I know that it suits some other Peers to pretend that that the Bill to reform the House of Lords is just a Liberal Democrat plot, pursued by Nick Clegg, to take away their jobs.
However, since the Cabinet unanimously endorsed the Bill, and the Prime Minister gave it his personal explicit approval, that won’t wash any more. As I pointed out in the Chamber last week, unlike many others (on both sides) David Cameron and George Osborne have been perfectly consistent: they voted for a 80% elected/20% appointed hybrid House as long ago as February 2003.
Labour, too, has favoured reform of the kind now precisely reflected in the Coalition proposals. The Bill faithfully follows most of the recommendations in Jack Straw’s 2008 White Paper. Some Labour Members, in both Houses, seem now to be trying to find new reasons to avoid consistent support for the reform Bill, if only to make mischief.
I note also that the present Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, was the Crossbench member of the cross-party group, which helped draw up the 2008 White Paper.
And if anyone remains indignant about those daring to criticise the current behaviour of some peers they should carefully read last weekend’s report in the Daily Telegraph entitled “Peers claim tens of thousands of pounds in expenses – and don’t bother to vote.”
I have no problem with those who have consistently resisted a democratic approach to the reform of the second House of Parliament. But I do object to those who favoured reform in 2008 but now pretend it is all a Clegg conspiracy, fuelled by ignorance of how wonderful we all are.
Thank you for penetrating the smokescreens and mirrors
of selfish win-lose disinformation, dishonest argumentation, and spin-doctoring.
In fact we, all levels of People, still need publication of definitions and full descriptions of the various Democracies, both in-operation and merely suggested;
and of how they are (each) to be firstly founded and secondly maintained;
because quite frankly the People, everywhere not just in Britain and USA, are further waking up to the fact that they still have not only no adequately defensive and constructive people-power under their existing downwards-directive ‘democracies’,
but that they are being insidiously denied the skills and communication-channels of essential to any people-upwards participatory-democracy,
and instead are politically and human-developmentally exploited.
Many historians averr that people’s governance-skilled participatory democracy has yet to be successfully agreed and publicised, much less to have ever been successfully implemented;
the nearest to democracy is in fact in the USA, UK, and other ‘leading governance’ nation-states, at best only a Three-Party-State Downwards-Directive Oligarchy.
So prescription of ‘the right and best way to solve this governance-problem would be by the people taking a more democratic part’
i.e. under the existing false–democracy
is a treacherously deliberate and cruel mass-deception.
Dear Lord Tyler,
Reforming the House of Lords by introducing an elected body Lords is a sign of the end of the Monarchical tradition of this House and I wish many Peers will say loudly “No”.
God bless the United kingdom. God save the Queen.
Nazma FOURRE
@Lord Tyler:
What a courageous man you are. There is an Englishness in you and in your position in our House of power, that is rare today. You should take a bow.
I wonder how our propaganda machines will deal with new speak like yours if it continues?
Time for a rethink throughout our entire political system along the open lines you began in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdCUuSp_tEs&feature=related
Andrew Marr looks like a boy in that clip doesn’t he? I wonder if it had a lasting effect on him?
Here we have ‘when elites fail.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOKUVBoxJ5o&feature=relmfu
Speaking as one for whom my seat in the Lords is not a “job” – is it really democratic for Clegg to threaten, as reported this morning, to block the democratically enacted boundaries changes law(which might benefit the Tories) in order to force Lords reform (which he thinks will give the LibUndems more seats)? I thought we were supposed to be committed to the public and constitutional good of the country.
Not to worry, Baroness, the Tories have already lost the next election and Clegg’s Lib Dems are going to find it difficult to get one seat, let alone enough to be in coalition. So, the changes are being pushed to keep them ‘both’ in the Commons even without the power of any majority. I think you need to worry more about whether the Tories remain so closely linked to bankers misdeeds and shielding those people from full retribution for their misdeeds by not having a ‘Judicial Review’ oversee what really went on there and how many people got their fists around the money they made off with. As you people manage to set up such a clever firewall with so many of the criminals in the Lords, this would be unwise with the banker friends and relatives as people are calling for blood.
I would say you should look very carefully at those who are going to run as independent, as that is the way the public can rid the Commons of those who are not in tune with its voting promises.
Lets see, the Public are calling for robust regulation for the financial services and as banking is really only another arm of politics, so closely linked one couldn’t place an envelope betwixt them, is this likly to happen? I don’t think so.
Most of the Ministers we have, bot sides o the House, are linked to banking one way or another. Its an incestuous business that. Even the old has beens, including the Blair and his son, who at twenty six was worked in as a tribute for his father and made a millionaire overnight, work for ‘banks.’ Along with David Cameron’s family links to banking as well as his father in law being right in there with it.
