mike777 Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Good Grief Charlie Brown! The House of Lords is to become an elective office. What is the world coming to? Voting for King or Queen? Whatever happened to good breeding and bloodlines counting for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 "The House of Lords is to become an elective office. What is the world coming to? Voting for King or Queen? Whatever happened to good breeding and bloodlines counting for something." Well, just look at our current President :angry: Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 I don't think there was ever any doubt that the hereditary peers would be abolished, this was just a matter of time. But the big decision to be made was whether the members of the new "House of Lords" (if it was still to be called that) would be appointed or elected - the latest vote was in favour of them being 100% elected. I feel this is completely wrong. We don't want politicians in the second house, we want people who are good at the job of revising legislation - experts, specialists, clear-thinkers. I don't believe it's possible for the general public to select people on that basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 I don't think there was ever any doubt that the hereditary peers would be abolished, this was just a matter of time. But the big decision to be made was whether the members of the new "House of Lords" (if it was still to be called that) would be appointed or elected - the latest vote was in favour of them being 100% elected. I feel this is completely wrong. We don't want politicians in the second house, we want people who are good at the job of revising legislation - experts, specialists, clear-thinkers. I don't believe it's possible for the general public to select people on that basis. I never spent much time studying the British parlimentary system, however, as I understand matters the British political parties have considerable discretion in determining which individuals will stand for a given district. One might go so far as to argue that the political parties are the ones doing the appointing... Admitted, you might not trust Labor or the Tories or whomever to do a good job appointing people. However, this begs the question: if you don't trust the political parties, just who do you trust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Now we will turn the House of Lords into a bunch of hacks running for popular votes and giving out favors for campaign money. This is an improvement? Bad enough the Brits foisted and exported the House of Commons as a political system around the world, now this? If we cannot trust Old British bloodlines and a proper upper class training, what can we trust in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 In God, if I can believe your money...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 If the U.S. can elect Sonny Bono, Great Brittain should be able to elect Ringo Starr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 If the U.S. can elect Sonny Bono, Great Brittain should be able to elect Ringo Starr. I think for tax purposes he may live outside of Britain but as usual my memory is a bit foggy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 "I think for tax purposes he may live outside of Britain but as usual my memory is a bit foggy." Strawberry Fields Forever? Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 "I think for tax purposes he may live outside of Britain but as usual my memory is a bit foggy." Strawberry Fields Forever? Peter Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeGee Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 One of the big advantages of the current non-elective system, is there is a large body of independent, free-minded, 'cross-benchers' in the House of Lords. A 100% elected House of Lords means there is a second chamber just like the first chamber, of party politicians bowing to the party whip. What's the point? I can see the point of a mix of elected and appointed members, but one big question. How do you elect a lord or lady? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" Nah, I see Mike as a crunchy Granola kind of guy, consuming the native organic North Carolina produce, and forming deep relationships with the local livestock. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 If the U.S. can elect Sonny Bono, Great Brittain should be able to elect Ringo Starr. Isn't it "Sir Ringo Starr"? ( Edit: He's not!) Maybe he and e.g. "Sir Thomas Sean Connery" could already participate in the House of Lords. Maybe some British expert can give us some insight to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 fwiw, i've always liked the british form and hate to see it go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Here in Canada, we added an additional level of confusion......a senate filled with appointees!!!! Who appoints them? Why the current government, of course! For life! (well until 75 which is almost the same thing for political hacks etc.) So what you get is a government that "packs" the senate so that when they are voted out, the new government has to deal with the old party's vestiges.....fortunately they don't have much power and the GG (Gouvernor General who is the rep. of the effing Queen of England, no less) is our ACTUAL HEAD OF STATE!!! Every opposition party wants proportional representation for the senate but once in power, opts for the same old, tried and true, piggies at the trough method. What a country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Whatever happened to the "good old