The Upper House of Corruption.

[jonren]

"In the place of the hereditaries, Blair installed an army of placemen and political stooges on a scale unprecedented in modern British history.
Astonishingly, almost half of the current 732 strong membership of the Lords were created by Tony Blair — a total of some 357 peers in all."


www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1130083/PETER-OBORNE-For-centuries-Lords-beacon-integrity-Now-byword-sleaze-This-Blairs-REAL-legacy.html


Now it most certainly does need reform.

[voice]

Insomnia Jon?

[jonren]

Lifelong early riser,Voice. I start the day with coffee and nine tablets of various kinds. Not much fun but the forum takes my mind off problems.

[voice]

5.40 am is very bloody early though, and already jacked in.
Still quite few of my patients have similar problems, that old prostate has a lot to answer for.

[jonren]

Benign enlargement, Voice. Could be much worse, as you probably know. Together with HBP and rheumatoid arthritis, it aint much fun at times. Still, I keep smiling although an effort at times. Are you with the NHS?

[voice]

not ny more, in with Vancouver Coastal Health, not quite as good as the NHS, but the lifestyle here is more agreable

[jonren]

Almost moved to Toronto in '64 but chickened out while just awaiting a sailing date. I had already been accepted. I had a sister who went over to Calgary in '48 and stayed for the rest of her life. She, her husband and daughter, loved Canada.

[voice]

We've only been here about 14 months but we are staying for good, its not without its problems, but on the whole its better than a lot of places

[jonren]

Well done and all the best for the future. We had better return to the subject matter or we will be banished to chit-chat.

[voice]

yeah we've long needed a fully elected upper chamber, Blaire missed the boat, with his huge majority he could have get it through instead he dithered and played about with bascily a busted system

[gibman]

yeah we've long needed a fully elected upper chamber

Why? and an elected Head of State?
Obama spent 125 million dollars to get elected to a $400,000 a year job. Doesn't that strike you as obscene?

[minge tightly]

You know, when great sums of money are floating about, be it in the economy generally or in the hands of lobbyists and vested interests, there is an argument to be made for the Upper House to be stuffed full of those who don't particuarly need the money.

[mids]

I sort of agree Minge. It's a real dilemma. While I don't really like the idea of heriditary peerages being allowed to shape legislation, it can't be denied that they usually did a very good job and were relatively uninfluenced by money. The thought of an upper house full of elected career politicians doesn't fill me with much enthusiasm.

[minge tightly]

It is a dilemma Mids. I have a vague recollection of not liking the House of Lords pre-'97 preceisely because it was stuffed full of heriditary peers that were generally Tory and certainly not in tune with the trials and tribulations that us plebs have to live through.

But to replace them with a bunch of hand-chosen stooges, happy to take - and let's be honest here - bribes to influence legislation fills me, rightly or wrongly, with nostalgia for them.

I agree that an upper house filled with career politicians, even those who are elected, fills me with loathing. Even the idea of another elected chamber is utterly depressing and merely perpetuates the pathetic system in the Lower House that we're increasingly growing tired of.

[limeylily]

Jan 28, 2009 10:31:09 GMT mids said:

I sort of agree Minge. It's a real dilemma. While I don't really like the idea of heriditary peerages being allowed to shape legislation, it can't be denied that they usually did a very good job and were relatively uninfluenced by money. The thought of an upper house full of elected career politicians doesn't fill me with much enthusiasm.

I don't think hereditary peers are the answer. With so many of them on their uppers and having to allow the paying riffraff into their stately piles to pay off the death duties, they'd also be inclined to dump their noses into the trough. What is appalling with this fiasco is that it seems there is no legislation to cover this blatant misconduct by peers. An elected upper house might be the answer with laws brought in to cover misconduct and allow expulsion of offenders.

[gibman]

With so many of them on their uppers and having to allow the paying riffraff into their stately piles to pay off the death duties, they'd also be inclined to dump their noses into the trough

In the context of the "Hereditary" House of Lords, there doesn't appear to be much to backup that particular (bitter?) comment.
With the exception of Brockett (who didn't bring his financial issues into the House, as far as anyone is aware) and Lucan (there but for the grace god etc...)
However, career politicians become such, in my opinion, for one or more of three reasons:
1) Enrichment
2) Power
3) The view that they know better, and can make a difference.

None of these attributes is particularly beneficial in an Institution acting as a brake on daft legislation.

Likewise, an upper house filled with "real" people, with the usual worries & pressures are hardly people exempt from the 3 aforementioned motivators.

Much as the class warriors disliked it, the "original" HOL worked (as does the Monarchy), and provided a relatively constant point of reference in an increasingly corrupt world.

[tarrant]

Jan 28, 2009 10:25:30 GMT minge tightly said:

there is an argument to be made for the Upper House to be stuffed full of those who don't particuarly need the money.

You clearly don't have much knowledge of the workings of the upper house prior to the expulsion of hereditary peers.

The problem was they were entirely motivated by self interest.

Moreover, your assumption they don't need the money suggests you don't really understand the nature of the aristocracy in the UK.

Sorry to be blunt. I realise you don't like being contradicted.

If we are to have an upper house, then it really needs root and branch reform.

The sticking point is the Tories. Like it or not.

They accept the need for reform, they accepted the need for reform when it was still hereditary.

But like everything else about the Tories, they can't agree. They have so many different wings, each wanting to fly in its own direction. The end result is, nothing happens.

Blair, to his credit, got rid of the hereditary peers.

That was a good start.

The ball is in the Tories court now. They need to come up with sensible proposals as to what happens next.

[Woolf]

I may be wrong here.
But don't Labour have a majority in the HOC and are currently the government.

Blair got rid of most of the hereditry peers, there are still 90+ in the HOL.
Given that 357 were then appointed by Blair, he was just after control of both houses

[tarrant]

There can be few who don't have criticism of Blair.

But the fact remains that the ball is in the Tories' court. They have dismissed all proposals for reform. The expulsion of hereditary peers was done because their existence was an abomination.

But further reform cannot proceed without a consensus. That must come from the Tories.

Though I will add one point of view of my own.

No part of the upper house should be elected.

The upper house must be a stable body out of the reach of outside pressures.

[gibman]

The expulsion of hereditary peers was done because their existence was an abomination.

That is surely an opinion rather than a fact.

The HOL's whole existence is based on providing a check on the extremes of the executive.
Having a member(s) of that Institution take bribes (for that is what they are) in order to change law (or accept its change) is far more of an abomination.
By definition, the fact that someone has to pay to ensure the passage of such laws is a guarantee that it would not survive on its merits.............