|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 20, 2022 10:43:27 GMT
The point ought to be blatantly obvious... And yet you still managed to miss it. If we have a second elected chamber, where is the guarantee that it will provide any better checks and balances than the existing elected chamber? (Rhetorical question BTW because there isn't one). |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 20, 2022 10:48:41 GMT
I think we should abandon the house of lords and create a new 'king's chamber' in its place. Our monarch has the power approve legislation currently and this role should be extended to become part of the system.
The monarch appoints a body which fulfils the current role of the house of lords. The monarch is in control of this body in a limited sense - ie he can appoint people to five year terms or extend their tenure, but he can't sack them mid term.
Legislation passes from HOC to the house of lords in the way it does now and the monarch approves as he does now.
If you put all the cronyism in one place, with one identifiable person responsible, i feel you create a counter-cronysitic pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Nov 20, 2022 10:53:06 GMT
I'm open to getting rid of the Lords but I would like to know what is replacing it first - and that would involve cross party agreement about its role and powers. I agree the job of the Lords is to quality control what new legislation the Government of the day brings in or amends, under Labour they reduced the numbers of heredity Peers that could sit in the Lords if they so wished If the Lords is disbanded and not replaced with another system of checks and balances, it would mean a government could basically do as they wish. Well said, Handyman … Someone dropped a damning video recently of Members of the House of Lords nodding off in the House during debates … with the rallying cry should tax-payers pay for these old men to kip here for £80,000/year + expenses and dine in 5 subsidised restaurants etc etc … … anyone could have produced the same video about Members of the House of Commons … equally wasteful … more so imo. Personally … I think this narrative is Starmer’s Mossad/GCHQ controllers speaking … and Starmer dancing to their tune … like the Labour Party must now do to nearly ALL Israeli/Globalist/Deep State dictats. …. purely for financial reasons … as it is a bankrupt Party these days. … morally too … this simplistically popular narrative is attacking a House that is the last bastion of intelligence - (when it’s awake lol 😋) - standing/sitting/comatose … it makes no difference … they are STILL far better value for money and debate more intelligently than that braying mob of immature badly qualified non-representative Commons traitors.
- EVERYONE KNOWS the LORDS has done a HISTORIC GRAND JOB … REPEATEDLY CORRECTING the many many follies rolled out by the young ‘ hotheads’ of the Commons that squander our ££££billions on one disastrous stupid venture after another.Anarchist Starmer … another reason NOT to vote Labour. 🙄 1st class manipulated Mossad stooge. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2022 11:06:04 GMT
I think we should abandon the house of lords and create a new 'king's chamber' in its place. Our monarch has the power approve legislation currently and this role should be extended to become part of the system. The monarch appoints a body which fulfils the current role of the house of lords. The monarch is in control of this body in a limited sense - ie he can appoint people to five year terms or extend their tenure, but he can't sack them mid term. Legislation passes from HOC to the house of lords in the way it does now and the monarch approves as he does now. If you put all the cronyism in one place, with one identifiable person responsible, i feel you create a counter-cronysitic pressure. The trouble is we have a total dick as king. In fact I'm convinced the queen really did not want to see him as king as she knew he was a failure. He can't even keep his gob out of political issues. When he talks about climate change he has no idea about the suffering of ordinary people who will freeze in winter thanks to his "charity". It is estimated this fuel hike is killing a 20 000 Brits a year. I despair at the man and can't stand even listening to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 20, 2022 11:07:34 GMT
I think we should abandon the house of lords and create a new 'king's chamber' in its place. Our monarch has the power approve legislation currently and this role should be extended to become part of the system. The monarch appoints a body which fulfils the current role of the house of lords. The monarch is in control of this body in a limited sense - ie he can appoint people to five year terms or extend their tenure, but he can't sack them mid term. Legislation passes from HOC to the house of lords in the way it does now and the monarch approves as he does now. If you put all the cronyism in one place, with one identifiable person responsible, i feel you create a counter-cronysitic pressure. Not a good idea IMO the English Civil War was fought over who controlled the country the King or Parliament, Parliament won the battle, ever since then it is Parliament that has all the power and the reigning monarch stays neutral and simply rubber stamps Parliament wishes |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2022 11:09:16 GMT
It is perfectly feasible to abolish the House of Lords if the political will is there. Sadly, I think it will be lacking with Starmer. He is far too much of an establishmentarian to go for such radical constitutional change. This is just another one of his false promises. Those of us who used to be in Labour are well used to those.
