https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.

Bunch of ego tripsters imho.
Try watching it for a few days, Bob.
99% irrelevant ********.
They ignore the details that everyone and his dog knows and spout forth
irrelevance and sometimes misinformation.
Just my 2 pennuth after watching it.

On 02-Mar-17 4:24 PM, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686


Even if you get enough signatures to get it debated, the reply is
unlikely to differ from the government reply already given.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.


So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:30:07 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.


So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.

Not working too well in the USA.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 3/2/2017 2:37 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:30:07 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686
No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.
So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.

Not working too well in the USA.

In 2018, the US electorate will have the opportunity to replace all the
members of the House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate.
Perhaps they'll come to their senses...

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 3/2/2017 2:37 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:30:07 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686
No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.
So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.

Not working too well in the USA.

In 2018, the US electorate will have the opportunity to replace all the
members of the House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate.
Perhaps they'll come to their senses...

What happens if the opposite party to the one the President represents has a
majority in either/both Houses? Can they block anything that the president
proposes, assuming he doesn't invoke executive action?

I wonder what Trump will do if this situation arises and there is a Democrat
majority after the 2018 elections? Sulk? Storm off in a huff like a
five-year-old? Use terms like "moron" or "idiot" to describe Congress and
the electorate who put them there?

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get re-elected
in 2020?

On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.


--
Adam

On 02/03/2017 20:39, Huge wrote:
On 2017-03-02, ARW wrote:
On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.

Last I saw you could only get evens on him making 4 years.

Seriously?

That's really just a bet on how good the secret service are.

On 02/03/2017 20:31, ARW wrote:
On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.



Would he be mad to shoot him?
The last president to nearly start WW3 got shot by a madman.

On 02/03/2017 21:19, GB wrote:
On 02/03/2017 20:39, Huge wrote:
On 2017-03-02, ARW wrote:
On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.

Last I saw you could only get evens on him making 4 years.

Seriously?

That's really just a bet on how good the secret service are.




The secret service do not shoot presidents, or at least not officially.

On 02/03/2017 21:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:30:07 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.


So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.

Not working too well in the USA.

Our second chamber should certainly not be elected. If it is, you'll
just get the sort of shambles we see in the US.

But it is elected, by the prime minister of the day and his friends.

Also, having Lord "elected" for life reminds me of some unsavoury
African dictators.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.

Didnt stop Raygun.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-03-02, ARW wrote:
On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.

Last I saw you could only get evens on him making 4 years.

But then you never could get good on him winning.

On 02/03/17 21:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:30:07 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.


So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.

Not working too well in the USA.

Our second chamber should certainly not be elected. If it is, you'll
just get the sort of shambles we see in the US.

I tend to agree.

In the past it was appointed in terms of
- hereditary. A random selection o0f chinless wonders whose innate
wealth presumably meant they had some interest in the state of the
nation since they had to live there
- Judges. Judges whose peers thought they were basically OK, if long in
the tooth, got a seat, which was quite handy as they knew the law.
- churchmen. As a hat tip to some sort of moral compass, their lords
spiritual got a say in things.
-Random blokes who gave money to charities and parties. More in it for
the ego than the duty. Generally didn't show.

It wasn't a bad mix.

Then Blair got his hands on it and filled it full of politicians, and
broke it completely.

It needs to go back to people with proven track records outside politics
being appointed.

But I cant see that it will. Once politicians get their fingers in a
pie, they never take them out.


--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 02/03/17 19:37, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:30:07 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.


So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.

Not working too well in the USA.



Or the EU, where only the 'upper house' is elected.


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On 02/03/17 20:31, ARW wrote:
On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.


Contract hitman please.



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.
maybe they need more powers, not fewer.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

alan_m wrote:
On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.


So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync with
the general election for the commons.



Especially if it was PR.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/03/17 21:48, Tim Streater wrote:

Our second chamber should certainly not be elected. If it is, you'll
just get the sort of shambles we see in the US.

I tend to agree.