This makes it implausible that politicians would not know of the big money making quick profits scams going on in that little club wouldn’t it? Dinner time fodder for years that. These are supposed to be clever boys who are main stream movers and shakers after all, would they miss a trick like that? Add that to the well known offshore banking and tax avoidance schemes practiced for years by those at the top and you have to ask if these people could possibly have been outside and unknowing. There lies the difficulty we have over this matter, Is it likely they would be into regulating a systme so closely tied to their friends and family’s access to untouchable wealth? Any attempt to remove banks profits’ and bonuses would directly affect their very own roots of fortune. They don’t go into politics to reduce their access to wealth, quite the reverse is true.
Did you notice any guilt when they ripped off tax payers funds for moats and any other little additions they needed for their home comfort? Capital gains tax being another little interest to fiddle.
This scandal is not going to fade away as they hope, and how they deal with it is going to go down big time. Hanging on the fact that Labour was in power whilst it last took us to the cleaners will not save them.
Lets hope those who want change, have their law suits already well in hand and that no scalp will be saved when the war dance begins. No empty words will save their backsides this time. For they got too greedy and misconstrued the public animosity toward them. They should all be shaking in their boots as the people are looking for them to roast.
The whistle blowers should come out of the closet and fix the wagons of them all. How we could all indulge in bunting and street parties then.
is it really democratic for Clegg to threaten
=========
Is it democratic for you to dictate to us, when we have no control over you?
When you lose your ‘job’, will you take the money offered or will you turn it down?
I thought we were supposed to be committed to the public and constitutional good of the country.
You think wrong.
Why for example, when you are in the Lords, haven’t you made complaints about the behaviour of the rest of the Peers who’ve broken standards? The Peers don’t do this even when they know what is going on. Is there a convention about not grassing on fellow Peers?
Dear Lord Tyler,
I wish I could make you change your mind about an elected body of lords in parliament so that you could stand together with the lords and operate a collective walk out when the bill is to be voted. If no lord gives his veto about an elected body of lords,the bill cannot be passed. I am sure dear Lord Tyler, that you will not be influenced by commoners and will agree to the fact that the House of the lords should not be monopolized by a concentrated power of commoners. I am sure, dear Lord Tyler, you would not like the idea of being a Lord_commoner and be ruled by the House of commons, if this bill is passed.I trust you would change your mind and oppose to the voting of the bill about an elected body of Lords.
Thanking you beforehand. Hope you listen to this little voice and say no to the reform especially about the election of lords.
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
You are consistent Paul but consistency is not a virtue if you put forward a structure for constitutional reform that is very seriously flawed.
If we had power to legislate (which we don’t- we only revise and recommend) I would insist on being elected. If we are going to be elected but denied the power to legislate then our electors through us will rightly insist on us being given power. The Bill is designed to keep us powerless but kid the electorate that we will have power.
My question to you is: If we are to be elected should we not have power like any other legislature?
Lord Soley – I am disappointed in you. That is such a bogus argument. Of course you are a legislator – that means you have a significant say in the content of our laws. What you cannot do is force your own bill through, against the will of the Commons – that is all.
f we had power to legislate (which we don’t- we only revise and recommend)
===========
That isn’t true is it?
1. Who is the Steele in the Steele bill? Ah yes a bill orginated by a peer.
So the claim that you can’t legislate isn’t true.
So the obvious question. Is that deliberate or out of ignorance?
Lord Blagger: The Steel Bill will only pass into law with the approval of the House of Commons. There is a fundamental, and obvious, difference between being able to initiate a Bill and to enact legislation. A Bill cannot pass into law without the approval of the House of Commons, but can pass into law without the approval of the House of Lords. On your definition (initiation = passing law) bodies corporate are legislatures as they can initiate private bills.
So in that case, the Commons is revising the bill you’ve originated.
You repeatedly come out with the ‘we can’t legistlate’ argument when its put to you that you can get rid of the corrupt Peers by creating a bill that removes them.
I even gave you the text of such a bill, based on existing legislation. You’ve not done anything about it.
Several years ago, you made the statement that within a year the Lords would have something in place. Nowt has happened.
Introduce the bill baring any Peer with a criminal conviction from the Lords with immediate effect. Somehow I suspect you won’t.
The conclusion is that you’re in favour of criminals having a vote on bills, so long as they are peers. As for the rest of us, you’re going to dictate what we have to do or don’t do. After all, we don’t get a say. We don’t even get a say in if we want you being a Peer.
No democracy. All in favor of the criminals.
For example, we’ve had Lord Knight saying he was partially paid for a trip to the USA. Not on his register of interests, so when its pointed out to him, he goes very quite.
Now, will any Peers have grassed him up? Not a hope. Lots of Peers are doing similar things, but there’s a convention not to report them.
