House of Lords Poll

[Rheghead]

How do the Orgers feel about the future format of the House of Lords?:)

[Humerous Vegetable]

I would prefer to see an elected (therefore accountable) second chamber, but fail to see why it should be restricted to peers.

[j4bberw0ck]

Agreed. Would be just as well to have some other safeguards in there, too, to prevent our more ambitiously self-centred politicians using it for their own agendas - for instance, an elected Upper Chamber should be absolutely politically neutral so it's not beholding to the government of the day. The idea of having Peers in there goes back, at least in part, to the days when having wealth and power was recognised as a privilege and produced a strong public service streak. That sort of philanthropic thinking is long gone amongst politicians (and most other places too).

[scotsboy]

Leave it alone, if it needs changing, just make sure that the proletariat are kept out;)

[percy toboggan]

Anyone proposing a 'scrapping' of the second chamber whilst we have a Government as LOW and conniving as this one must be daft.

Elected assembly the only way to go. Let the life peers stay until they die - the general idea anyway I think, same for the hereditaries.
A condition of election for 20% of the intake must be that they have never, in their lifetime earned more than £25.000 per annum.

[Humerous Vegetable]

Leave it alone, if it needs changing, just make sure that the proletariat are kept out;)
Fortunately for you, you don't seem to live in this country, so don't have to support these people. The Earl of Caithness, for example, claimed £57,000 in travel and subsistence for 2005 -2006. It's bad enough we have to pay for councillors, MSPs and MPs without these very wealthy and privileged free-loaders sticking their hands in our pockets too. I don't remember reading that he had made any significant contribution to parliamentary debate for his £57,000 either. Nor any other of the 100s we are paying for.

[Oddquine]

I think we do need a second House to be used as (hopefully) a brake to some of the more ludicrous legislation from the Government...............and for this reason, I'd like to see one with no political allegiances who can just vote with their consciences...and they should need a substantial number of non-aligned nominations to be allowed to stand in the first place.

I have no time for hereditary peers..........I don't think they should exist at all...............I can't see why the "princes" of the Church of England should automatically get a seat in the Lords...and I can't say I have been enamoured of many of the life peers elected by successive Governments...smacks too much of "jobs for the boys".

[weeboyagee]

You know this - I might be a bit far from the mark but the elected house seem to be the least in touch with the real views of the people at times. We put them there to do what we wish - not what they want - and don't give me the trash about the fact that we put them their with their manifesto - not worth the paper it is written on. Stories on paper to convince us to vote for them and then once they're in they don't deliver on many points of their political agenda.

Worse still, topics that come up during their term of election that were not covered for in their manifesto are not acted on in a manner that the fairly clear majority wish within the electorate!

The only people who can sometimes hault nonsense bills going through by the elected house are the peers who in my opinion are a necessity to ensure that the elected hosue don't have it THEIR own way (nothing to do with the electorate) the whole time.

Furthermore, the circus that I watched on television last night at Prime Ministers Questions and the media portrayal of it as television entertainment makes me ashamed that we are governed by such a bunch of twits that sit and have nothing more than I call "fun" at a days work slagging, mud-slinging, sneering etc. If they were employed in the private sector, any reasonable employer would fire most, if not all of them!

WBG :cool:

[fred]

You know this - I might be a bit far from the mark but the elected house seem to be the least in touch with the real views of the people at times. We put them there to do what we wish - not what they want - and don't give me the trash about the fact that we put them their with their manifesto - not worth the paper it is written on. Stories on paper to convince us to vote for them and then once they're in they don't deliver on many points of their political agenda.


The problem is that no party can get elected without the blessing of the newspaper owners so you get the ludicrous situation where a few people are telling the public what to think and the government what to do. You can tell what draconian law the Commons will be debating next month by what the tabloids are terrifying the public with today.

[Whitewater]

We do need a second house, it has proved usefull in the past by putting to rest some of the governments more outlandish bills. However, Tony Blair is rapidly trying to overcome that by filling it with his self appointed peers. In view of what he is trying to do I voted no, because if he succeeds we have not hope in the heavens of controlling this or any other government.

[peter macdonald]

its a great thing the House of Lords How much does it cost to get a seat now?????

[scotsboy]

Fortunately for you, you don't seem to live in this country, so don't have to support these people. The Earl of Caithness, for example, claimed £57,000 in travel and subsistence for 2005 -2006. It's bad enough we have to pay for councillors, MSPs and MPs without these very wealthy and privileged free-loaders sticking their hands in our pockets too. I don't remember reading that he had made any significant contribution to parliamentary debate for his £57,000 either. Nor any other of the 100s we are paying for.

You are obviously not aware of my Pimms bill the last time the HOL select committee on Middle East affiars dropped in for tiffin;)