Observer II Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 As Liebour effect their "reform" of the House of Lords, to remove unelected Peers of the Realm, it still leaves us with an upper House full of appointees by sitting PMs, used as patronage to Party donors and thus corrupt by any standard. If they were truly interested in cleaning out the stables, they would remove this antiquated system and replace it with a smaller elected chamber that recognised diverse political nature of the Nation. Until then, we are left with an expensive and corrupt system of democracy. 😠 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 The make up of the HOL: Life peers Hered Total Conservative 232 45 277 Labour 181 4 185 Crossbench 150 33 183 Liberal Democrat 75 4 79 Non-affiliated 39 2 41 Bishops 0 0 25 Democratic Unionist Party 6 0 6 Ulster Unionist Party 3 0 3 Green Party 2 0 2 Plaid Cymru 2 0 2 Conservative Independent 1 0 1 Lord Speaker 1 0 1 692 88 805 Labour's only interest is to reduce the Conservative's ability to oppose their Union paymasters interests in the Lords. Democracy isn't their concern just rigging the process. The effect on the Tories is significant on everyone else no so that is what they want to do. A bit of stuffing with their own later will follow. Democracy and fairness have never been what the Labour Party is about. Just self Interest. You should have learnt that by now from the Local Electoral boundary reviews and the decision to hold all out elections because the conservatives could not field candidates everywhere as Labour could (from the late Terry O'Neill) and the Liberal Democrats would stand where the tories did to attract the anti tory vote that Labour couldn't get. So we agree Labour is not interested in clearing out the stable (and never were), they are just a bunch of opportunists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 can you clarify the bishops number count? shows 0 life peers, 0 hereditary peers with a total of 25.....🕵️♂️ taking this into account then the 805 figure is wrong and should be 785... creative accounting maybe or just a mistake when inputting the figures? get rid of the life peers and you would only have 88 to worry about. or get rid of the hereditary peers and make the life peers a five year maximum term with no repeat for ten years and a total maximum number limited to 100 max per party. would get rid of 400 at a stroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 7 Author Report Share Posted September 7 We have the audacity to criticise "authoritarian" Governments around the world, when we have this glaring example of cronyism and corruption, which allows rich donors to dictate Gov policy rather than it's people. This won't change while we have the current duopoly in power, which places Party before people. 😠 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 Sid, The numbers are correct the 25 Bishops are neither Hereditary nor Life Peers; they are ex-officio - it goes with the job! They do have a vote and are mostly lefties. Given that the House of Lords inflicted many defeats on the last government the abolition of the hereditary peers gives the Labour party a working majority in both houses. There is a great deal of scrutiny work in Lords Select Committees and Joint Committees and I am not in favour of abolition because there would not be sufficient people to do the work which is undervalued for party political reasons. Obs, Authoritarianism and cronyism are not in the same league. The government in this country can be removed by the will of the people. In an authoritarian state like Russia there is no way the people can remove the government however corrupt and full of cronies it may be. The president Russia is a full tyrant and effectively a Tsar, the same is true in China, the British Monarch is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 5 hours ago, Confused52 said: The make up of the HOL: Life peers Hered Total Conservative 232 45 277 Labour 181 4 185 Crossbench 150 33 183 Liberal Democrat 75 4 79 Non-affiliated 39 2 41 Bishops 0 0 25 Democratic Unionist Party 6 0 6 Ulster Unionist Party 3 0 3 Green Party 2 0 2 Plaid Cymru 2 0 2 Conservative Independent 1 0 1 Lord Speaker 1 0 1 692 88 805 Labour's only interest is to reduce the Conservative's ability to oppose their Union paymasters interests in the Lords. Democracy isn't their concern just rigging the process. The effect on the Tories is significant on everyone else no so that is what they want to do. A bit of stuffing with their own later will follow. Democracy and fairness have never been what the Labour Party is about. Just self Interest. You should have learnt that by now from the Local Electoral boundary reviews and the decision to hold all out elections because the conservatives could not field candidates everywhere as Labour could (from the late Terry O'Neill) and the Liberal Democrats would stand where the tories did to attract the anti tory vote that Labour couldn't get. So we agree Labour is not interested in clearing out the stable (and never were), they are just a bunch of opportunists. No!!, it’s to make it fairer, you cannot be in favour of what goes on now, just look at how many stuffed in Tory peers there are!!, I’m in favour of getting rid and starting again, no one should get into the lords on how much they have donated!