|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 15:39:39 GMT
The second chamber should be made up of those who were duly elected. Why? wouldn't that just make it a carbon copy of the commons? What would be the point? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 11, 2023 16:24:51 GMT
...And while we're on the subject why are the tax payers funding 778 waste of space sponges, no wonder they have empathy for illegal migrants, they have something in common, they are sponging off the tax payers for doing fuck all. I don’t necessarily disagree with you on replacing the HoL with an elected chamber, but that's not really the point, is it? All they are doing is justifying their existence, they have to make it look like they are earning their tax payer funded £332 a day, they don't give a toss about whether illegal migrants are being used and abused by people traffickers, all they are interested in is making themselves look like they are useful... they are useful alright ... useful idiots for the likes of Welby to manipulate. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 16:46:28 GMT
they don't give a toss about whether illegal migrants are being used and abused by people traffickers Aside from a handful of white knights neither do most people, including the vocal minority of virtue signallers. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 11, 2023 17:04:06 GMT
The second chamber should be made up of those who were duly elected. Why? wouldn't that just make it a carbon copy of the commons? What would be the point? The Lords should not be 'jobs for the boys', it's where the well behaved, and not so well behaved are put out to pasture, we elect our politicians but we don't have a say in 778 Lords who seem to call the shots and have the last word, so yes they should be duly elected by the public, and not a case of 'it's not what you know, it's who you know'. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 17:13:15 GMT
Why? wouldn't that just make it a carbon copy of the commons? What would be the point? The Lords should not be 'jobs for the boys', it's where the well behaved, and not so well behaved are put out to pasture, we elect our politicians but we don't have a say in 778 Lords who seem to call the shots and have the last word, so yes they should be duly elected by the public, and not a case of 'it's not what you know, it's who you know'. The Lords doesn't have the last word. One of the justifications for that is that the Lords isn't an elected body so does not have the same strength of mandate as the Commons does. This brings me back to my previous post. As an elected body, wouldn't the Lords just become a carbon copy of the Commons - what would be the point? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 11, 2023 17:17:58 GMT
The second chamber should be made up of those who were duly elected. Why? wouldn't that just make it a carbon copy of the commons? What would be the point? They would be made up by those elected. And I am sure all parties would be represented in the HOL rather than those who are picked by the government of the day it works in the USA and other countries so why not here? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 11, 2023 17:19:05 GMT
The Lords should not be 'jobs for the boys', it's where the well behaved, and not so well behaved are put out to pasture, we elect our politicians but we don't have a say in 778 Lords who seem to call the shots and have the last word, so yes they should be duly elected by the public, and not a case of 'it's not what you know, it's who you know'. The Lords doesn't have the last word. One of the justifications for that is that the Lords isn't an elected body so does not have the same strength of mandate as the Commons does. This brings me back to my previous post. As an elected body, wouldn't the Lords just become a carbon copy of the Commons - what would be the point? That's not quite accurate.
"The House of Lords debates legislation, and has the power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts".
They can make or break bills, watering them down to the point of 'what's the point'?
They are also swayed, bribed with incentives to vote in certain ways, so this also makes them a 'corrupt' House of Lords, that will sell out to the highest bidder.
Time is was disbanded and replaced with a maximum of 100 ordinary people, picked out in a similar manner to those chosen for Jury Service, ordinary, men women on the streets, or however they identify themselves as these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 17:47:30 GMT
The Lords doesn't have the last word. One of the justifications for that is that the Lords isn't an elected body so does not have the same strength of mandate as the Commons does. This brings me back to my previous post. As an elected body, wouldn't the Lords just become a carbon copy of the Commons - what would be the point? That's not quite accurate.
"The House of Lords debates legislation, and has the power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts".
They can make or break bills, watering them down to the point of 'what's the point'?
They are also swayed, bribed with incentives to vote in certain ways, so this also makes them a 'corrupt' House of Lords, that will sell out to the highest bidder.
Time is was disbanded and replaced with a maximum of 100 ordinary people, picked out in a similar manner to those chosen for Jury Service, ordinary, men women on the streets, or however they identify themselves as these days.
