An elected Lords is simply not the answer... (From St Helens Star)
Send us news by text, start your message Star News and your send photos and videos to 80360
An elected House of Lords is simply not the answer...
9:49am Thursday 19th July 2012 in Letters By Reader letter
I FOR one am relieved that the Government has decided not to pursue the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords.
The purpose of the Upper House is to review the work of the Commons and act as a safety net for much of the nonsense produced there.
If you listen to what happens in the Lords, you will hear more common sense spoken there than ever you will hear in the Commons.
Compared to the Lords, the Commons is like a playground full of squabbling children, all looking to get themselves noticed and get re-elected at all costs, even to the detriment of the long term good of the country.
The record of the elected Lower House in looking after the country is nothing to be proud of, especially after the scandals of the last few years, so an elected Upper House is the last thing we need, particularly as it would be 15 years before we could get any of them out again!
I am not saying there is no need to reform the Lords, especially how and who appoints them, but I repeat, an elected House of Lords is not the answer.
Jim Cunliffe, West Park
Comments(15)
jumper
says...
8:12pm Thu 19 Jul 12
closer than the H o L who may have been in for longer than 15 yrs. What happens about that problem.
Sankey
says...
9:55pm Thu 19 Jul 12
jumper wrote:I can answer that
You could be right,what about if people do not deliver their manifesto.i can think of somewhere a bit
closer than the H o L who may have been in for longer than 15 yrs. What happens about that problem.
Nothing at all....
He's ours for life
mikeperry109
says...
1:05am Fri 20 Jul 12
However, if we adapt the same system as is being suggested, we will end up with the same faceless representatives as we have in that great useless white elephant, the European Parliament.
anthonywilson
says...
2:21am Fri 20 Jul 12
mikeperry109 wrote:Absolutely spot on Mike. Heriditary positions and patronage have absolutely no place in a country that is supposed to be a democracy no matter how good the occupants are.
The House of Lords is an anachronism and an affront to modern democracy. Whatever the quality of the occupants - and there are some good ones - why should we have a revising chamber based on heredity, being a bishop, being a mate of a past prime minister, or being rich enough to make a huge donation to a political party?
However, if we adapt the same system as is being suggested, we will end up with the same faceless representatives as we have in that great useless white elephant, the European Parliament.
There are far more people in the House of Lords than elected members in the Commons and it needs to be trimmed down.
The Lords should be made up of independent people elected and not appointed for a maximum eight year term of office.
Bill Bradbury
says...
7:39am Fri 20 Jul 12
At present it can be a "rest home" for ex politicos but before any talk of reform we need a constitution which lays down its paramiters. I am not opposed to an upper chamber for at times it does modify the damage of legislation coming from the Commons. Elected?-- no way-more mouths in the political trough and why I oppose elected Mayors and Police Commissioners with big fat salaries and a back office staff as well. Nice work if you can get it. Yet another Tory distraction from the plight of the economy and how people are coping. Bread and Circuses next aping the Decline of the Roman Empire.
Sankey
says...
9:00am Fri 20 Jul 12
jumper
says...
9:45am Fri 20 Jul 12
Sankey
says...
10:32am Fri 20 Jul 12
jumper wrote:Sentance does not make sense
It's not legitimate to say one thing and not do it to get voted in and then have no come backs.Sankey a bit closer to home.
PM
says...
11:30am Fri 20 Jul 12
mikeperry109
says...
11:36am Fri 20 Jul 12
PM wrote:Totally agree, PM, but will it be the same as for the election of Police Commissioners and MPs? A candidate has to find £500.00 to register and then fund all election expenses and publicity themselves. This ensures only those with adequate funding can stand - which is surely anti-democratic.-, and plays into the hands of wealthy individuals and political parties.
You simply can't have an unelected second chamber and call yourselves a democracy. People have to be accountable to the people , not the patronage of political parties. I would set aside 51% of seats for independents, voted for by the public.This would ensure no party can force through legislation without proper non political debate and co-operation.
Bill Bradbury
says...
11:48am Fri 20 Jul 12
PM wrote:Electing a 1st.Chamber is all the democracy I want and at times have my doubts about that! Electing a second to my mind is hedging one's bets and not showing much confidence in my first decision in electing my MP.
You simply can't have an unelected second chamber and call yourselves a democracy. People have to be accountable to the people , not the patronage of political parties. I would set aside 51% of seats for independents, voted for by the public.This would ensure no party can force through legislation without proper non political debate and co-operation.
Mike makes a very good point over how independents have an uphill struggle against Party Machines. Going back to my original point the whole thing is a distraction.
If any of you watched the programme on the French High speed train on Wednesady it just shows how far we have fallen behind in innovation when Thatcher closed down all our research at Derby for Engines and when I saw the expansion of a high speeed rail system through all those countries that are supposed to have no money (Spain, France and italy) and we are still dithering over HS2 nothing started yet nor likely to in the heart of Tory seats, no wonder this country is slipping back.
Sankey
says...
12:07pm Fri 20 Jul 12
jumper
says...
12:13pm Fri 20 Jul 12
.
Sankey
says...
12:25pm Fri 20 Jul 12
Sankey says...
1:11pm Thu 19 Jul 12