[Kizzy]

unelected decision makers 'life peers'.... Why do we have them?

'The former Marks & Spencer boss Sir Stuart Rose, the football executive and Apprentice star Karren Brady, the publisher Gail Rebuk, and the former Tory pollster Andrew Cooper are among the list of new working peers announced by Downing Street.

Of the 22, there are 12 Conservative peers, six Liberal Democrats, three Labour and one Democratic Unionist. Half are women.'

Is it a way for a party to get their supporters and backers more power and influence? Doesn't seem very democratic....

Do you think we should have them or not?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...rose-new-peers

[hijaxers]

No get rid of the lot of them

[arista]

"Doesn't seem very democratic...."


Yes New Labour had 13 years to change it
but they abused it all.

[Kizzy]

I asked for your opinion on whether there should be one or not, do you have one?

[arista]

No



its a mess

[joeysteele]

I am not impressed at all with it and even less with these just made.

[lostalex]

really the house of commons isn't even democratic, because they are voted for by party, not as individuals. and of course the prime minister. gordon brown was never elected by the british people but he was a prime minister!

it's not just the house of lords that shows how little democracy there is in the UK. (i don't even have to mention the monarchy)

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

really the house of commons isn't even democratic, because they are voted for by party, not as individuals. and of course the prime minister. gordon brown was never elected by the british people but he was a prime minister!

it's not just the house of lords that shows how little democracy there is in the UK. (i don't even have to mention the monarchy)

No PM is ever elected, he/she is just the leader of whichever party has the majority, if that leader switches during a period in government then that is accepted.

[CaudleHalbard]

Yes, a prime minister is not a president. He/she is appointed by the Queen on the basis of who leads the party, or coalition, which has a majority in parliament.

The prime minister can be changed without an election if, as in the case of Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown, their predecessor resigns.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

Yes, a prime minister is not a president. He/she is appointed by the Queen on the basis of who leads the party, or coalition, which has a majority in parliament.

The prime minister can be changed without an election if, as in the case of Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown, their predecessor resigns.

notice how they only seem to resign when they know they are going to lose an election, so the people still don't have the power, the parties can pretend they are changing and then the public doesn't even get the oppurtunity to vote them out. The political parties choose your leader, not the people.

Why not let the people choose their own Prime Minister??? (or their own Queen/King for that matter) even if their chosen leader isn't from the majority party(or from the right family)

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

notice how they only seem to resign when they know they are going to lose an election, so the people still don't have the power, the parties can pretend they are changing and then the public doesn't even get the oppurtunity to vote them out. The political parties choose your leader, not the people.

Why not let the people choose their own Prime Minister??? (or their own Queen/King for that matter) even if their chosen leader isn't from the majority party(or from the right family)

I don't agree with the presidential system, it seems to turn elections into popularity contests based on individuals not policies.

Anymore opinions on the house of lords? That's what's being questioned.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I don't agree with the presidential system, it seems to turn elections into popularity contests based on individuals not policies.

Anymore opinions on the house of lords? That's what's being questioned.

should people be given political power with no input from the people? i don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with that system dude. it doesn't sound fair or reasonable at all.

you already know that though. but you still have a hereditary monarchy. so it's not shocking

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

should people be given political power with no input from the people? i don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with that system dude. it doesn't sound fair or reasonable at all.

you already know that though. but you still have a hereditary monarchy. so it's not shocking

Why don't you start a thread and ask?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why don't you start a thread and ask?

umm, you already did. that's why i'm giving my opinion. wtf dude.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, you already did. that's why i'm giving my opinion. wtf dude.

Ah thought you were referring to the commons still sorry Alex, yes the lords has a say in lawmaking and they are unelected democratically so yes it's unfair.

[user104658]

Democracy itself is a bit of a joke when it comes down to it, to be honest. Because of the way it works, less than half of the population is represented by a government that they actually want. No matter who is in power.

[Niall]

I really don't get why we have these unelected old rich straight white men as one half of the legislative process either. It's fucking bewildering that a country as modern as this one still has such a backwards chamber voting on laws. It's even more bewildering when you add into the mix that several of those old mayonnaise idiots are actually bishops. I despair..