In the past it was appointed in terms of
- hereditary. A random selection o0f chinless wonders whose innate
wealth presumably meant they had some interest in the state of the
nation since they had to live there
- Judges. Judges whose peers thought they were basically OK, if long in
the tooth, got a seat, which was quite handy as they knew the law.
- churchmen. As a hat tip to some sort of moral compass, their lords
spiritual got a say in things.
-Random blokes who gave money to charities and parties. More in it for
the ego than the duty. Generally didn't show.

I assume you mean "didn't show up at the House". I suppose at least
people like that didn't get in the way. As long as they didn't clock in
every day and then then leave.

Peers always used to be thought wealthy enough to do the job for nothing.
Once professional politicians were let in, a attendance allowance was
created.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/03/17 20:31, ARW wrote:
On 02/03/2017 19:58, NY wrote:

Thank god it's only for four years. Does anyone think he'll get
re-elected in 2020?


Four years? I thought he was going to be shot by a madman.


Contract hitman please.




Privatisation?

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:01:13 +0000, Capitol wrote:

alan_m wrote:
On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.


So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync
with the general election for the commons.



Especially if it was PR.

Not in favour of PR. Very messy. I would prefer STV (which many think is
the same thing).


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
JoeJoe wrote:
Our second chamber should certainly not be elected. If it is, you'll
just get the sort of shambles we see in the US.

But it is elected, by the prime minister of the day and his friends.

Also, having Lord "elected" for life reminds me of some unsavoury
African dictators.

But surely one of the main reasons for Brexit - we were told - was to
regain UK sovereignty? Ie, an unelected head of state and an unelected H
of L? And a government which may not have the votes of the majority at an
election? A PM appointed by a party, not the electorate? And UK law being
above any other?

Or were the BREXITEERS simply lying about that too? The only parts of the
UK system they want are the parts which do as they want them to?

--
*England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/03/2017 09:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , JoeJoe
wrote:

On 02/03/2017 21:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:30:07 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 02/03/2017 18:15, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:24:39 -0800, harry wrote:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686

No. They provide a valuable check and balance to this shower.

So would an elected body especially if the election was out of sync
with
the general election for the commons.

Not working too well in the USA.

Our second chamber should certainly not be elected. If it is, you'll
just get the sort of shambles we see in the US.

But it is elected, by the prime minister of the day and his friends.

Also, having Lord "elected" for life reminds me of some unsavoury
African dictators.

Anyone put there should be put there by an independent Appointments
Commission or the like, with a 5-year term limit, and one 5-year
renewal provided they have actually contributed to the work of the
House (debating and revising legislation).

....especially as they don't do this for free.

On 03/03/2017 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
JoeJoe wrote:
Our second chamber should certainly not be elected. If it is, you'll
just get the sort of shambles we see in the US.

But it is elected, by the prime minister of the day and his friends.

Also, having Lord "elected" for life reminds me of some unsavoury
African dictators.

But surely one of the main reasons for Brexit - we were told - was to
regain UK sovereignty? Ie, an unelected head of state and an unelected H
of L? And a government which may not have the votes of the majority at an
election? A PM appointed by a party, not the electorate? And UK law being
above any other?

Yes, that's essentially correct. And it works quite well, too, or did
until Blairiot got rid of the hereditaries and let the riff-raff in.

The hereditaries did a good job of scrutinising legislation and knew
their place and knew what would happen if they got too uppity.

Which is? ...

In article ,
Huge wrote:
But surely one of the main reasons for Brexit - we were told - was to
regain UK sovereignty? Ie, an unelected head of state and an unelected
H of L? And a government which may not have the votes of the majority
at an election?

Has a Government ever been elected with a majority of the electorate?

Some have had a simple majority of those who could be bothered to vote.
Same as the recent referendum on Brexit.

Not sure if any have ever had an absolute majority of those entitled to
vote. Or rather not since universal suffrage.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03-Mar-17 1:59 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
But surely one of the main reasons for Brexit - we were told - was to
regain UK sovereignty? Ie, an unelected head of state and an unelected
H of L? And a government which may not have the votes of the majority
at an election?

Has a Government ever been elected with a majority of the electorate?

Some have had a simple majority of those who could be bothered to vote...

