Baron Prescott joins the lords

I wonder if the serve free pork pies in the Lords, if they do he`ll be well in.

John Prescott joining the Lords is as hypocritical as Diane Abbott’s son going to a private school! It seems to be a question of “do as I say, not do as I do”!

I wonder if he remembers his Dis.A number? I was R708720.Only a distinguished few will know what I mean.
Colin:diablo::diablo:

Why Bother with the House of Lords, or the “Other house” Do away with them all.All they ever seem to do is fleece us all of money to suite whatever agenda they can think of next, Complain?.”Listen to the people” Cameron said, well, I have been shouting my head off re pensioners pensions, give them £100.00 per week and see how they can manage to live on that.
We are run by Europe, and Brusells anyway

Don’t you wish you could have as many days a year holiday as they have?.
I wonder if the cleaners in Parliament have to empty buckets of sweat every day after all their hard working Lords and M.P. go home?. 😀

Lincoln. 7

Roots.

I wonder if he remembers his Dis.A number? I was R708720.Only a distinguished few will know what I mean.
Colin:diablo::diablo:

I was thinking of the Lords themselves who wanted a 100% appointed House , in direct opposition to the Commons who voted for other options. The Lords were unlikely to vote themselves out of business I suppose, regardless of what the elected Commons wanted.

Personally I don’t see the problem with an elected upper chamber, with elections kept separate from Commons elections maybe by having them in mid-term as they do in the USA.

Labour may have tried to reform the Lords but it is also Conservative party policy as well. We’ll see if they have more success.

Err… you did.

Here…..

The last government tried to make a difference but ran into the usual obstacles from the vested interests – British democracy at work.

I made no mention of any date whatsoever, but referred, by implication, to Labour’s inept “reform” of the Lords which had the result I described.

The only difference it tried to make was social and gave no thought to actually making the place more effective than it already was. What were the vested interests you refer to?

Did political appointees to the Lords only start in 1997?

Asquith and Lloyd George threatened to create a flood of Liberal Peers if the Lords blocked the latter’s radical budget of 1909-10 for a second time.

Lord Melbourne made a similar threat in 1832 to forestall any attempt by the Upper House to block the passage of his Great Reform Bill.

So no, they didn’t. 🙂

Who said anything about political appointees starting in 1997?

Err… you did.

Here…..

Of course Labour’s obsession to do away with anything smacking of privilege, as they saw, it neutered and neutralised the Lords and the place is now stuffed with political appointees of little particular merit.

The last government tried to make a difference but ran into the usual obstacles from the vested interests – British democracy at work.

Did political appointees to the Lords only start in 1997? – oh hang on, when was Lord Archer appointed again? 1992 I think it was. Lord Ashcroft , I wonder why he was made a life peer?
What was it you said about political appointees of little particular merit?

Who said anything about political appointees starting in 1997? It may have escaped your attention but the last government made much of Lords reform and ended up making a pig’s ear of it.

I completely agree with Arthur Pewtey. We should realy be using the system used in the US instead of living in a country ruled by unelected Coalition Goverment, unelected lords, religion and monarchy coverd in a thin facade of democracy.

Ben

Of course Labour’s obsession to do away with anything smacking of privilege, as they saw, it neutered and neutralised the Lords and the place is now stuffed with political appointees of little particular merit.

Did political appointees to the Lords only start in 1997? – oh hang on, when was Lord Archer appointed again? 1992 I think it was. Lord Ashcroft , I wonder why he was made a life peer?
What was it you said about political appointees of little particular merit?

No, absolutely not. The irony is that when it was a mixture of hereditary and life peers, with a minimum of politicisation, it was at its most effective. It is generally accepted that debates in the Lords were of a far higher quality than in the Commons.

Of course Labour’s obsession to do away with anything smacking of privilege, as they saw, it neutered and neutralised the Lords and the place is now stuffed with political appointees of little particular merit.

So you think a second chamber should be selected by “vested interests” and have no recourse to the public – isn’t that part of the problem.

Most modern democracies have a second chamber to provide a moderating influence on the legislature – we should as well – only it should be elected by those whom it serves i.e. US.

I don’t disagree with the idea of a second chamber but why shouldn’t it be elected by and accountable to the electorate?

Because we already have 650 people elected and “accountable” to the electorate”.

I guess a trip to the Lords is almost seen as a reward. There is some argument that he at least earned it – I remember the final days of the last Conservative government when he at least seemed to have a fire inside him which I think helped to remove the last Tory nightmare. He also seemed to perform as a brake on some of the “New” Labour Excesses – almost like a one man coalition partner!

Very unlike some peers who were, I believe, happy to take taxpayers money to attend the Lords but not quite so keen to pay tax to contribute to the running of the country. At least that has now been sorted… almost.

Really though we need an elected second chamber – the current system is a little anachronistic.

A second chamber, filled with Life Peers, elected on merit, to moderate an elected short-term government sounds like a good idea to me.

I don’t disagree with the idea of a second chamber but why shouldn’t it be elected by and accountable to the electorate?

I rather suspect that the reason John Prescot wanted to go to the Lords was that he couldn’t bear the idea of retirement from politics. Personally I agree with his first sentiments that he wouldn’t accept a life peerage, but he’s entitled to change his mind as are all of us.

There are any number of peers, life and heredity, in the Lords who I might think are not worthy of their place, Prince Charles being the first amongst them. If we are to believe the Coalition all will change when they bring in an elected Lords.

Regards

A non-elected upper chamber has no place in a modern democracy.

Surely the fact that they are unelected is the whole point of a second chamber. One of the criticisms often aimed at politicians is that they’d do anything to stay in power; well aren’t the Lords, freed from that, in a better position to make the ‘right’ (as opposed to the self-interested) decision?

A second chamber, filled with Life Peers, elected on merit, to moderate an elected short-term government sounds like a good idea to me.

The way this country is run needs some radical changes. The Lords are not the only people doing nothing at our expense but lets not get into all that again.

If Prezzas entry into the House of Lords some how belittles it or in any other way leads to its demise that can only be a good thing.

Hi Ben. seems most of us think the same, would we honestly miss them?.I wouldnt,and also’ however I love watching them asleep, in the H.o.L. when “Working”
Lincoln 7