House Of Lords Reform

No although I dont agree with much that Cleggy has proposed I do agree with the bare bones of this bill. However its been shockingly managed and is far too complex, but the idea is a good one.
How on earth in this day and age in the UK can we still accept hereditary peers, or indeed grace and favours peers gifted a place in the Lords from either party. Even worse when so few of these guys take their position seriously and seemingly have no interest in showing up for the vast majority of sittings, if indeed ever. Even local councillors will be required to attend a minimum number of meetings and votes.
Its a complete disgrace really, I do like the concept of a second chamber but there has to be some kind of public accountability or appointment on a merit basis in terms of a usefulness to the House. Time for a change I reckon, unfortunately Cleggy has probably messed up a great opportunity, plankton that he is.

There will always be a need for a second house as a balance to the first.

I also like the concept of that being non-political (meaning that there is no need to be voted into it and the reason for accepting or rejecting a bill is not party aligned).

How to achieve that is to prevent life peers appointed from a political background sitting in there. Hereditary peers remain as they have no real alignment and as many of them are communist swine as whigs these days.

Judges get a seat. As do very high level doctors. And then the pick of the crop across all industry sectors to balance it. They will provide the subject matter expertise that is obviously lacking in the commons.

It doesnt matter what political leanings the hereditary peers have, its just plain wrong that birthright entitles you to a say in the government of the country.
I dont have an issue with the experts in various fields having a say, though a lot of this expertise is present in the Commons anyway either at MP level or by using them on special committees. Its how the various business experts get their seats that is the issue really. There needs to be complete transparency to the public.

That's the point. It doesn't allow them a say in the governing of the country. That is done almost entirely within the remit of the commons. Very rarely does a peer get invited into government (excepting the judical system).

It allows them to provide a balance to a government which is elected by, and lets face it, the idiots that form the general public. I for one am not happy that some scrounging prick in tower hamlets has the ability to vote with as much weight as someone who works for a living and actually puts something into the pot through taxes instead of spending handouts on heroin.

Its certainly true there are people in this country I dont feel comfortable having a vote......

You aren't half going to be busy executing all the scrounging pricks LJ!

I have no reason to execute these sort of people Blue. I do however feel they should be put to a better use.

I remember when Blair first came to power and he told us the House Of Lords was in urgent need of reform and he would do it. here we are nearly 20-years later still talking about something that the vast majority of people want. Nothing like these prats looking after their own interests. They all need bombing out and a new bunch of people who are relavant putting in. Who these new people should be, should be the main talking point. Nothing of any relevance ever gets done with these old cronies, so anything that needs doing gets watered down until its useless under this system.

LondonJonnyO wrote:I have no reason to execute these sort of people Blue. I do however feel they should be put to a better use.

Agree absolutely LJ, whether they are agreeable to being put to better use is another question entirely!

Its all a case of mkaing the system work so that it actually makes sense for a lot of people who currently dont work to be able to work.
I think its a big misconception that people dont want to work but we need to help the ones who do to be able to. Better child care funding and facilities, a sensible view on housing benefit etc. Basically incentivise having a job as opposed to not having one.

I disagree with all benefits.

Can't afford to live? Go out and find a job paid for with room and board.

LondonJonnyO wrote:I disagree with all benefits.

Can't afford to live? Go out and find a job paid for with room and board.

So I take it you havent applied for or taken your child benefit ?

Nope. Not entitled to it anymore anyway.

That was a nice pay rise then!

You are until January 2013.
So how olds you first kid, 2 ? That would be 960 per year you havent taken...tax free...so closing in on 3k before it ends and Im assuming you also didnt take the £250 trust amount when he was born. Add on the £400 you would have got for your first one...quite a lot of cash to miss out on really.
But Ill take your word for it.

Digs.

I don't believe in benefits. In any way shape or form. I abhor the concept of the NHS. Free medical. In fact anything that is state sponsored. I have redirected my national insurance to my private pension scheme for example and expect nothing from the government when I get older.

Fair enough, couldnt agree less with pretty much everything you have a view on, but each to their own. Thats why its nice to live in a democratic society.

I have no issue with disagreement. But then as most people say I am further aligned to the right than the americans on most subjects.

LondonJonnyO wrote:

I have redirected my national insurance to my private pension scheme for example and expect nothing from the government when I get older.

I expect the government will have nothing to give when we get older.

one of the reasons I refuse to put into the public pot.

Which private hospital were your kids born in LJ ?

the portland