[GypsyGoth]

It does make it seem like there is a ruling class who are in control of the laws of the land.

Also apparently it is already the second-largest political chamber "in the world – only the National People's Assembly of China can compete." (source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...too-many-lords). Not that that is a bad thing but it does sound like it's grown too big for the country.

And actually I'm not too sure how I feel about such an organization. It does seem however that if the house of lords reflected the people more, rather than just the elite or big business, then maybe the laws in the land would be more beneficial to more people. However, the house of commons are elected, and they seem to be made up of the elite and politicians who do the bidding of big business.

So cynically I don't think it'd change much, only some different faces would be getting the perks and paychecks.

[arista]

Yes we were going to reduce the amount of peers
but the LibDem Leader fecked it up

[user104658]

I don't actually completely disagree with an unelected element of government, to be fair. The vast majority of people are straight up ****ing stupid, and can barely be trusted to tie their own shoelaces let alone make major decisions about the country they live in.

However, it blatantly shouldn't be as it is, an old boys club based more on who you know and what blood you have in your veins. It should be a merit based system.
One elected house, and one house comprised of the most accomplished sociologists, social psychologists, economists and philosophical thinkers the country has to offer. I'm talking world renowned people with multiple degrees and PhDs in their fields.

Just imagine it. Imagine how many retarded policies dreamt up by uncaring, out of touch public schoolboy career politicians could be stopped in their tracks. Imagine a government at least in part made up of truly enlightened and intelligent individuals?? It sounds too good to be true and so, alas, it is.

I dream of such a society.

A one house system is simply too risky. Even the bumbling Lords managed to (correctly) block a couple of David Camerosbourne Duncan Smith's worst ideas.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't actually completely disagree with an unelected element of government, to be fair. The vast majority of people are straight up ****ing stupid, and can barely be trusted to tie their own shoelaces let alone make major decisions about the country they live in.

However, it blatantly shouldn't be as it is, an old boys club based more on who you know and what blood you have in your veins. It should be a merit based system.
One elected house, and one house comprised of the most accomplished sociologists, social psychologists, economists and philosophical thinkers the country has to offer. I'm talking world renowned people with multiple degrees and PhDs in their fields.

Just imagine it. Imagine how many retarded policies dreamt up by uncaring, out of touch public schoolboy career politicians could be stopped in their tracks. Imagine a government at least in part made up of truly enlightened and intelligent individuals?? It sounds too good to be true and so, alas, it is.

I dream of such a society.

A one house system is simply too risky. Even the bumbling Lords managed to (correctly) block a couple of David Camerosbourne Duncan Smith's worst ideas.

But there is much to many of them.


Some just go in to clock on, then leave
to ensure they get money
That should be Criminal

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't actually completely disagree with an unelected element of government, to be fair. The vast majority of people are straight up ****ing stupid, and can barely be trusted to tie their own shoelaces let alone make major decisions about the country they live in.

However, it blatantly shouldn't be as it is, an old boys club based more on who you know and what blood you have in your veins. It should be a merit based system.
One elected house, and one house comprised of the most accomplished sociologists, social psychologists, economists and philosophical thinkers the country has to offer. I'm talking world renowned people with multiple degrees and PhDs in their fields.

Just imagine it. Imagine how many retarded policies dreamt up by uncaring, out of touch public schoolboy career politicians could be stopped in their tracks. Imagine a government at least in part made up of truly enlightened and intelligent individuals?? It sounds too good to be true and so, alas, it is.

I dream of such a society.

A one house system is simply too risky. Even the bumbling Lords managed to (correctly) block a couple of David Camerosbourne Duncan Smith's worst ideas.

Great post. I agree there should be a house of the brightest minds from all intellectual fields that wouldn't necessarily be democratically elected. The Lords is definitely not that, but it would be great if there was some type of system put in place to make it become that.

and what if we made it an unpaid job, then you really would attract the best who also don't do it for the money, just because they actually care and want to really work on an intellectually stimulating project.

I would love to see a 3rd house added to the US congress using such a system.

[Kizzy]

But they aren't these enlightened individuals, they're just yes men and stooges that have infiltrated the decision making process like a cancer.