|
|
Post by gibman on Jan 25, 2009 8:49:20 GMT
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Jan 25, 2009 11:24:31 GMT
It certainly makes you proud to be British in Gordon Brown's Britain!  |
|
Woolf
New Member
Look for the rainbow, don't just stare at the rain.
Posts: 1,761
|
Post by Woolf on Jan 25, 2009 11:56:10 GMT
Be fair.
The going rate for a title is a least a million quid.
You have to expect them to try and get it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 25, 2009 13:12:54 GMT
The report from the Sunday Times is a bit more informative and names the peers involved. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581547.eceThe upper house needs root and branch reform. Sadly, the Tories are the sticking point here. They have refused any further reform after their fierce and failed resistance to expelling heriditory peers. |
|
Woolf
New Member
Look for the rainbow, don't just stare at the rain.
Posts: 1,761
|
Post by Woolf on Jan 25, 2009 14:10:12 GMT
Given the 'Cash for Peerages' scandal and now this, hereditary peers sound better.
Still far from the best option though.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 25, 2009 14:19:52 GMT
Disagree
Reform is needed.
Do we need an upper house?
If so, what sort?
|
|
|
|
Post by Foxy1 on Jan 25, 2009 14:43:28 GMT
do you think it's just the Lords? Might there not be a few MP's in the 'Other Place'
|
|
Woolf
New Member
Look for the rainbow, don't just stare at the rain.
Posts: 1,761
|
Post by Woolf on Jan 25, 2009 14:58:40 GMT
Reform is needed.
Most people cannot name their MP, even fewer can name their MEP.
People either vote for or against a party, not the person.
As it stands, the system in the UK needs a Upper House.
To act as brakes on the Lower House when they have to great a majority.
Perhaps if the appointment to the Upper House was taken away from the Government and given complete independence.
People only being considered for what they have done, not who they know or have lent money to.
That would help stop cronyism and back handers.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 25, 2009 15:04:18 GMT
To my mind, one of the best suggestions I've heard for an upper house would be made up of people who have distinguished themselves in their own walk of life, be it industry, a trade, commerce, entertainment, diplomatic corps and so on.
They would be appointed for, say, 10 years with a fixed number of Peers, for example 1000.
Appointements would be made by nomination to an independant committee made up of Peers themselves.
All part affiliations would be disallowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Jan 25, 2009 15:17:27 GMT
I wouldn't say it's a bad thing that most people can't name their MP. We operate a party system in the UK, which is why I agree with those who say there wasn't a need for a General Election when Blair handed over to Brown. We don't elect people, we elect party candidates based on their party's views. Policies should be bigger than personalities, but I think we've lost those days forever in this media era.
The upper house definitely needs reform, but what to?
People only being considered for what they have done, not who they know or have lent money to.
This notion is good, but almost impossible to carry out in practice. For example, those picking up OBEs, CBEs etc, are supposed to receive recognition for what they've achieved, but how often have you, or someone you know, said you don't agree with someone being granted their award, or that the whole honours system has lost its focus and should be scrapped?
Under this proposal, who gets into the upper house will be dependent upon the make up of the commission given the task of choosing representatives. If we were doing that now, we could have a second chamber consisting of David & Victoria Beckham, Girls Aloud, Kate Winslet (her sppeches might brighten it up though), Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand.......oh, and the token lollipop lady who spent 50 years looking after kids at the same crossing.
|
|
Woolf
New Member
Look for the rainbow, don't just stare at the rain.
Posts: 1,761
|
Post by Woolf on Jan 25, 2009 15:43:46 GMT
#8 was pretty much what i was suggesting.
People who have distinguished themselves in their own walk of life, be it industry, a trade, commerce, entertainment, diplomatic corps and so on.
You are still left with the problem you listed, how do you screen out the rubbish.
One idea, from watching the US elections and the appointment hearings.
All prospective new members are interviewed in open session, by a cross discipline panel and asked why they should be accepted into the Upper House.
This could be applied to the current peers, those that contribute nothing get shown the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 25, 2009 16:12:53 GMT
You are still left with the problem you listed, how do you screen out the rubbish. One idea, from watching the US elections and the appointment hearings. This is an interesting approach but would tend to favour those who make the best presentation rather than the best contribution. Having a large number, 1000, tends to produce a balanceing out. Appointment by the peers themselves will tend to reduce outside influence. I will also add one point that occures to me, namely that the upper house should not have the power to introduce legislation. They will only be able to amend legeslation presented by the Commons. I will also suggest a lower and upper age limit, say between, 40 and 70 years. There is, sadly, no system that can produce even a good result every time. |
|
Woolf
New Member
Look for the rainbow, don't just stare at the rain.
Posts: 1,761
|
Post by Woolf on Jan 25, 2009 17:49:45 GMT
As you say there is no perfect option.
The idea is to select the least worst.
The idea of the interview was more for the person to be able to be able to prove that they had the experience and knowledge.
Not how well they present themselves.
I could possible have worded #10 better, for clarity.
Like the idea of the age limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibman on Jan 26, 2009 7:31:38 GMT
So, judging from many of the replies, and looking at human motivations, ideally an upper house should be
1) a brake on an overzealous executive
2) Non partisan
3) Incorruptible
er.....isn't that what we had?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Jan 26, 2009 11:59:39 GMT
No.
What we had was a house where people inherited their seats.
|
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Jan 26, 2009 12:19:53 GMT
The thing with having people who inherited their seats is that you are less likely to get some scheming contributer to political party coffers in the place and even less likely to get the sort of political appointee who will vote whichever way the government tells him to vote.
You know the kind of government we have now. The parliament act to push through a ban on foxhunting and then the determination to control the lords in case there is any more opposition to nu labour bright ideas. Nu labour doesn't want the checks and balances of a democracy. It wants dictatorship by committee. It wants to be a politburo.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,030
|
Post by mids on Jan 26, 2009 12:22:49 GMT
Labour=scum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foxy1 on Jan 26, 2009 23:06:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gibman on Jan 27, 2009 6:52:05 GMT
What we had was a house where people inherited their seats.
And it worked remarkably well for hundreds of years, as it was supposed to - a safety valve. A house packed with people with a vested interest in the status quo. No axes to grind, minimal greed. Noblesse oblige.
In hindsight, I think it was a remarkably clever mechanism.
Then we fu**ed it up......
|
|
Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Jan 27, 2009 6:58:17 GMT
News today is that one in five are taking money.
Hate to say, I doubt if they are all Labour Peers
|
|