Not since WW2. The highest was the Conservative win of 1955, when they
polled 49.7% of the vote.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/

These people would I'm sure apply the checks and balances needed in a
modern society.

Referendums would be a thing of the past as the "will of the people"
will be persued with a fervour and zeal that is totally lacking at the
moment.

As in so many eastern countries, once the choices are clearly
outlined, the will of the people can come into alignment rapidly.

State/ religious/ moral concerns would be consolidated.

A slight downside would be the return of capital punishment, but it
would have the advantage of attracting a few drooling morons away from
uk.d-i-y

AB




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, 4 March 2017 11:01:22 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/

These people would I'm sure apply the checks and balances needed in a
modern society.

lol

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It now
risks losing its credibility.

As others have said a totally elected house would lead to a challenge to
the authority of the commons as Lords claimed to represent constituents.
There is not much appetite for such a House.

So can I suggest the following

a) the absolute size of the HOL would be capped

b) a portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population). They would simply be elected in order of preference Members
would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years) but could then stand for
re-election

c) within a month of a general election each party could nominate a
group of members to represent them in proportion to the number of votes
they received. There could be a minimum percentage applied to qualify
for any members, say 5%. These members would serve until one month after
the next General Election when they could be re-nominated. Independents
would not reach the threshold.

d) as long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented.

e) Law Lords A number of the judiciary to be appointed to provide the
necessary legal expertise

f) Other Expertise This is where it gets difficult How to control the
introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and
expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs
entertainment, other religions sport etc. (Note the Honours System
exists to simply reward them for achievement). With a total cap on the
size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life
which would restrict new blood coming in or for a fixed term such as 15
years.

I've probably missed other categories.

Now where's my coat...
--
bert

On 04/03/17 21:10, bert wrote:
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current
Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It now
risks losing its credibility.

As others have said a totally elected house would lead to a challenge to
the authority of the commons as Lords claimed to represent constituents.
There is not much appetite for such a House.

So can I suggest the following

a) the absolute size of the HOL would be capped

b) a portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population). They would simply be elected in order of preference Members
would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years) but could then stand for
re-election

c) within a month of a general election each party could nominate a
group of members to represent them in proportion to the number of votes
they received. There could be a minimum percentage applied to qualify
for any members, say 5%. These members would serve until one month after
the next General Election when they could be re-nominated. Independents
would not reach the threshold.

d) as long as we have an Established Church then it should be represented.

e) Law Lords A number of the judiciary to be appointed to provide the
necessary legal expertise

f) Other Expertise This is where it gets difficult How to control the
introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and
expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs
entertainment, other religions sport etc. (Note the Honours System
exists to simply reward them for achievement). With a total cap on the
size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life
which would restrict new blood coming in or for a fixed term such as 15
years.

I've probably missed other categories.

Now where's my coat...

Brave attempt bert, but I think that you miss the historical point of an
upper chamber.

And that is that it should be selected by a process as unlike the lower
as possible, in order than any flaws in the lower chamber not be
reflected in the upper.

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it with
political appointees.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

Of course that leaves the question of who gets appointed.

I actually don't have an answer to that. Lottery? People the queen just
likes?

BUT I do like the principle that someone gets a lifetime sinecure in
exchange for considering the affairs of the nation.

The worst thing that has happened to politics in my lifetime, is the
demise of the independently wealthy politician who didn't need to get
elected just to keep his job.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Sunday, 5 March 2017 06:53:04 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/03/17 21:10, bert wrote:
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current
Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It now
risks losing its credibility.

As others have said a totally elected house would lead to a challenge to
the authority of the commons as Lords claimed to represent constituents.
There is not much appetite for such a House.

So can I suggest the following

a) the absolute size of the HOL would be capped

b) a portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population). They would simply be elected in order of preference Members
would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years) but could then stand for
re-election

c) within a month of a general election each party could nominate a
group of members to represent them in proportion to the number of votes
they received. There could be a minimum percentage applied to qualify
for any members, say 5%. These members would serve until one month after
the next General Election when they could be re-nominated. Independents
would not reach the threshold.

d) as long as we have an Established Church then it should be represented.

e) Law Lords A number of the judiciary to be appointed to provide the
necessary legal expertise

f) Other Expertise This is where it gets difficult How to control the
introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and
expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs
entertainment, other religions sport etc. (Note the Honours System
exists to simply reward them for achievement). With a total cap on the
size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life
which would restrict new blood coming in or for a fixed term such as 15
years.