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 7 Author Report Share Posted September 7 1 hour ago, Confused52 said: Obs, Authoritarianism and cronyism are not in the same league. The government in this country can be removed by the will of the people. In an authoritarian state like Russia there is no way the people can remove the government however corrupt and full of cronies it may be. The president Russia is a full tyrant and effectively a Tsar, the same is true in China, the British Monarch is not. So, you wouldn't describe an old lady being sent to prison for a tweet as "authoritarianism" ? Our system is controlled by an unelected political elite, Starmer says he's more comfortable in Davos than London, and is pursuing a globalist agenda, which is against the interests of the Nation State and it's people, which is finally becoming apparent to the populace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 41 minutes ago, Lt Kije said: No!!, it’s to make it fairer, you cannot be in favour of what goes on now, just look at how many stuffed in Tory peers there are!!, I’m in favour of getting rid and starting again, no one should get into the lords on how much they have donated!!! The Lords isn't about being fairer it is about have able and experience people to help with the work of parliament. The right people for the job, I won't be swayed by your prejudice. ( I have my own!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 40 minutes ago, Observer II said: So, you wouldn't describe an old lady being sent to prison for a tweet as "authoritarianism" ? Our system is controlled by an unelected political elite, Starmer says he's more comfortable in Davos than London, and is pursuing a globalist agenda, which is against the interests of the Nation State and it's people, which is finally becoming apparent to the populace. No it was harsh and I thing that the courts are abusing social media for their own purposes but it does not meet the normal use of authoritarian. No our system is not controlled by the WEF, that is rubbish. Do you think the WEF told Starmer to overpay Public servants by 9 bn and let the rail unions of any productivity deals which were due to save 2 bn. I don't think the WEF told Labour to double their fiscal problem. If you want to believe the conspiracy rubbish at least keep it your self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 17 minutes ago, Confused52 said: The Lords isn't about being fairer it is about have able and experience people to help with the work of parliament. The right people for the job, I won't be swayed by your prejudice. ( I have my own!) Sorry I do not think you would be saying that if the positions were reversed and Labour had stuffed the lords as the Tories have done, personally I am against the lords as it stands now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 4 minutes ago, Lt Kije said: Sorry I do not think you would be saying that if the positions were reversed and Labour had stuffed the lords as the Tories have done, personally I am against the lords as it stands now It is a cyclical thing. It will be stuffed with Labour by the time the Tories get in again and having full control of both houses tends to bad and ill-considered law making. It should be an effort to make it right, if it is really important there will be consensus anyway, The Americans understand this and usually try to split control between the parties, the electoral cycle cycle in the HR helps. I am against easy bad law making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 7 Author Report Share Posted September 7 Bad to worse, quoting the US system, which has been well and truly corrupted, with both sides depending on doners to fund their elections, making them mouthpieces for the military-industrial lobby and the Jewish lobby, totally alien to the interests of the US populace. At least they have the first ammendment, but even that is now under threat by the politicisation of the agencies of the State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 7 Report Share Posted September 7 7 minutes ago, Observer II said: Bad to worse, quoting the US system, which has been well and truly corrupted, with both sides depending on doners to fund their elections, making them mouthpieces for the military-industrial lobby and the Jewish lobby, totally alien to the interests of the US populace. At least they have the first ammendment, but even that is now under threat by the politicisation of the agencies of the State. As usual you have corrupted the comment for your own agenda. What you wrote has no relevance to the American public's apparent preference for a split Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 7 Author Report Share Posted September 7 Nothing wrong with the principle of the US constitution, which was based on that of the Iraquios Indian one, observed by Franklin. The US consitution sought the seperation of powers between the Executive, the legislature and the judicery, which, with the advent of "lawfare" against Trump, has been sadly undermined. Likewise, in the UK, the involvement of the PM (executive) in the function of the judicery, by telling judges how to deal with political dissidents, is evidence of Starmer's totalitarian aspirations. There are simple ways to provide a balanced and representative democracy, wholly commited to the aspirations the people rather than elites, and that would be to replace the HoL with an elected Senate, based on a direct percentage of votes cast at a GE, thus bringing PR at a stroke. This of course would be anathema to the ruling elite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.