It is accurate. The lords can't block bills aside from a couple of exceptions. They can propose amends but the commons can reject and override them. The most the Lords can do is delay a bill for a year - See Parliament Act 1911 as amended by Parliament Act 1949 The justification for this act was that the lords shouldn't have the ability to block the commons because the commons has a mandate on account of its members being elected. The act is seldom invoked because the Lords usually back down if the house of commons is resolute about doing something, however in recent times the Hunting Act 2004 is a prime example of legislation being enacted despite the house of Lords objecting. When push came to shove the commons got its way because it has the last word, not the lords. one of the key exceptions to this is that the commons cannot force through an act to extend the length of a parliamentary term without the lords agreeing. The house of Lords serves a useful purpose. Not only is it an important safeguard, it promotes better legislation by letting people with experience give bills the once over, suggest amends that would make for better or more watertight legislation, and it also serves to introduce a 'lets take a breath, lets think about this for a beat, do we really want to do this and is this the right way to do it" mechanism. It makes for better legislation. Taking 100 random people off the street would unlikely result in better outcomes or provide the safeguards to the same level of robustness that the Lords does in its current form. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 11, 2023 18:09:20 GMT
That's not quite accurate.
"The House of Lords debates legislation, and has the power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts".
They can make or break bills, watering them down to the point of 'what's the point'?
They are also swayed, bribed with incentives to vote in certain ways, so this also makes them a 'corrupt' House of Lords, that will sell out to the highest bidder.
Time is was disbanded and replaced with a maximum of 100 ordinary people, picked out in a similar manner to those chosen for Jury Service, ordinary, men women on the streets, or however they identify themselves as these days.
It is accurate. The lords can't block bills aside from a couple of exceptions. They can propose amends but the commons can reject and override them. The most the Lords can do is delay a bill for a year - See Parliament Act 1911 as amended by Parliament Act 1949 The justification for this act was that the lords shouldn't have the ability to block the commons because the commons has a mandate on account of its members being elected. The act is seldom invoked because the Lords usually back down if the house of commons is resolute about doing something, however in recent times the Hunting Act 2004 is a prime example of legislation being enacted despite the house of Lords objecting. When push came to shove the commons got its way because it has the last word, not the lords. one of the key exceptions to this is that the commons cannot force through an act to extend the length of a parliamentary term without the lords agreeing. The house of Lords serves a useful purpose. Not only is it an important safeguard, it promotes better legislation by letting people with experience give bills the once over, suggest amends that would make for better or more watertight legislation, and it also serves to introduce a 'lets take a breath, lets think about this for a beat, do we really want to do this and is this the right way to do it" mechanism. It makes for better legislation. Taking 100 random people off the street would unlikely result in better outcomes or provide the safeguards to the same level of robustness that the Lords does in its current form. So basically 12 Random men/women off the streets picked for jury service with little or no knowledge of the criminal justice service, or criminals for that matter are convicting people of crimes they might not have committed, because of the lack of expertise of the condemners?
So 778 Lords have personal experience with people traffickers, illegal migrants, and criminals, so as they can amend, water down, or even try to cancel government legislation to crack down on it.
I put it to you, that 12 ordinary men/women on the streets are as clued up as 778 out-of-touch Lords are who are obstructing, watering down, or opposing bills they actually have little or no knowledge on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 11, 2023 18:20:45 GMT
.. or maybe put it another way, if the 778 were made up of ordinary men/women off the streets, and not a bunch of entitled overpaid under worked tax funded scroungers, living in the lap of luxury far far away from the illegal migrant boat people, this bill would have been passed Unanimously YEARS ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 11, 2023 18:58:30 GMT
It is accurate. The lords can't block bills aside from a couple of exceptions. They can propose amends but the commons can reject and override them. The most the Lords can do is delay a bill for a year - See Parliament Act 1911 as amended by Parliament Act 1949 The justification for this act was that the lords shouldn't have the ability to block the commons because the commons has a mandate on account of its members being elected. The act is seldom invoked because the Lords usually back down if the house of commons is resolute about doing something, however in recent times the Hunting Act 2004 is a prime example of legislation being enacted despite the house of Lords objecting. When push came to shove the commons got its way because it has the last word, not the lords. one of the key exceptions to this is that the commons cannot force through an act to extend the length of a parliamentary term without the lords agreeing. The house of Lords serves a useful purpose. Not only is it an important safeguard, it promotes better legislation by letting people with experience give bills the once over, suggest amends that would make for better or more watertight legislation, and it also serves to introduce a 'lets take a breath, lets think about this for a beat, do we really want to do this and is this the right way to do it" mechanism. It makes for better legislation. Taking 100 random people off the street would unlikely result in better outcomes or provide the safeguards to the same level of robustness that the Lords does in its current form. So basically 12 Random men/women off the streets picked for jury service with little or no knowledge of the criminal justice service, or criminals for that matter are convicting people of crimes they might not have committed, because of the lack of expertise of the condemners?