Which is a pity because I actually agree with abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber of some sort. Used to be In labour so your willing not to vote a labour govenment in power because the likes keir and the General electorate turned there back on Semitic labour under the commie led labour party by corbyn. and yes its a good proposal by keir so are many of the others like his green propsal . Corbyn may well be a commie, but there was one policy he had which made perfect sense to me and that was to get out of Nato. Nato is an offensive organisation and we should have nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2022 11:10:42 GMT
I think we should abandon the house of lords and create a new 'king's chamber' in its place. Our monarch has the power approve legislation currently and this role should be extended to become part of the system. The monarch appoints a body which fulfils the current role of the house of lords. The monarch is in control of this body in a limited sense - ie he can appoint people to five year terms or extend their tenure, but he can't sack them mid term. Legislation passes from HOC to the house of lords in the way it does now and the monarch approves as he does now. If you put all the cronyism in one place, with one identifiable person responsible, i feel you create a counter-cronysitic pressure. Not a good idea IMO the English Civil War was fought over who controlled the country the King or Parliament, Parliament won the battle, ever since then it is Parliament that has all the power and the reigning monarch stays neutral and simply rubber stamps Parliament wishes Yes but the twat can't even do the stay neutral bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 20, 2022 11:22:29 GMT
The trouble is we have a total dick as king. In fact I'm convinced the queen really did not want to see him as king as she knew he was a failure. He can't even keep his gob out of political issues. When he talks about climate change he has no idea about the suffering of ordinary people who will freeze in winter thanks to his "charity". It is estimated this fuel hike is killing a 20 000 Brits a year. I despair at the man and can't stand even listening to him. That is a real problem. I also very much got this impression over the years - ie that the guy is severely disconnected from reality in a rather worryingly profound way. However, I have also seen interviews with him that suggest he is a far deeper thinker than I had given him credit for. In these interviews, he talks about the central role of the sacred in a society and seems to have a very large personal commitment to fairness. The notion behind this idea is that the monarch would feel the weight of his duties and his singular responsibilities and rise to the occasion to provide the proper questioning of a democratically elected administration with a view to protecting the people from it. But perhaps such a mechanism relies on a notion of breeding / education that is now also gone- ie no longer available to us. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 20, 2022 11:23:29 GMT
After the Brexit fiasco we need a new system, purposely stalling, and obstructing democracy is unacceptable, it's a well known fact the Lords, the speaker of the House Bercow, and the civil service tried to sabotage Brexit, one reason Boris Johnson called a GE and the people voted, a landslide victory. Which is Bravo Seirra. It will only work if the clowns I vote for get in. In terms of Brexit. England sabotage itself. The only country in the world ever. To vote to make itself poorer. As it is now very clear exports of goods to the European Union fell by 40% between December 2020 and January 2021, while imports dropped by almost 30%. Even Hunt who has succeeded in following you that there will not be a tax rise till after the next election. Agreed. Brexit is a disaster. In term of Johnston and his landslide victory. The choice was between two clowns. Johnston and Corbyn. The choice was death by a thousand cuts or freeze and starve to death. Johnston manage both. As you swallow the fanny it was the fault of Putin and covid. And the magic fairy. Not even got onto the meaningless soundbites. We will take back control of our borders, and Brexit means Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 20, 2022 11:26:22 GMT
yawn zzzzzzzzz ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 20, 2022 11:36:54 GMT
The trouble is we have a total dick as king. In fact I'm convinced the queen really did not want to see him as king as she knew he was a failure. He can't even keep his gob out of political issues. When he talks about climate change he has no idea about the suffering of ordinary people who will freeze in winter thanks to his "charity". It is estimated this fuel hike is killing a 20 000 Brits a year. I despair at the man and can't stand even listening to him. That is a real problem. I also very much got this impression over the years - ie that the guy is severely disconnected from reality in a rather worryingly profound way. However, I have also seen interviews with him that suggest he is a far deeper thinker than I had given him credit for. In these interviews, he talks about the central role of the sacred in a society and seems to have a very large personal commitment to fairness. The notion behind this idea is that the monarch would feel the weight of his duties and his singular responsibilities and rise to the occasion to provide the proper questioning of a democratically elected administration with a view to protecting the people from it. But perhaps such a mechanism relies on a notion of breeding / education that is now also gone- ie no longer available to us. He has the best tuition money can buy and the most expert advisors on PR matters but still he does not know whether he is coming or going to the COP brainwashing sessions. Rule number one in PR is first impressions count. I do believe he functions as a very good figurehead in representing the British Isles. He is the head fool and as far as foreigners are concerned it will be fools all the way down from him. We are a decaying country and he is just another sign of it. You see these signs everywhere you look, from closed down luxury business to decaying vandalised mansions which no one cases for. It's truly third world. Mugabe was about as big a dick as he is. He wore the badges but not the brains. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 20, 2022 11:50:22 GMT
I'm open to getting rid of the Lords but I would like to know what is replacing it first - and that would involve cross party agreement about its role and powers. Interesting. You voted for Brexit without knowing what our membership was going to be replaced with. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 20, 2022 11:51:42 GMT
The point ought to be blatantly obvious. Replacing a bunch of unelected cronies we never voted for and cannot remove who sit for life with elected representatives of some kind whom we vote for and can vote out of office again gives us the final say in who gets to sit and represent us there. The problem with an elected chamber is that you give them a mandate - they are no longer subservient to the Commons. As such you will end up at some point with the US problem where one chamber is controlled by one party and the other by a different party - with the result you have gridlock and nothing can be done. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 20, 2022 11:54:09 GMT
I'm open to getting rid of the Lords but I would like to know what is replacing it first - and that would involve cross party agreement about its role and powers. Interesting. You voted for Brexit without knowing what our membership was going to be replaced with. Our relationship can change at any time - read todays Times and you can see that how we trade and interact with the EU is not set in stone. With regards to how you run the country that is rather more important than the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 20, 2022 12:30:09 GMT
Not a good idea IMO the English Civil War was fought over who controlled the country the King or Parliament, Parliament won the battle, ever since then it is Parliament that has all the power and the reigning monarch stays neutral and simply rubber stamps Parliament wishes Yes but the twat can't even do the stay neutral bit. I know you are a rather strange person, however before he inherited the throne as the Prince of Wales, he was able to lobby Parliament just like the rest of us can and many do, even his mother the late Queen did when she lobbied the Scottish Parliament in relation to land, she owned, not directly in person but by a third party. When Charles inherited the throne, he knew he can no longer do that anymore he like his mother before is sticking to the deal made by Parliament and Charles 11 all those years ago which was no monarch from now on will not interfere with the workings of Parliament full stop. The King is a lifelong supporter of Enviromental issues worldwide, he actually asked the Government for advice should I attend the Climate Change Conference or not, and the result was they both agreed it was better that he did not attend, the PM and other members of Parliament did, the King like his mother before him is keeping his personal opinions to himself. |
|
