suggested that the upper house should be slimmed down to 450 members and that 80% of them should be elected. Detractors have said this will undermine the unique expertise the house has to offer. Supporters argue democracy is the only way you can have any legitmacy in a legislative chamber.

Is democracy essential part of an effective legislature? Does the House of Lords need to change to reflect the 21st Century? Is the house of lords expertise too valuable to abandon to democracy? Is patronage corroding our democracy? Is the House of Lords nothing more than a constitutional anachronism? Can we makes the Lords more effective without Democracy? You decide."

[Timbo]

Busy this evening, therapy session following some dogging-hunting.

[NWNREADER]

How was the old House of Lords (before it was filled by an army of Party Poodles and irrelevant List-Z has-beens) any less 'democratic' or fair than a totally party-political membership?

[On the edge]

It never has been relevant. The revising bit could easily be carried out by the Commons - particularly as there are many spare hands who aren't actually in the Government so would be far better employed with something real to do. A second chamber is an expensive luxury - lets just abolish it and put a decent process in place instead.

[Simon Kirby]

I got this from the Newbury Debating Society, which is holding an event on this topic.

It will be held at the Hogshead pub in Market Square from 7.30pm tonight (Wednesday 11 July).

Why not go along and have a face-to-face debate?

"House of Lords reform is on the agenda once again. A parliamentary committee has suggested that the upper house should be slimmed down to 450 members and that 80% of them should be elected. Detractors have said this will undermine the unique expertise the house has to offer. Supporters argue democracy is the only way you can have any legitmacy in a legislative chamber.

Is democracy essential part of an effective legislature? Does the House of Lords need to change to reflect the 21st Century? Is the house of lords expertise too valuable to abandon to democracy? Is patronage corroding our democracy? Is the House of Lords nothing more than a constitutional anachronism? Can we makes the Lords more effective without Democracy? You decide."

Hello TKMAX, welcome to NewburyToday.

Are you or any of your Lib Dem chummies actually going to engage openly in debate with us here, or are you just going to keep regsitering new identities to place your free adds for this pointless Lib Dem pretence at free-speech?

[Turin Machine]

Can't close the old club Old Boy, still the only place in town one can still get a decent pink gin at any hour! And where would I go to meet Teddy?

[TKMAX]

[quote name='Simon Kirby' date='Jul 11 2012, 09:36 PM' post='66199']
Thanks Simon,
sure, if you'd like to have a serious debate I'm willing to engage, how about yourself?

Reform is essential and inevitable, however I think the real questions are how and when, not if or not.

Personally I'm not convinced by the current proposals, but after 100 years of promises (including in all three major party manifestos at the 2010 general election), isn't it finally time that the deadlock should be broken and that improvements are made to the House of Lords?

You wouldn't leave your own house that long if all the gutters were blocked with rubbish.

[Andy Capp]

Reform is essential and inevitable, however I think the real questions are how and when, not if or not.

Personally I'm not convinced by the current proposals, but after 100 years of promises (including in all three major party manifestos at the 2010 general election), isn't it finally time that the deadlock should be broken and that improvements are made to the House of Lords?

You wouldn't leave your own house that long if all the gutters were blocked with rubbish.

I'm not sure the House of Lords reforms would actually fix anything.

What currently in practical terms is wrong with the House of Lords? What does it fail to do?

[TKMAX]

I'm not sure the House of Lords reforms would actually fix anything.

What currently in practical terms is wrong with the House of Lords? What does it fail to do?

The House of Lords fails in a number of respects.

1. It is full of appointments, meaning members are unaccountable to the public.
2. The house has an unrepresentative balance of members, meaning they do not express the will of the population.
3. The House of Lords is a bulwark of vested interests, including the landed (Conservative-voting) gentry and the Bishops of the Church of England (with its dwindling attendance).
4. Many Lords do not give value for money - eg the wonderfully-named Lord Eatwell, who has voted 24 times while claiming over £34,000 in expenses during the current Parliament.

For a modern, forward-looking society which is capable of responding to public demands (that means YOU) this is completely unacceptable.

I think there is an important constitutional role for a reforming and deliberative chamber, but the current make-up of the House of Lords prevents it from doing this job as effectively as is could or should.

[Andy Capp]

The House of Lords fails in a number of respects.

1. It is full of appointments, meaning members are unaccountable to the public.
2. The house has an unrepresentative balance of members, meaning they do not express the will of the population.
3. The House of Lords is a bulwark of vested interests, including the landed (Conservative-voting) gentry and the Bishops of the Church of England (with its dwindling attendance).
4. Many Lords do not give value for money - eg the wonderfully-named Lord Eatwell, who has voted 24 times while claiming over £34,000 in expenses during the current Parliament.

For a modern, forward-looking society which is capable of responding to public demands (that means YOU) this is completely unacceptable.

I think there is an important constitutional role for a reforming and deliberative chamber, but the current make-up of the House of Lords prevents it from doing this job as effectively as is could or should.

While I agree with all your points, only one really has a practical aspect to it - cost. Being unaccountable doesn't prevent you from being able to do a good job. I'm not sure that expressing the will of the public is actually their job, and being populated with vested interest also doesn't mean they cannot do a good job.

What the reformists haven't convinced me with, is how the Lords materially fail the public. Where in the past have they failed to bring the government to account because of the current system? I'm not sure House of Lords reform, beyond cost of ownership, will necessarily be a great thing. What will be the increased cost of government, if the House of Lords becomes more powerful and belligerent?

[JeffG]

Being unaccountable doesn't prevent you from being able to do a good job.

Exactly. The main problem with democracy is that people get to vote.