days" when every country had its own dictator and that was that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 I quite like the House of Lords, I think it is full of daft old twats that do stupid things and have a good degree of inbreeding, I think the equivolent in America is called The kennedys (a large family group that care only about themselves and how they are perceceived) The real issue is we should not elect the people to the House of Lords or possibly we could change the name to the house of inbreds, that have lost touch with reality and only do what benifits their cronies. Whilst I have a somewhat simplistic view of most things, the reason for this is that at least things get done and not thought about so much that everyone forgets what the problem was in the first place, there is one issue that really concerns me with any one that wants an elected House of Lords If we cant elect sensible people in Parliament how the F*** are we going to manage to elect a second house that is not full (censored) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 The worst part of this is that it will really screw up some great lyrics of the Beetles: He blew his mind out in a carHe didn't notice that the lights had changedA crowd of people stood and staredThey'd seen his face beforeNobody was really sure if he was from the newly elected and infinitely betterHouse of Lords Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 I quite like the House of Lords, I think it is full of daft old twats that do stupid things and have a good degree of inbreeding, I think the equivolent in America is called The kennedys (a large family group that care only about themselves and how they are perceceived) The real issue is we should not elect the people to the House of Lords or possibly we could change the name to the house of inbreds, that have lost touch with reality and only do what benifits their cronies. Whilst I have a somewhat simplistic view of most things, the reason for this is that at least things get done and not thought about so much that everyone forgets what the problem was in the first place, there is one issue that really concerns me with any one that wants an elected House of Lords If we cant elect sensible people in Parliament how the F*** are we going to manage to elect a second house that is not full (censored) Wayne in the UK do you really elect people or do you elect a party who then puts a person in power? Edward I rolling over in his grave ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 As I understand it, the new second chamber will be elected through multiple-delegates districts as opposed to the single-delegate districts used for the House of Commons. This is a move towards real democracy. It would have been better, IMHO, to get rid of the Lords altogether and introduce proportional representation for the Commons. But you can't have it all. I fail to understand how anybody can defend the existing system. I hope they are joking. Yes, democracy sucks, but all alternatives that have been tried out so far suck more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 As I understand it, the new second chamber will be elected through multiple-delegates districts as opposed to the single-delegate districts used for the House of Commons. This is a move towards real democracy. It would have been better, IMHO, to get rid of the Lords altogether and introduce proportional representation for the Commons. But you can't have it all. I fail to understand how anybody can defend the existing system. I hope they are joking. Yes, democracy sucks, but all alternatives that have been tried out so far suck more. IMHO if you are going to have Kings, Queens, Emperors, Lords, Khans or Caliphs they should have real power. Why let the commoners run things and give these gals or guys nothing to do all day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Oh for Heaven's sake Mike, there are times when you really do come out with some silly comments. The Queen is the Head of State. She represents GB abroad. Her schedule is actually extremely full. Also most members of the royal family do a lot of work - charity etc. Yes there are some bludgers, but in general they work hard. And btw I am NOT a supporter of royalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Heck Hog all I said was give them real power, I did not take a swipe at your Queen. Read what I wrote please not what you think I wrote. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Mike, they are not MY Royals, far from it. A lot of Aussies would much rather have a Republic. Sorry if you took umbrage. But you did say they have "nothing to do all day". That isn't correct for the vast majority of them. The do have "real" power. Being head of state and representing your country abroad is real power to say the least. Giving them political power is fraught with danger. In Australia the Governor general is the Queen's representative. You would no doubt not be aware of Aust's constitutional crisis in 1975. Suffice to say an elected Govt was dismissed by the Gov. General on political grounds and a caretaker Prime minister was installed, (from the opposite party). This event changed Australia's history and the ramifications are still felt today. No one wants a repeat of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Hog: You'd think they'd learn from their compatriots (although to be fair, your GG seems to have done the opposite of ours). Look for "King-Byng Wing-Ding" (if necessary, the "King-Byng Affair") for Canada's 1926 equivalent. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.