So 778 Lords have personal experience with people traffickers, illegal migrants, and criminals, so as they can amend, water down, or even try to cancel government legislation to crack down on it.
I put it to you, that 12 ordinary men/women on the streets are as clued up as 778 out-of-touch Lords are who are obstructing, watering down, or opposing bills they actually have little or no knowledge on the subject.
. or maybe put it another way, if the 778 were made up of ordinary men/women off the streets, and not a bunch of entitled overpaid under worked tax funded scroungers, living in the lap of luxury far far away from the illegal migrant boat people, this bill would have been passed Unanimously YEARS ago.
I don't believe that plucking 12 ordinary people off the street to scrutinise legislation and opposing bills or proposing amends would lead to better outcomes no. Your own diatribe here only serves to compound that view since despite me serving up the Parliament Act it is clear you either still haven't read it or haven't understood it. its further clear to me you don't really have a full grasp of the role of the Lords and why it isn't to be tossed aside lightly. So far you've bounced between an elected house of Lords, one appointed by an opaque jury service type selection process, taking 100 random people off the street, replacing the lords with 778 'ordinary' people. Your key argument and driver for this knee jerk reaction seems to be a bill that you feel should have been passed years ago, despite it only having been written this year and brought from the commons to the Lords on 27th April 2023, and, despite that rather short timeline has already had its first and second reading in the Lords and is now at committee stage. I put it to you, that so far the system is working just as its supposed to, is doing the job it is supposed to, and rather expediently at that. On that basis, I see no sound argument for Lords reform off the back of the progression of the bill that seems to have triggered you to demand it. While we should always be open to reform I'd want to see a much better thought out proposal and some evidence based analysis to show why it would be more efficient and improve outcomes. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 11, 2023 19:16:24 GMT
So basically 12 Random men/women off the streets picked for jury service with little or no knowledge of the criminal justice service, or criminals for that matter are convicting people of crimes they might not have committed, because of the lack of expertise of the condemners?
So 778 Lords have personal experience with people traffickers, illegal migrants, and criminals, so as they can amend, water down, or even try to cancel government legislation to crack down on it.
I put it to you, that 12 ordinary men/women on the streets are as clued up as 778 out-of-touch Lords are who are obstructing, watering down, or opposing bills they actually have little or no knowledge on the subject.
. or maybe put it another way, if the 778 were made up of ordinary men/women off the streets, and not a bunch of entitled overpaid under worked tax funded scroungers, living in the lap of luxury far far away from the illegal migrant boat people, this bill would have been passed Unanimously YEARS ago.
I don't believe that plucking 12 ordinary people off the street to scrutinise legislation and opposing bills or proposing amends would lead to better outcomes no. Your own diatribe here only serves to compound that view since despite me serving up the Parliament Act it is clear you either still haven't read it or haven't understood it. its further clear to me you don't really have a full grasp of the role of the Lords and why it isn't to be tossed aside lightly. So far you've bounced between an elected house of Lords, one appointed by an opaque jury service type selection process, taking 100 random people off the street, replacing the lords with 778 'ordinary' people. Your key argument and driver for this knee jerk reaction seems to be a bill that you feel should have been passed years ago, despite it only having been written this year and brought from the commons to the Lords on 27th April 2023, and, despite that rather short timeline has already had its first and second reading in the Lords and is now at committee stage. I put it to you, that so far the system is working just as its supposed to, is doing the job it is supposed to, and rather expediently at that. On that basis, I see no sound argument for Lords reform off the back of the progression of the bill that seems to have triggered you to demand it. While we should always be open to reform I'd want to see a much better thought out proposal and some evidence based analysis to show why it would be more efficient and improve outcomes. Well let's just do the maths, we have 650 MPs who are democratically elected , then we have 778 HoL who are undemocratically elevated to second chamber due to their entitled status in life.
