Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
Aren't we lucky that they got rid of the hereditary peers and replaced them with political nominations. I think not.
beer the food of the gods
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
But we still have hereditary peers.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
I think Guzzler is probably referring to the fact that we had the money for influence situation creep back into the news yesterday..the case of the Labour Peers, not herditary, who were clearly ready to take money to influence the outcome of various legislation. Absolutely scandalous, but as ever they assume they are above any kind of retribution...and in fact they are, and relish in it. Never before has politics sunk to such a low as is currently the case. The public are disgusted with the breed.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Most hereditary peers no longer sit in the Commons and those that do are not there as a right any more, just for being hereditary peers.
guzz has a serious point. A lot of the working hereditary peers were there out of a feeling of duty/tradition and continuity, not for money. However outdated the hereditary system may be seen by many, there is a case for not placing all power in the hands of those who actively seek it. This I believe is one of the strengths of our monarchy, however powerful a Prime Minister is, however large their majority, however big their ego is they must kneel to the Queen, kiss her hand and, weekly, bow to her. It puts them in their place in the pecking order and a good thing too.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
....and reminding everyone that social mobility is just a myth.
If we need people in power that don't actively seek it we could just set up a randomised system, putting anybody in their positions.
As for tradition, this is one of those things that was seen to be right at one point in time but doesn't necessarily have to be now. Tradition is a pretty poor argument. I personally believe in the power of democracy in the present not the ideologies of people that have long been dead!
It used to be traditional to burn witches and keep slaves. Not a great recommendation for traditional beliefs. life is constantly morphing and we need to respond to that.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
why do we actually need a second chamber?
we vote in our commons representatives, surely that should be enough?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The second chamber has been doing a first class job in reviewing legislation and sending flawed legislation back to the Commons. The level of debate is of a much higher standard than the Commons and, not being career politicians, there is a shade more independence of the Whips. All governments have faced defeat in the Lords even where they have a majority vote in the Lords.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Well we shall wait until the House of lords publish their accounts.That should make interesting reading.
If we need a second house it should be a democratically elected one
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
'flawed legislation' in their opinion. Who are they to judge? Hereditary peers (much like the royal family) assume position by birth. I used to be friends with a guy who was a solicitor, the son of a doctor. I would never have asked his medical advice because what his parents do (or his parents parents did for that fact) did not mean that he assimilated their knowledge or judgement.
It's tricky: we need independent safeguards to provide the checks and balances for the elected reps (increasingly obviously!) but do we elect, or do we try out some other way that does not depend on genetics......?
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Democracy vs Determinism. I'd choose Democracy every time.
Define independent. They are still dependent on the fact that they remain in control. The Chartists did a good job, but not good enough!
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
bring back oliver cromwell he will sort the buggers out.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
I'm with DT1 on this one, if there has to be a second chamber(And I don't believe there is such a need) then it should be elected by the people, not put in place because of who your relatives may havre been, or politicians of ALL yes ALL parties flooding it with friends.
Tradition is a fine thing, but democracy is the true voice of the people,
LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE
Define democracy in practical terms........proportional representation or our current system? Positive discrimination within parties or a free for all allowing prejudice to impact? Party politics or independents? State funding of campaigns or private funding, with all the moral debt that implies? It's not so simple.............
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
BERN
Lots of thought provoking there, heres my 2p worth
I havn't yet seen a form of proportional representation that doesn't allow very minority people into power even though people (majoriyty )didnt vote for
I feel theres room for Party politics and indies, but as Chris P recently informed me the Dover Indies are no longer indies they are registered as a party !!!
so how independent are they realy!!
I don't believe in state funding,
there hows that for a start?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
no state funding would mean that parties would be at the mercy of wealthy donors.
can you explain how proportional representation puts people in powerwithout many votes?
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
look at the european elections BNP can be elected to some seats by just gaining 6% of the vote!!!
very worrying
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
in that case they will be proportionatly represented.
it also means that there is less chance of wasted votes and/or tactical voting.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
and it would be undemocratic and wrong
