FabSwingers.com mobile

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Lords

Jump to newest
 

By *ucka39 OP   Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

What's your opinion on the topic them thinking about scrapping the lord's so the public have more say

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan
over a year ago

Hastings

Where would you play test ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ip73Man
over a year ago

Stanwell

Would rather put the lower house on minimum wage and anything extra is performance related.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"What's your opinion on the topic them thinking about scrapping the lord's so the public have more say "

Certainly could do with slimming down. The public elect parliament and look at the state of that place

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucka39 OP   Man
over a year ago

Newcastle


"What's your opinion on the topic them thinking about scrapping the lord's so the public have more say

Certainly could do with slimming down. The public elect parliament and look at the state of that place"

It would save a lot of money if they did cut back

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hybloke67Man
over a year ago

ROMFORD


"What's your opinion on the topic them thinking about scrapping the lord's so the public have more say "

Stupid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

Do away with hereditary peers and limit the amount any one party may have in the Lords at any one time .still allow nominations but let the public vote on them no more peerages for patronage .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Why should the public have any say?

They already vote for MPs and party policies.

The Upper House is to review the legislation to make sure that it is well thought out and workable.

It needs actual experts not more amateurs selected in a beauty/popularity contest. It would be filled with "celebrities".

Transparent appointments committee deliberately seeking a plurality of knowledge and experience and backgrounds. Medicine to Trades unions, to engineers to poets.

No political appointments at all. No requirement to be popular, be influenced by the press or brown nose.

Indifferent about hereditary peers if it is down to single figures as they do represent a historical thread that has some significance to this country.

Total numbers don't matter as they don't all have to sit all the time. They only come in when they have expertise to contribute.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Why does anybody want another building full of people like our current MPs driven by party politics and the press?

What should the Upper House do?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A chamber of government that the common man has no say in electing? Honestly surprised the farce has taken so long to come to the public eye.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is hardly a new idea.

There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.

In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.

Well, until they ducked out of it.

Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"A chamber of government that the common man has no say in electing? Honestly surprised the farce has taken so long to come to the public eye."

Why do you want a second chamber with the same kinds of people chosen in the same way as the first chamber?

Do you think that out MPs are good? Do you want more of them?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"This is hardly a new idea.

There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.

In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.

Well, until they ducked out of it.

Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards"

What actually needs to be reformed?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge


"This is hardly a new idea.

There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.

In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.

Well, until they ducked out of it.

Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards

What actually needs to be reformed?"

who and how people are appointed to the lords for a start less party donors and cronys from left or right and more people from industry science education and yes arts and sport plus people from charities voulenteer groups etc .a broad spectrum from accross the populace

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich


"Why should the public have any say?

They already vote for MPs and party policies.

The Upper House is to review the legislation to make sure that it is well thought out and workable.

It needs actual experts not more amateurs selected in a beauty/popularity contest. It would be filled with "celebrities".

Transparent appointments committee deliberately seeking a plurality of knowledge and experience and backgrounds. Medicine to Trades unions, to engineers to poets.

No political appointments at all. No requirement to be popular, be influenced by the press or brown nose.

Indifferent about hereditary peers if it is down to single figures as they do represent a historical thread that has some significance to this country.

Total numbers don't matter as they don't all have to sit all the time. They only come in when they have expertise to contribute."

In high numbers, they all trooped in, sometimes helped in off ambulances, in the 1990s to block the equalising of the gay age of consent because of their 'expertise' on the matter. Tony Blair's democratically elected New Labour Government had to force the legislation through using the Parliament Act, since the Commons must always have it's way.

As long as the replacement really does contain a 'plurality of knowledge and experience' rather than a plurality of prejudice, I don't suppose reasonable members of the electorate will be too bothered.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"This is hardly a new idea.

There has been talks of Lords reform / scrapping the HOL for decades.

In fact, when Cameron first became PM back in 2010 there was a suggestion that the coalition government might actually do something about it.

Well, until they ducked out of it.

Every so often the subject comes up, gets talked about, promises to act get made, but when it comes to it, they're all cowards

What actually needs to be reformed?who and how people are appointed to the lords for a start less party donors and cronys from left or right and more people from industry science education and yes arts and sport plus people from charities voulenteer groups etc .a broad spectrum from accross the populace "

I agree with that. The more engaged and competent members of the Lord's are exactly these people.

It's the political appointees that are the problem.

However, an elected chamber will never accomplish this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"Why should the public have any say?

They already vote for MPs and party policies.

The Upper House is to review the legislation to make sure that it is well thought out and workable.

It needs actual experts not more amateurs selected in a beauty/popularity contest. It would be filled with "celebrities".

Transparent appointments committee deliberately seeking a plurality of knowledge and experience and backgrounds. Medicine to Trades unions, to engineers to poets.

No political appointments at all. No requirement to be popular, be influenced by the press or brown nose.

Indifferent about hereditary peers if it is down to single figures as they do represent a historical thread that has some significance to this country.

Total numbers don't matter as they don't all have to sit all the time. They only come in when they have expertise to contribute.

In high numbers, they all trooped in, sometimes helped in off ambulances, in the 1990s to block the equalising of the gay age of consent because of their 'expertise' on the matter. Tony Blair's democratically elected New Labour Government had to force the legislation through using the Parliament Act, since the Commons must always have it's way.

As long as the replacement really does contain a 'plurality of knowledge and experience' rather than a plurality of prejudice, I don't suppose reasonable members of the electorate will be too bothered.

"

That's why the seats held by the hereditary peerage was cut so drastically on 1999.

That is also why the Parliament Act exists. So that the elected House remains primary.

That's why it's selection should be as far away from politics and the press and transient opinion as possible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the House of Lords should be left alone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"I think the House of Lords should be left alone."

You don't even want to remove the political appointees?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the House of Lords should be left alone.

You don't even want to remove the political appointees?"

I think it should be left alone, that's all. IMHO

I have read the other comments on this thread, which I have learnt from.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How would Mone be able to fleece the public purse if she wasn’t in the Lords.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"How would Mone be able to fleece the public purse if she wasn’t in the Lords."

She wouldn't.

She was a political appointee though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top