778 democratically unelected bored busybody housewives meddling in politics and trying to override the wishes of the people/parliament, and getting paid to do so into the bargain, are basically running this country, ... no wonder it's fucked up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 19:24:03 GMT
Welby will count it as a success if just one of millions of Catholics or Moslems convert to Protestant. Not sure if you remember the Liverpool taxi bomber. Well it turned out he was a graduate, along with hundreds of other asylum seekers, of Liverpool Cathedral's 'Come to Jesus' conversion programme. It became extremely popular after word got around that Christians couldn't be returned to places like Iraq and Iran,
The policy seems to have worked. He has gone to meet Jesus. I wonder how he gets on. Same for Welby, he's answerable to God for what he does and says and will be judged more severely than most. He's entitled to say whatever he wants in the HoL, but he did sound more like a left wing politician than an evangelical Christian. Did he come up with any solutions? Of course not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 11, 2023 23:11:25 GMT
I don't believe that plucking 12 ordinary people off the street to scrutinise legislation and opposing bills or proposing amends would lead to better outcomes no. Your own diatribe here only serves to compound that view since despite me serving up the Parliament Act it is clear you either still haven't read it or haven't understood it. its further clear to me you don't really have a full grasp of the role of the Lords and why it isn't to be tossed aside lightly. So far you've bounced between an elected house of Lords, one appointed by an opaque jury service type selection process, taking 100 random people off the street, replacing the lords with 778 'ordinary' people. Your key argument and driver for this knee jerk reaction seems to be a bill that you feel should have been passed years ago, despite it only having been written this year and brought from the commons to the Lords on 27th April 2023, and, despite that rather short timeline has already had its first and second reading in the Lords and is now at committee stage. I put it to you, that so far the system is working just as its supposed to, is doing the job it is supposed to, and rather expediently at that. On that basis, I see no sound argument for Lords reform off the back of the progression of the bill that seems to have triggered you to demand it. While we should always be open to reform I'd want to see a much better thought out proposal and some evidence based analysis to show why it would be more efficient and improve outcomes. Well let's just do the maths, we have 650 MPs who are democratically elected , then we have 778 HoL who are undemocratically elevated to second chamber due to their entitled status in life.
778 democratically unelected bored busybody housewives meddling in politics and trying to override the wishes of the people/parliament, and getting paid to do so into the bargain, are basically running this country, ... no wonder it's fucked up.
You started to move away from "they should keep their nose out of the government's business", but now you've gone back to it again. Unfortunately the issue is that you don't really understand the role of the HoL. It is a REVISING chamber. They are there to look at the government's proposed legislation, criticise it and offer amendments. In order to do that you are looking for experts and expertise. Now I agree with you that there are a lot in the Lords are not providing that and that there is a good case for a different model, I'm open to the idea of an elected chamber, but what it absolutely should not be is lay people. Mr Angry from Surbiton is in no position to scrutinise the government's legislation with any expertise. I also wondered with your "keep their noses out" comment whether you would actually wish to scrap the revising chamber, in which case I do wonder who you want to scrutinise the legislation instead? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 12, 2023 0:05:15 GMT
Not sure if you remember the Liverpool taxi bomber. Well it turned out he was a graduate, along with hundreds of other asylum seekers, of Liverpool Cathedral's 'Come to Jesus' conversion programme. It became extremely popular after word got around that Christians couldn't be returned to places like Iraq and Iran,
The policy seems to have worked. He has gone to meet Jesus. I wonder how he gets on. Same for Welby, he's answerable to God for what he does and says and will be judged more severely than most. He's entitled to say whatever he wants in the HoL, but he did sound more like a left wing politician than an evangelical Christian. Did he come up with any solutions? Of course not. Whatever Welby is, he’s not a happy-clapping evangelist, otherwise he’d have many more empty pews than at present. As for offering solutions, few clerics do — they appear to believe that whatever deity they’re promoting will provide the way. Welby is just saying he thinks the current illegal immigration legislation is wrong and potentially damaging to the UK’s image and reputation. But only governments cooperating can solve what is a worldwide problem that many of them and their predecessors have often helped cause. Prayer may provide warm feelings of doing something, but there’s not many instant votes or much money in such problem solving for governments… |
|
