|
|
Post by principled on Apr 20, 2011 16:50:53 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 20, 2011 17:41:08 GMT 1
This "historic nonsense", serves us far better than more of the same party political nonsense which we would get from an "elected" revising chamber. It's not broke. Doesn't need fixing. Does its job reasonably well. What more can you ask? "Election" is not the be all and end all of competence, or even close! You have seen my views on a citizen Parliament here new4science.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=56&page=2 |
|
|
|
Post by principled on Apr 20, 2011 19:45:21 GMT 1
Marchesa I'm surprised you feel that way about the House of Lords. It is built on privilege and and patronage. I would earnestly suggest that neither is a fit way of deciding who should sit and decide on laws that affect us and more importantly ME. I don't see why, just because I am a senior civil servant or because I happen to be in a financial position to swell the coffers of a particular political party that I deserve a knighthood. Your idea of a people's chamber could work, provided we get the selection procedure right. For example, in my life I have had just one fine and that was for parking a moped more than a foot from the pavement. So I'm sure I'd be top of the list.  |
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Apr 21, 2011 9:48:18 GMT 1
Pricipled.
First, a knighthood does not admit you to the house of Lords, but I am sure you knew that.
Second, although the Lords was built on privilege, patronage is now the admission ticket but it seems that once people enter the Lords and are free from the constrains of the whips an awful lot of them vote and act as independents regardless of party affiliations.
I can't believe that a system of elected 'Lords' would be any better than we have now, and as said elsewhere, if it ain't broke don't fix it. How would those elections work? On party lines no doubt, so the Lords would tend to mirror the commons in makeup, so would be even more or a rubber stamp than now.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 21, 2011 10:01:20 GMT 1
Parties are the purveyors of patronage in both houses of Parliament, Principled. But jonjel is right in observing that the Lords are a mine of expertise and remarkably "independent". Have you ever watched debates in the Lords? They put the Commons to shame. It is a very good revising chamber, whether "elected" or not.
Parties are the bane of politics. Parties are just an organised thrust for power.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 5, 2011 23:45:28 GMT 1
I was going to answer with a spiel about the Lords, but MM and Jonjel have said it better than me. If, however, the Lords were elected then as already stated it would be a mirror of the H of C. Well take a look at the Commons, time was the MP's were older, experienced people, who took a drop in emoluments to become a member. They brought with them expertise in many fields, You may have not liked all their decisions, but they could be respected. What have we now. Career politicians, whose only expertise is that gained by becoming an MP. One or two in the past may have made it that way, fair enough. The way we are going now they'll all be like it soon. The expression 'fit for the 21st Century' is a silly expression from the 'spinners' that has an inbuilt meaningless-ness that only they can bestow. Good results can come from any form of government, Yes, even a dictatorship [for a limited time], or a monarchy. We, in this Country, have the best mix of elected, hereditary, monarchical and in some cases [limited] dictatorial government in the World. Start meddelling much more it will be spoiled, and - don't You bloody forget it.
StuartG
|
|