Dear Lord Soley
Power lies in politics made by the unpredictable citizens of the United Kingdom.I think it might be useful to ask for their opinions through a referendum :”For or against an elected body of lords”, before the passing of the bills. It would be unfair if the population is left out of this very important decision which is the cutting off of the monarchical history and tradition of the House of Lords.
The British citizens might be at a better position to answer whether they really want to see Lord-commoners around.
Let the British Citizens decide for their future. A referendum of such an important question is a “must”.
Thanking you beforehand
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
Lord Blagger. You really should think more carefully before you launch your fingers onto a key pad! Lord Norton is right but also consider how Bills get written. The Minister does not sit down and write them out. It is done by civil servants and (very importantly) by Parliamentary draughtsmen. The Minister then presents them to Parliament. Both civil servants and draughtsmen have great influence over the design and content of Bills but they do not legislate. Arguably Lords have influence not dissimilar to senior civil servants and draughtsmen(not everyone would agree with that but it is my view) The Minister puts them before Parliament and has to take responsibility for them. ONLY the House of Commons can decide whether they get passed into laws and only the electorate can decide who becomes a Member of the House of Commons.
Philip Norton has said that the Lords cannot originate Bills.
The Steele bill originates in the Lords since it was introduce by David Steele. The clue is in the name.
Is Norton telling the truth about the origins of the Steele bill when he says the Lords cannot originate Bills?
If so you can contradict me by telling me who originated the bill in the commons? Name names.
Stop ducking and diving Lord Blagger.
A Member of the Lords can introduce a Bill in the Lords. They can NOT make it become law. Only the Commons can do that. If you had written the Steele Bill and taken it to your MP and if the MP took it up and it became law it does not mean YOU have become a legislator. You would still be Lord Blagger – but not a legislator!
I’m not ducking and diving. Lord Norton says that you can’t introduce laws. It’s not in his power to introduce a law saying criminal Peers are banned for life.
However you’ve just confirmed that you can introduce a law. You’ve stitch up Philip Norton in the process.
So why hasn’t any Lord introduce a bill saying no criminals can sit in the Lords? Would the Commons vote that down? Of course not.
So we can conclude that peers have no intention of ridding themselves of their criminal element.
@LB:
I feel this backs up your point.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords/
The current attempt to reform the House of Lords has managed to achieve what previous efforts had tried to do and failed – namely, to dramatically reduce the number of hereditary peers who may sit and vote in Parliament’s upper house. Since the initial flurry of activity, however, the initiative has become bogged down and steeped in acrimony. There has been no shortage of proposals, and some observers have argued that the 2005 “cash for peerages” scandal further fuelled the mood for reform; but there appears to be little likelihood of consensus developing.
Of course it does. Philip Norton’s claim that they don’t make the law is completely wrong.
For a constitutional expert he’s either ignorant or not telling the truth.
We’ve had other Peers confirm my view yesterday. The website you point to is yet another example.
1. Peers can introduce legistlation. They don’t just review.
Evidence – the Steele Bill.
2. Peers pass laws. It takes both houses to make a law. They cannot absolve themselves of sin.
Then, LB, we must push consistently and with great determination to rid ourselves of this ‘Monarchical’ governance we suffer under. Then we will be free of oppression and subjugation once and for all.
‘Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.’
Aristotle
It’s already happening.
It’s all back to the debts, and the fact they have used false accounting to take people’s pensions and spend them.
Now, they can’t afford to tax people to pay out on the contracts, let alone on services. The debt grew last year by 500 bn, against revenues of 550 bn. It’s bust. Just wait and see.
Remember there is no fairy godmother like Greece has with Germany, when it comes to the UK.
Interesting isn’t it that the Lords can’t get one of their experts to come here and tell people why they aren’t owed a state pension.
Dear Lord Blagger
Defending state pensionners with such a strong determination might presume you must be one of them or are you on your way to hopefully get a more remunerated pension.We live unfortunately in a material world where money seems to be one and the only major prior consideration.The only blessed gift of life should be centered on “love and peace” as life itself is a mountain, the more you climb, the more you fall and the more it hurts. But when you reach the summit, you are happy to see how spectacular is the downfall.Each page of life won’t be twice. If any one should reflect his or her thoughts on such a philosophy, the world would be a peaceful one, far from sufferings and being wounded by hatred and personal frustration.
It is wrongly thought that the Lords are stealing state pensionners just because some ex commoners voted on a law which is felt to be negative.Accusing the lords wrongly is proned to be accordingly regarded as being a false and malicious denonciation. This offence , is punished by law through a fine or imprisonnement.
But I don’t think that the Lords would stoop to such actions to repair the moral damages that are caused to them through these repeating malicious and false denonciations.It is just because they are “humble” and not greedy for power and money . The second reason, would be that they respect the participants here and need in turn to be “respected” .
God bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen.
Nazma FOURRE