|
U-Know! Forum » House of Lords |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Captain Starlet 1110 posts |
Oct 25, 2015, 22:52
|
||
|
I've been thinking about this for a while. Although I'm opposed to the idea of an unelected house representing the country now and again it's been a bit of a safeguard against idiotic govt policies. Tomorrow they'll be debating the tax credit cuts policy that the tories are trying to bring in, and hopefully they'll throw it out, as it should be. As another threat to the HoL the tories have threatened to suspend the house if they refuse to support the policy. Will tomorrow be the day democrat dies or did I miss it's death a while ago? I see this 'government' as nothing more than a petty dictatorship, needs to be gotten rid of!
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Edited Oct 26, 2015, 07:13
Oct 26, 2015, 07:11
|
||
|
Says a lot about how 'tics have inexorably shifted to the right when a bunch've blue bloods suddenly sound like the voices of reason. I still think the early ancient Greek parliamentary system sounded the most promising, which was more like jury duty and consisted of members of the public with no vested interest in their own career arcs or playing the long game, ascending to public office for a little while, before going back to their regular lives again. It's awfully unsporting doing shit like this and tactically changing the voting regions in an equally beneficial way so that they're permanently ensconced in power. Still, I can't quite shake the image of Peter O'Toole in the last scene of The Ruling Class going to take his seat on the House of Lords, and suddenly realising he is in a nest of cobweb-covered skeletons and zombies. Whether they happen to be fairly decent chaps or not, they should not be there. It would be pretty selfish of me to pretend otherwise just because they're annoying the people I hate right now. We seem to be finding it harder to shake off the last few traces of medieval fog from our democratic processes than most countries. I suppose this is our equivalent of keeping gun possession laws intact because they were written on a worshipped historical document hundreds of years ago. Aside from a few bedrocks to limit maverick politicos from over-exerting their power, the law should be as fluid and changeable as the world. And yet the last significant political upheavel came about only after our wives refused to make us dinner anymore until they got the vote.
|
|||
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Oct 26, 2015, 09:37
Oct 26, 2015, 09:14
|
||
|
Cons are way outnumbered of course, which helps. A second chamber is a good idea for purposes of scrutiny, one that is elected even so. The HOL recently killed off a motion regards ending wind farm subsidies. Lib Dems wanted this HOL should be elected reform, Labour and Cons didn't. Funny seeing cons now froth at the gub over 'this unelected chamber'. Lid Dem peers want Tax Credit policy killed off, Labour peers want policy delayed so as to allow it to coincide with wage rises etc. Bishops are just twiddling their thumbs and praying to god about how 'regrettable' it all is. Hmmm. Very useful. Looks like something will give. Lords can't vote on treasury matters (sort of), but this isn't being put through as a treasury issue even though it's financial. Dunno of Osbourne was testing the water or not, knowing that technically the HOL could intervene, but why oh why so many Cons are expressing 'concern' when every last miserable one of them voted for it is a mystery. Cons won't flood HOL with more cons or shut the place down or any of that, too many commentators know the trouble that would cause. What we are seeing now is regardless of the obvious that cons are a 'shower of bastards' left to their own devices as a majority govt they are also more witheringly something of a gaggle of amateurs. I mean offering then swiftly withdrawing the Saudi's tips on how to 'treat people in jail' when Friday is 'bring the kids to a beheading' day is a bit daft, ain't it?
|
|||
spencer 3071 posts |
Oct 26, 2015, 10:17
|
||
Hereditary element or not, the HoL is a valuable potential check on government excess. There are some wise and compasionate heads there. While the Cons may not retaliate by a flood of partisan appointments - I don't doubt they want to - they've unfortunately got five years to alter its makeup with a steady trickle.
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Oct 26, 2015, 11:02
|
||
|
spencer wrote: Hereditary element or not, the HoL is a valuable potential check on government excess. There are some wise and compasionate heads there. While the Cons may not retaliate by a flood of partisan appointments - I don't doubt they want to - they've unfortunately got five years to alter its makeup with a steady trickle. Soon as they appoint even 'one' new peer if the Lords are in any way successful the scrutiny will be huge because they will come with the immediate label of 'one of those tax credits appointments' as will then next and then the next. Usually we pay not much heed to that sort of thing, we have now. More so that certainly I can remember. And there is also the long standing gripe from all quarters that the HOL is too big anyway (around 800 of them I think). Actually I am surprised at the lack of voices from women's groups re tax credits, as it was a long standing argument that for some women in not so happy circumstances that little bit extra a week gives them a little bit of financial independence. A nice little thing to get through the post with your Xmas cards though, that your family is about to lose over a thousand pounds a year.
|
|||
|
spencer 3071 posts |
Oct 26, 2015, 14:02
|
||
Yup. It's certainly going to have an impact here. Not happy. Still, if they don't mind losing the low income Con vote...
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Oct 26, 2015, 14:45
|
||
|
We've got one kid and are in receipt of them too. Who knows what's next. Andrew Marr asked prize dunce Nicky Morgan if she ever thought about the fact many teaching assistants (seeing as she concerns herself with education)would be potentially clobbered. Un-real.
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Oct 26, 2015, 21:00
|
||
|
Well, that was quite satisfying. Loving the reaction from No10 that this is a constitutional crisis - people who are there to vote on things vote on something = constitutional crisis.
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Oct 26, 2015, 21:50
|
||
|
Well on a personal front I am somewhat relieved but still a bit queasy over it all. Usually though when bringing forth legislation party line schpeel comes replete with 'proven studies' and 'expert opinion' (and to some degree they usually get some yes man to toe the line) but not one Tory could even feign that one. Obviously losing £50 a week is an unimaginable thing for anyone to worry about so they thought 'sod it the proles won't notice'. Looks like a 3 year 'grace' period of sorts, just nice and close to next GE campaigning, when the whole sorry saga will rekindle. What a miserable 5 years they got in front of them. :)
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6216 posts |
Oct 26, 2015, 22:56
|
||
|
Yep, it's a pretty sickening austerity tactic although entirely unsurprising. I've been more surprised by the media stories over the last few weeks where "noble and dignified working class types" (led by the crying woman on Question Time) have expressed shock and horror that the lovely caring Tories they voted for in May turned out to be less cuddly than they were led to believe. I've never ever understood the viewpoint that some working class voters have at every GE that the Tory party is in any way on "their" side.
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
