I think that's a good post.

We just need to make sure that our elected politicians do not abuse their position by elevating cronies to the Lords. If the Lords is genuinely made up of very wise, elders then that is the best possible scenario. Much. much better than elected self-serving muppets with a 15 year tenure!

It's a problem for sure. Most potential replacements of the current system have their own problems - e.g. an elected upper house vs lower house potentially causes a lot of issues. I quite like the Australian system - upper house effectively elected by a full PR system, but elections staggered so that upper and lower houses are elected separately. Although the balance here may be provided by far more important State governments - without that maybe it wouldn't work so well?

There are all sorts of stupid viewpoints held by all manner of people in this country. Should they [iall[/i be represented in the Lords? There is no place for religion - any religion - in matters of the state. We should not be basing 21st Century laws on the unsubstantiated claims made in a 1st/2nd Century text.

Why not if those texts prescribe a sensible way of living that has served the country well for centuries?

It's hugely tempting, but I'm not getting into that lest this thread goes the way of so many others just recently. Suffice it to say that it's difficult enough to enact legislation that is well-drafted and fit for purpose, without the added complication of pandering to superstition and dogma. Let's not forget that the CofE are still trying to oppress groups of people based on their religious texts, as well as making crass (at best) statements in the press about how certain natural events are God's punishment for homosexuality and whatnot. Such people should be nowhere near the legislative process.

Randomly select the House of Lords from all adults in the UK. It would be as fair as the sperm lottery and the political ar$e licking that decides who's in there now.

If you want a HoL that represents all the people, select it from all the people. And if that means we have Kirkstaller and Dave Titan in there then so be it.

How on Earth is the average, semi-literate Chav going to review and comment on complex legislation, innit?

Legislation shouldn't be so complex that your "average" anyone cannot understand it - the current incumbents in the HoL will include many who could not read from one end of a white paper to the other and describe what it is they've just read.

On the matter of literacy, semi or otherwise, 'chav' is not a proper noun.

And you're probably right: after all, you don't appear to know that Marxism is not a synonym for Leninism.

It is in Leeds.

What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/

What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/

Like I said, if we get Dave Titan, we get Dave Titan.

Quote ="Dally"What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/'" 22% - I am from Gipton though so that's pretty low. I see nothing wrong with own brand beans or shopping at Co-op - in fact I proposed to my wife outside the Co-op. I have never had a pot noodle though.

Quote ="Dally"What percentage chav are you (answer honestly)? chavstest.com/'" 22% - I am from Gipton though so that's pretty low. I see nothing wrong with own brand beans or shopping at Co-op - in fact I proposed to my wife outside the Co-op. I have never had a pot noodle though.

I got 26% - Had a couple of Pot Noodles once and have been to the Co-op!

So having a state education is a sign of chaviness?

What utter snob-based rubbish. Still, one we had posted on here previously also included going on a P&O ferry, FFS.

You are joking, right?

I personally don't think the current setup is as bad as some would make out, and, contrary to what some people might believe, I think the Bishops are very much out of place in such a chamber.

There is no doubting that we would not create the House of Lords if given the chance to create a second chamber from scratch in the 21st century. It's basically the privileged who have only won their place at the top table through centuries of unequal opportunity.

That said, I fail to see the benefits of a radical overhaul. IMO such reform is only being pursued in the name of purifying our democracy further, whatever that means. Clegg's tried arguing that people are disengaged from politics and that legitimising the upper chamber would help restore faith in the political system, but I disagree strongly with that. People have always been turned off by politics. Just let the people moan and concentrate on sorting the country out.

What was the last major Bill to be totally screwed by the HoL?

How do you come to this conclusion? What purpose do you think the HoL serves and what examples can you supply to prove this claim?



Really? Who do you think pushed for universal suffrage, an end to slavery, the ten and then eight hour working day, an end to child labour, the right to collective bargaining, consumer rights, health and safety at work, tobacco restrictions, environmental protection etc?

Are you completely unaware of the rich and varied history of popular political struggle throughout the country right up to WWII which ultimately resulted in the creations of the NHS - or do you think that was solely the work of benevolent politicians?

Do you know how many political newspapers and pamphlets were sold and distributed throughout the NW alone around the turn of the 20th century?

The Parliament act tends to obviate that.
Also, the fact that PMs can stuff the Lords with nominees tends to obviate it too.

If it was made too simple to understand half the lawyers would be out of work as we wouldn't need as many to charge us the earth to explain it to us

I think it's the other way round, the statutes are so simply phrased that they aren't really specific enough ... and that's why judges have to interpret them, and then thereafter lawyers can quote prior case law.

At least, I think that's how it works.

Dunno what HoL is like at the moment but there are currently about eight MPs in the HoC, discussing the Scrap Metal Bill.

Strangely enough David Heath MP (LimpDem Somerton & Frome) isn't in his usual seat. He is the portly, bearded Toby Jug who normally resides on the right of the government front bench (left as you look at your screen). I can only assume he may have got someone to remove the rivets from his ar[is[/ie that have kept him in that seat since 2010.

Not entirely.

There is an argument that if you want a population to control itself by consent then the very least that could be expected is for that population to understand what the parameters of their behaviour should be, ideally through not having to visit a solicitors office for an explanation every time they want to step outside of their normal patterns of behaviour.

Of course, it would be nice for the legal profession to have to hold everyones hand as they make their way through life, for an hourly fee of course.

Sheldon, I am a non-believer myself but acknowledge that a large number of people in the country believe the fairy stories in various religious texts. As quite a few scientists, preferably including Richard Dawkins, would be among the experts / academics co-opted into the Lords any OTT religious rubbish would soon be shot down by a barrage of facts and common sense. They (god botherers / allah agitators) then can't protest that their religious point a view wasn't listened to; it will have been noted and shown to be the nonsense it is and consigned to the bin.

But that is such a naive argument that nobody would seriously advance it. And I'm sure you don't believe it for a second.

For a start, legislation, both primary and secondary, burgeons at an astonishing rate, and the vast majority of it is mind-numbingly tedious, complicated and impenetrable. Hundreds of Acts and thousands of Statutory Instruments become law each year, and most people wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of understanding many of them. That's just how it is.

A random example:
The Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which amend the Batteries and Accumulators (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2008(1), and which you would also first need to know, to understand what the amendments do;
[urlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1139/regulation/2/made[/url
Let me cite one random provision.

To understand that, you need to understand Directive 2006/66/EC. Here it is:
[urlhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:266:0001:01:EN:HTML[/url
Can you tell me what percentage of the people you know could understand this stuff?

But the main point is that the overwhelming majority of the population have NEVER read a Statute, not one, not ever. They are subject to all that law, but have no interest in it. People do understand what the parameters of their bahviour should be, by and large, but it is nonsense to suggest that their understanding is in any way gleaned from reading Acts of Parliament or SIs!


I concur