I've probably missed other categories.

Now where's my coat...

Brave attempt bert, but I think that you miss the historical point of an
upper chamber.

And that is that it should be selected by a process as unlike the lower
as possible, in order than any flaws in the lower chamber not be
reflected in the upper.

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it with
political appointees.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

Of course that leaves the question of who gets appointed.

I actually don't have an answer to that. Lottery? People the queen just
likes?

BUT I do like the principle that someone gets a lifetime sinecure in
exchange for considering the affairs of the nation.

The worst thing that has happened to politics in my lifetime, is the
demise of the independently wealthy politician who didn't need to get
elected just to keep his job.


It should be peopled with retired experts who do it for expenses only.
Numbers should be capped.
There should be a range of skills.
New members should have to apply and be interviewed.

On Sunday, 5 March 2017 08:13:21 UTC, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 06:53:04 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/03/17 21:10, bert wrote:
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

BUT I do like the principle that someone gets a lifetime sinecure in
exchange for considering the affairs of the nation.
snip

It should be peopled with retired experts who do it for expenses only.
Numbers should be capped.
There should be a range of skills.

sounds good

New members should have to apply and be interviewed.

by whom? The outcome of that would be group-think at best.


NT

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

On 04/03/17 21:10, bert wrote:
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current
Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It now
risks losing its credibility.

As others have said a totally elected house would lead to a challenge to
the authority of the commons as Lords claimed to represent constituents.
There is not much appetite for such a House.

So can I suggest the following

a) the absolute size of the HOL would be capped

b) a portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population). They would simply be elected in order of preference Members
would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years) but could then stand for
re-election

c) within a month of a general election each party could nominate a
group of members to represent them in proportion to the number of votes
they received. There could be a minimum percentage applied to qualify
for any members, say 5%. These members would serve until one month after
the next General Election when they could be re-nominated. Independents
would not reach the threshold.

d) as long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented.

e) Law Lords A number of the judiciary to be appointed to provide the
necessary legal expertise

f) Other Expertise This is where it gets difficult How to control the
introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and
expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs
entertainment, other religions sport etc. (Note the Honours System
exists to simply reward them for achievement). With a total cap on the
size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life
which would restrict new blood coming in or for a fixed term such as 15
years.

I've probably missed other categories.

Now where's my coat...

Brave attempt bert, but I think that you miss the historical point of an
upper chamber.

And that is that it should be selected by a process as unlike the lower as
possible, in order than any flaws in the lower chamber not be reflected in
the upper.

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it with
political appointees.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

Of course that leaves the question of who gets appointed.

I actually don't have an answer to that. Lottery? People the queen just
likes?

BUT I do like the principle that someone gets a lifetime sinecure in
exchange for considering the affairs of the nation.

The worst thing that has happened to politics in my lifetime, is the demise
of the independently wealthy politician who didn't need to get elected just
to keep his job.


Solution is simple: Get rid of EVERY appointed Peer of whatever political
colour, and keep the hereditary ones. It may seem totally illogical for them
to be in position, as they got there by birth right, but it worked when that
was the process as they were only answerable to themselves.

No system is ideal !

Andrew

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current
Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs and
so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

it's not "full of" Lib-Dem and Labour, it's just that there is no longer a
majority of Tories, like wot there used to be

the numbers a
Conservative 252
Labour 202
Liberal Democrats 102
Crossbenchers 177
Others 71

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It now
risks losing its credibility.

Agreed


tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it with
political appointees.

well he packed it with political appointees in order to redress the
imbalance of the Hereditaries who were almost universally Tories, giving the
Tories an inbuilt majority in the house of 100s

whilst you might be able to make a case that he didn't approach it in the
correct way, I don't think that you can reasonably argue that wishing to
seek equality (FSVO) in the house for all political parties is an abuse.

