Started reading a book about the destruction of England and Blair'e new establishment this morning while away from home. One of the points was his whimsical removal of hereditary peers on the Lords without having thought through an alternative other than trying to stuff if full of politcal appointees, party donors, etc. Blow me I get the Sunday Times and as was predicted scandal, corruption, etc was alleged - and from Blait appontees too alegedly.

So, is this current over-bloated upper chamber really better? Does it really improve legislation? Does it really afford better protection to our democracy?

He wasn't interested in that cr@p.
He was too busy writing himself into history fighting his Christian crusades.

He's got a new fan in Tommy Robinson now, apparently.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/02/tony-blair-there-is-a-problem-within-islam_n_3373971.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/url

What is "whimsical" about getting rid of hereditary peers?
The scandals we are seeing are not a result of reforms, they are a result of greedy people being happy to use privilege to line their pockets... bear in mind that one of the accused is actually an elected MP.
Cameron highlighted lobbying three years ago and has done absolutely nothing about it ... and the Tories are closing ranks to try and blame the useless Clegg.
Specific and stringent rules are needed as well as equally stringent policing of those rules.
As for Lords reform, it has been stalled since the last election, indeed Cameron enthusiastically but quietly created more peers in his first year year than any PM ever (117 in one year), whilst promising to reduce the number of elected MPs !, which gives a picture of his strange idea of democracy.

Yep.
I'd increase the MP's salary from £65k to £100k
Cut the number of Lords from 760 to 350
Give the Lords a salary of £70k
Then stipulate an MP or Lord cannot have an income from any other source, and their and their spouse's bank accounts are open to monitoring by a Parliamentary body.
It probably would cost us more, but combined with elected Lords I think it'd be worth it.
The increase in MP's salary would cost a maximum of £22m, in reality it would be less since Ministers and Committee Chairs receive higher wages anyway
350 Lords @ £70k = £24.5m but Lords currently receive a daily allowance of £300 per day which probably costs around £10m currently.

I don't have a problem with them earning money from other sources, providing it's open and above board.
If an MP wants to write a book or moonlight on the tills at Asda, that's not an issue for me.
Other employment can mean a more rounded, experienced and grounded MP.
Where the problem can lie is in what the other employment entails.

On the other hand, when do they do this extra work? If Patrick Mercer is available to take on consultancy work for £1000 a day, when is he representing his constituents? Would anyone else be able to just not turn in one day and swan off doing a bit of paid consultancy elsewhere?

Fair point.
I don't know how you could regulate the proportion of time spent but, if other work was all open for scrutiny, at least voters could see when election time comes around again.

The second chamber should be purely elected under the single transferable vote scheme. If any of the incumbents, including the Lords Spiritual want a seat, let them fight for it.

No appointed or hereditary members at all, bin the bloody lot of them.

As for an MP's claimable expenses etc. We should do a deal with one of the card providers to enable each MP to have a Westminster Credit Card to cover all allowable expenses. Then at the end of every month, each MP's statement is published on the web in full. This would result in far greater public scrutiny and we could slash the operating costs of IPSA

I have worked, away from home, in Westminster, not for HMG but in very similar circumstances to MPs, travelling to London and back and staying there during the week.
I wasn't allowed to buy a second home or a duck house, my expenses had to be provable as necessary to do my job, to travel to that project, or as subsistence within the limits imposed by my employer and HMRC ... and always receipted.
I wasn't out of pocket, nor did I gain financially from the expenses.
All of which is straightforward and above board.
If I could do it, why can't MPs ?

Leaving aside people's objection on principle to hereditary peers, I am struggling to see how the current situation or paying members of the upper house or electing them would improve on what went before. In fact, aren't people of independent means, no axes to grind, and with long British family histories much better placed to look after the interests of our nation?

He's correct. You cannot ignore reality. You must face the world as it is not as you think it ought to be. The fact is there is alot of Muslim fanaticism. That will not go away by appeasement. Ultimately, it will either have to be crushed or crush our way of life. Bush and Blair were always right on this.

Does "independent means" equate to not being greedy? No.
Does "independent means" equate to best person for the job? No.
Does "independent means" exclude good people from the job? Very probably.

"No axes to grind"? ... yeah, right .... except for the major one of protecting the status quo in terms of their status and wealth.

"Long British family histories"? ... You can curtsey to the peerage if you wish but I don't score people higher just because their great great great great granny shagged the king or because they belong to a privileged remote elite or according to how long their families have owned stolen land.

Ah, Bush, that well-known non-religious non-fanatic.
The truth is that it's you Abrahamic god-botherers who get us into these crises.
Having a God is no substitute for having a conscience.

"You"?

Anyway, what is this conscience of which you speak? Does it entail letting people wanting to detroy your nation just go ahead?

So, back to the question - is the removal of hereditary peers likely to improve the functioning of the Lords and oour democracy or not?

Sorry if I insulted you by assuming you were a Christian.


Spoken like a Christian puzzled by the notion.


The nation includes Muslims, the overwhelming majority of whom have no terrorist intent.

Hereditary seats are, by definition, undemocratic.
Please engage brain before asking further questions.

How do you propose to crush this Islamic fanaticism then ?

What about a nice old fashioned crusade?

If you did this I am afraid it would only serve to drive the likes of Cameron, Osbourne, Maude etc out of politics altogether.

................ oh, wait a minute

Where is the "infinite facepalm" pic when you need it?

Yeah, a holy war.
Better than a Jihad innit?

The thing is, it's guaranteed to be effective. I mean, all the other holy wars succeeded in permanently crushing Islam, so there's no reason that this one won't, right?

Might as well take out the Jews at the same time then we can enjoy wonderful tolerant Christianity untroubled by people with strange religions.

Sounds good. I think anyone who refuses to take part in Dally's Britishness Ceremonies should be immediately shipped to the front line to be used as a human shield.