Should the House of Lords be able to pass legislation?
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04Os9zVeVnM&t=1s]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Yes IF the chamber is made up of those the PUBLIC deem fit to be there !
The 'forever argument' of this place is that there many Lords who have 'power and influence' by virtue of a 'birthright'.
Either through business connections or political ones.
Although those Peers who inherit their titles are no longer able to vote on legislation, one cannot overlook their 'influence' especially on issues drawn along 'party lines'.
To be an effective 'Second chamber' it's my view that NO sitting Lord should ever feel so comfortable as to think they are there for life !
So maybe they need to be elected just as Members of Parliament are.
As to the chambers 'Make up' with particular reference to being able to vote on legislation, Well it would be nice to think a mix of business; political; social; and legal minds might be best placed to discuss; argue; find a consensus and legislate accordingly.
Like i say. It would be nice to think...
The 'forever argument' of this place is that there many Lords who have 'power and influence' by virtue of a 'birthright'.
Either through business connections or political ones.
Although those Peers who inherit their titles are no longer able to vote on legislation, one cannot overlook their 'influence' especially on issues drawn along 'party lines'.
To be an effective 'Second chamber' it's my view that NO sitting Lord should ever feel so comfortable as to think they are there for life !
So maybe they need to be elected just as Members of Parliament are.
As to the chambers 'Make up' with particular reference to being able to vote on legislation, Well it would be nice to think a mix of business; political; social; and legal minds might be best placed to discuss; argue; find a consensus and legislate accordingly.
Like i say. It would be nice to think...
This message was deleted by its author.
oneperson · 31-35, M
You don't think the UK would become a plutocracy as a result?
oneperson · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2 of maybe having an elected house
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@oneperson What do you think it was between '79 and '97 ??
18 years of successive Conservative government and THEIR choice of peers being elected to the Lords !
That's why i think they should be elected by the public !
They don't get to represent wards or areas. So you lose the 'owned by business or political association' tag !
18 years of successive Conservative government and THEIR choice of peers being elected to the Lords !
That's why i think they should be elected by the public !
They don't get to represent wards or areas. So you lose the 'owned by business or political association' tag !
oneperson · 31-35, M
@Picklebobble2 I don't see how letting the middle class make decisions about the upper class is rational.
it's just naive.
it's just naive.
oneperson · 31-35, M
inheritance or no inheritance, the upper class is the upper class because it has more power than the lower classes. letting the middle class decide for the upper class is like filling a board room with bums.
oneperson · 31-35, M
by which I mean: even if they learned their function, they'd have neither experience, respect or insight.
oneperson · 31-35, M
insight being the key word
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@oneperson How do those of the 'upper class' have insight ?
oneperson · 31-35, M
you understand people run the system right?
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@oneperson How do those of the 'upper class' have insight ?
oneperson · 31-35, M
you understand people run the system right?
oneperson · 31-35, M
your pride prohibits your schooling. adorable
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@oneperson We live in a country that has seen private business take over every state owned asset.
Where the country used to own it's power; it's water; it's communication system etc. It was all put into private companies back in the 80's and 90's.
So many of those in the Lords sit on the boards of some of those companies and as a result have a vested interest in keeping the status quo as it is.
In other words it's not necessarily in their interests to do 'what's best for the country.
If they were part of an elected chamber the public could decide if they had acted in the best interest of the nation.
Where the country used to own it's power; it's water; it's communication system etc. It was all put into private companies back in the 80's and 90's.
So many of those in the Lords sit on the boards of some of those companies and as a result have a vested interest in keeping the status quo as it is.
In other words it's not necessarily in their interests to do 'what's best for the country.
If they were part of an elected chamber the public could decide if they had acted in the best interest of the nation.
oneperson · 31-35, M
you poor thing
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@oneperson And your responses show both a clear lack of understanding of the issue and a childishness that you should really be beyond.
oneperson · 31-35, M
yup