Arguably, the Tories abused the system in the HoL for the previous 10
decades.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

why not?

you appear to be attaching a meaning to the word peer that isn't actually
there (toff)

tim

On 05/03/17 13:41, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it
with political appointees.

well he packed it with political appointees in order to redress the
imbalance of the Hereditaries who were almost universally Tories, giving
the Tories an inbuilt majority in the house of 100s

whilst you might be able to make a case that he didn't approach it in
the correct way, I don't think that you can reasonably argue that
wishing to seek equality (FSVO) in the house for all political parties
is an abuse.

Arguably, the Tories abused the system in the HoL for the previous 10
decades.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

why not?

you appear to be attaching a meaning to the word peer that isn't
actually there (toff)

I see your comprehension has as usual failed you.

You cannot but read some class conscious implications.

What I meant was that the peers - members of the house of lords -
should not have any affiliations to any political parties whatsoever.



--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 05/03/17 13:41, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it
with political appointees.

well he packed it with political appointees in order to redress the
imbalance of the Hereditaries who were almost universally Tories, giving
the Tories an inbuilt majority in the house of 100s

whilst you might be able to make a case that he didn't approach it in
the correct way, I don't think that you can reasonably argue that
wishing to seek equality (FSVO) in the house for all political parties
is an abuse.

Arguably, the Tories abused the system in the HoL for the previous 10
decades.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

why not?

you appear to be attaching a meaning to the word peer that isn't
actually there (toff)

I see your comprehension has as usual failed you.

don't think so

all of your negative comment were aimed at "Labour" peers

at no time did you suggest that there was a problem with Tory peers

how on earth is one to guess that when you said Labour" you also included
"Tory"?

You cannot but read some class conscious implications.

because that was all you put in your post

What I meant was that the peers - members of the house of lords - should
not have any affiliations to any political parties whatsoever.

then you should have been clearer

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/03/17 21:10, bert wrote:
In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:44:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Actually I think under the current world climate, some of the current
Lords
decisions seem more sensible than those or our so called elected
members.

There is actually a very viable alternative.
There possibly is.
The HOL has become largely a well paid retirement home for failed MPs
and so it is not surprising that it is full of Lib-Dem and Labour.

It has grown inexorably and far exceeds the number of commons MPs It now
risks losing its credibility.

As others have said a totally elected house would lead to a challenge to
the authority of the commons as Lords claimed to represent constituents.
There is not much appetite for such a House.

So can I suggest the following

a) the absolute size of the HOL would be capped

b) a portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population). They would simply be elected in order of preference Members
would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years) but could then stand for
re-election

c) within a month of a general election each party could nominate a
group of members to represent them in proportion to the number of votes
they received. There could be a minimum percentage applied to qualify
for any members, say 5%. These members would serve until one month after
the next General Election when they could be re-nominated. Independents
would not reach the threshold.

d) as long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented.

e) Law Lords A number of the judiciary to be appointed to provide the
necessary legal expertise

f) Other Expertise This is where it gets difficult How to control the
introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and
expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs
entertainment, other religions sport etc. (Note the Honours System
exists to simply reward them for achievement). With a total cap on the
size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life
which would restrict new blood coming in or for a fixed term such as 15
years.

I've probably missed other categories.

Now where's my coat...

Brave attempt bert, but I think that you miss the historical point of an
upper chamber.

And that is that it should be selected by a process as unlike the lower as
possible, in order than any flaws in the lower chamber not be reflected in
the upper.

The terrifying (to me) abuse of the system by Blair was to pack it with
political appointees.

WE should not even be able to talk about a 'labour peer'...

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

Of course that leaves the question of who gets appointed.

I actually don't have an answer to that. Lottery? People the queen just
likes?

BUT I do like the principle that someone gets a lifetime sinecure in
exchange for considering the affairs of the nation.

The worst thing that has happened to politics in my lifetime, is the
demise of the independently wealthy politician who didn't need to get
elected just to keep his job.

But it is far from clear that those are what a modern economy
needs in a parliament. Trump is in fact just that.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone