LibUndems part 2

Baroness Deech

I agree with all of Lord Faulkner’s suggestions to reform the House from the inside, overhauling the makeup and setting a retirement age.  The need for these reforms, and their superiority over the plans for an elected House, were evident a long time ago, and I don’t know why it has taken this long for the right solution to emerge.  We were very nearly saddled with the thoroughly undemocratic LibDem plan of senators on a party list who would be elected for one term of 15 years, and therefore never have to face their constituents. Further reducing the “democracy” in the plan was that the new House was specifically stated to be inferior to the Commons by the continuation of the Parliament Acts in the now-defunct  Reform Bill. All of this was going to be sold to the public by the LibDems as more democratic than the existing House.  This was a deception. 

Can we now expect the LibDem peers who pressed for this change to vacate their seats in the Lords? The logic of their presence was that they were there only in order to vote for the abolition of the House and its replacement.  If that is not going to happen, why would they want to stay in a House they regard as unworthy? Somehow I don’t think they will take this step.  Moreover, what are the odds on our seeing Lord Clegg there one day when and if he ever loses his Commons position?

To add insult to injury the LibDems have petulantly declared that they will not now back the constituency boundary changes that Parliament assented to in outline.  Whatever the electoral effect that those changes might bring, it can hardly be argued that creating constituencies of equal voting size is not more democratic.  So the LibDem record is one of trying to alter the constitution in order to attempt to gain more places for their party in the reformed Lords via the STV system; and then blocking a more straightforward democratic reform to the way in which MPs are elected.  All one can say for the episode is that it makes it more likely that the proper reforms contained in the Steel Bill will be enacted.

A final irony.  It is the prospect of a defeat by a democratic majority in the Commons that has led to the failure that the LibDems so deplore.  Apparently democracy is only a good thing when it delivers what you want.

27 comments for “LibUndems part 2

  1. ladytizzy
    06/08/2012 at 10:16 pm
    • MilesJSD
      07/08/2012 at 11:23 am

      “There is no link…”

      Neither is there any duty-requirement for our MP to respond to any communication a constituent or British citizen makes to him/her.
      the British Establishment, British Governance, Judiciary, Civil-Service, Education, Health, Religious, Economic, Environmental, Individual-Human-Developmenbt, and Lifeplace-Mobilisation and Leadership Classes,
      continue abysmally and with insidiously-life-extinctional and human-genocidal effect
      (1) failing to support sustainable Aggregate Human Development and sustainworthy Individual Human Development (both);
      (2) failing both to yourselves live within the Earth’s and the British People’s Means,
      and to both train & educate all British People (including yourselves) how to live off just one-sufficient-human-living.
      You are disgustingly-simply in a more
      “I’m the king of the castle – You’re the dirty rascal”
      “I Win – everybody else Loses”
      leftover-British-Aristocratic-Colonialistic outside lane,
      than is the Militantly Aggressive Baroness Lister in her current blog-post (above) of
      “Murray Mints* Gold”
      “thrashing Federer”
      “giving them the stick”

      * Health warnings:
      Beware gratutious advertising.
      Sugary sweets lock-in Toxins.

      “Spin” is Toxic to both Democratisation and Balanced mind-functional development.

  2. Brett Dunbar
    07/08/2012 at 1:32 am

    STV is not a a party list system, it is a multi-member system that elects individuals. No pre-determined list is involved, the individual voter places the candidates in any order of preference they chose.

    Leaving the Lords would be absurd as the constitution gives it significant power, that you believe that it is bad in principal for an unelected and unaccountable chamber to have such power does not mean that you should leave that power entirely in the hands of those who do not believe that political power in only legitimate if it is elected.

  3. MilesJSD
    07/08/2012 at 2:35 am

    Neither the British Governance Class nor the British Media have yet published, for participatorily-democratic information and discussion, all the lifesupportive needs & hows of every level of The British People

    and thereto what quantity and what quality of Reform needs to be written and introduced for legislation (and possibly for improvement of the Constitution too).
    When the Baroness states that Lord Faulkner’s four-pointed reform-plan (below) is “the right one”

    she commits at least one serious fallacy.

    (Can any other participant ‘spot’ and ‘name’ such a fallacy ?

    ((Such as ‘Argumentum ad verecundiam’
    ‘Unproven Premisses’))

  4. maude elwes
    07/08/2012 at 11:41 am

    What it really boils down to, is, Clegg is not a good politician. The Tories have done for him twice in less than a year. First the AV now this.

    So, the truth is, either Clegg is secretly colluding in his downfall, with hopes for a good job elsewhere, or, in that very same Lords, or, he doesn’t know how to blow those Tories out of he water. Which should be a pre-requisite for any political leader.

    Either way, he is inept as a politician.

    Did he really believe a bunch of Tories, headed by hereditaries, was really going to vote to reform the Lords and by so doing, remove their own privilages with one swoop of the sword.

    Please, don’t make me laugh.

    • Gareth Howell
      10/08/2012 at 12:18 pm

      Either way, he is inept as a politician

      Of the three party leaders at the moment there is one who finds it difficult to speak, another who is Dutch so can’t speak and when he does, speaks in Spanish to his wife, and the third, who can speak, is so dim that he got a first at Brasenose in politics, and remembers to do his best not to sound intelligent.

      I prefer perseverance with enunciation to perseverance with pronounciation, and the third received his diction so easily that no normal Brit north of Watford,or West of Winchester can understand what he is saying in any case, even though he is simple.

  5. Lord Blagger
    07/08/2012 at 4:20 pm

    On AV, it was the voter that did Clegg in.

    • maude elwes
      08/08/2012 at 11:23 am


      Ignorance, in your case, must definitely be bliss.

      The voter knew nothing except what the Tory propaganda machines told them. They had nothing from which to form a genuine opinion. As well, the whole issue was a strange mix of, ‘don’t really know what it is we are putting forward,’ clap.

      Therefore, the public stuck to the old routine, which serves them well most of the time, ‘better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.’

      So playing the old game of concealment is simply a means of keeping it going the way they want it. A rich man’s ploy, as they regard the proletariat as idiots.

      • Lord Blagger
        08/08/2012 at 4:43 pm

        At least in this case, the electorate was asked. Makes a bit of a change. However, they were only asked how to select the dictators, rather than dictate to politicians.

        My view, it was lost as a two fingers to any politician, rather than on any merits of any case.

        What we need is more control over issues. Then there is no question of AV or other voting systems. That’s redundant. One person One vote, per issue.

        If the Lib dems can then convince the electorate that they want policy X, they get it.

        If they can’t the won’t get it.

        What’s the objection there? Or is it that the Lib Dems want to impose a minority view on the majority?

    • maude elwes
      08/08/2012 at 1:20 pm

      As a footnote to my earlier post.

      Here is food for thought.

      And if the country doesn’t have the information required to make a decision in its own interest, it is defunct as a democracy.

      • Lord Blagger
        08/08/2012 at 4:38 pm


        So the Lords are keeping secret what they have been up to with expenses. ie. A cover up. Now if that information is in the public domain, there would be more push for getting rid of them.

        So manipulating information to keep the money flowing into your own pockets, sums up Peers.

        Ditto on the debt.

        However, the problem there Maude isn’t the media, its government manipulation (BBC included since its part of the state apparatus)

        • maude elwes
          09/08/2012 at 1:06 pm


          Media is to blame for a lot of it. They know far more than they reveal. Because, as was to obvious in one of Baness Deeche’s posts, they won’t work again if they don’t stick to the party line of their employers. Mostly right wing and mostly rich. They are the movers and shakers and so, the proletariat, like, myself, are excluded from the mainstream blessings.

          We pay the bill and we receive the least input. It’s a bloody joke is what it is. The wealthy lean on the public purse which is the middle class, every aspect of it, and the poor have no alternative.

          So, the least powerful and vulnerable are called the leeches, whilst those at the top remove the money from the country. And whose money is it they remove, why the tax payers of course. The way they removed it to support the banking system.

          Here is a sum for you Blagger. How much money has been taken to prop up world banking? And how much did they take to pay for the needy? Over the years since 2007.

          Lets hear you scoot around that one.

          Now the thieves have fallen out and the bastards are blaming each other. Which, is good from the point of view of clean up.

          • Lord Blagger
            09/08/2012 at 3:52 pm

            Well, I don’t think the wealthy lean on the public purse. It’s the opposite. If you look at the amount of money they pay, and what they get back, the state’s the winner by a long way.

            There is a fundamental asymettry, and you give the game away when you say things like “whilst those at the top remove the money from the country.” It’s not the state’s money, its their money. Under the EU law there is freedom of movement of people and capital. You can’t stop them. You are assuming that all money is the states to do with as it sees fit.

            Now that leads to the problems you’re talking about. Namely that its the states money so they can’t be taking it from the poor. Now you’re objecting to that on the assumption that once the state starts giving, its not the states its the poor’s money.

            Here is a sum for you Blagger. How much money has been taken to prop up world banking? And how much did they take to pay for the needy? Over the years since 2007.

            First issue. How much has been taken? In the UK, about 70 bn from taxpayers. Who took it? Brown. He had a choice. However his idea was that he could get banks into public ownership. He lost 70 bn on share trading and insurance contracts. My view, they should have been sent to the wall.

            So if A asks B for money, and B hands it over, who is the idiot? A for asking B for giving it out.

            Next, offset against that is the taxes from banks. Around 50-60 bn, a year. So since 2007, we are talking of 250-300 bn.

            The net figure for the UK state is that they are up about 200 bn on the deal. That 200 bn has gone to pay for things you want.

            However, you’re still avoiding the big issue. 70 bn banking mess, most caused by Brown. Government debts, 7,000 bn. 100 times bigger at a minimum.

            You’ve fallen for the old distraction trick. Politicians want to blame bankers, because they don’t have to talk about their fraud.

            Just wait, its going to get really dire, all because of the debts.

            Next stop after the bankers, the Poles, the Jews, the Blacks, ….

  6. Gareth Howell
    07/08/2012 at 6:35 pm

    Continuing reform from within is essential along the lines of chucking out the Hereditary peers 14 years ago.

    Now it is clogged up with non hereditary hangers on, who must be rewarded with the honour of an Order of peerage, and no further right to attend.

    It will be hard to prevent self nominated
    former Members of theother place from continuing to nominate themselves.

    It is such a basic procedure that any county councillor who sets himself to give it some thought can do so.

    I gave it thought in about 1983, and have decided ever since not, either to be nominated or to nominate myself as has been entirely possible at different times.

    • maude elwes
      08/08/2012 at 1:05 pm

      What strikes me as imperative in this debacle is, the Tories must learn the lesson that a deal is a deal. They think it fun to renege, well, let them squirm, is the answer. It doesn’t matter how many documents they produce, does it?

      Hang on to the no boundary changes unless and until Lords reform is revisted and passed the way it was agreed.

      Tories have far more to lose than a bunch of worn out old has beens left to ring the bell of expenses in that comfortable tax payer funded red chamber. They have their seats to lose and their chance at a mandate. Ignore the rude remarks and the put downs, come back with a few of your own. Keep it centred at the heart of the matter as if guided by a laser.

      On top of that, come up with another matter they did the dirty on and bring that in as an interest payment. Theirs to pay on account of their duplicity.

      Ask yourselves this, at this point, what do you have to lose?

      • Lord Blagger
        08/08/2012 at 4:39 pm

        Well, the referenda was in the deal, and that was enacted.

        Shouldn’t the Lib dems show good faith and enact boundary changes as a quid pro quo?

        • maude elwes
          08/08/2012 at 5:32 pm



  7. Senex
    07/08/2012 at 9:26 pm

    They placed the King’s chair to turn the tide but the tide was not for turning. Will anything dry defeat? Universal Suffrage no more will opportunity again knock at the door?

  8. Gareth Howell
    09/08/2012 at 7:51 am

    setting a retirement age.

    75 would be ideal and it would exclude a couple of hundred or more, who really are not fit to attend the chamber, not even in his carpet slippers, as Lord Howe of Aberavon seems to do, for example.

    Just one clause would overhaul radically:


    Some MPs get nominated when they retire from the commons after they are 75, and think it is clever to do so, after preventing younger men from taking the House of commons seat, for years.

    Such men make me want to puke, by the mere sound of the voice and the look on their face. Despicable self righteous asses!

    • MilesJSD
      09/08/2012 at 12:52 pm

      Each member, and each class of member, needs to be publicly-seen to be,
      and be seen to be being kept,

      and so too do those who Judge, and Control, such essential standards of performance & payment.

      * to be fit for Purpose, capital-P;
      that’s for the Big Longest-Term Human, and Living-Earth, Purpose;
      not just the Parliament, Establishment, or Privilegocracy member’s own individually-greedy-lifestyle, and closed-class inflated
      small-p, group-deluded purposes.

  9. Gareth Howell
    09/08/2012 at 8:38 am

    Two clauses:

    1)A peer must retire at the age of 75.

    2)NO political nominations and NO appointment boarders when the house has reached a maximum 0f 500, and no further nominations or appointments until the next General election, when it has.

    Those two items would keep the house in good order if, even so, to overcapacity, 500 still being too many.

  10. maude elwes
    10/08/2012 at 11:09 am

    @Lord Blagger:

    So, the rich are innocent and the poor are the pigs. You do take the cake. I wondered how you were going to get around that old chestnut.

    Here is a prime example of the ‘rich’ leaning on the tax payers and getting away with murder.

    And the joke is, it would have been less than 10% had they paid in full.

    Do you know why they get away with it? Because, they are those who run the show.

    So leave off that mantra you have and face facts. You are beiing done by those you support. How dumb is that?

  11. Lord Blagger
    10/08/2012 at 5:06 pm

    Did I say that? No. You did, but the other way round.

    Now for Google. They aren’t a UK company, they are based in Switzerland in Europe. May I suggest you have a go at BMW for being based in Germany and paying tax there, not in the UK. Ah yes, doesn’t work like that does it. Germany might decide to tax Vodafone on their earnings, or Rolls-Royce because their engines fly over Germany.

    So face facts. The poor are getting they money from other people. The other people have decided that they aren’t going to pay tax in the UK and have moved. Now what? The poor are going to be shafted by the government.

    That’s the direct consequence of relying on the government to ‘help’. It can’t. When the poor end up paying 3K a year in taxes to fund the likes of Peers to live in the style to which they have become accustomed, what do you expect.

    You’re still missing the basic point. The government is bust. It’s taken the money from the poor. It’s wasted it. And now it can’t help them. So its cutting support to them. Since they weren’t allowed to save the money, because the government took it, they are going to be screwed.

    PS, nothing stopping you adopting a poor person, and paying for the health care, their schooling, there housing benefit etc. It’s a lot of money, I’m sure they will welcome it.

    So how much does the government owe people in the UK?

    • maude elwes
      11/08/2012 at 11:46 am


      Google owes the British government meaning the tax payer the tax it dodged. And any other you cite who got off with it, because they claim they are global, must follow suit or be criminalised the way they crminalise the public.

      These corporations have wrtten into their contracts that they are the equivalnt of the human being in order to dive around paying various other expectations, so this is where the government can catch them ass and bring them into the fold.

      I have adopted the poor the disabled and the elderly exactly the same way you have. I though, realise that I was led up the garden path fraudulently by a government who missold me that same package, as they have welched on the deal they made with me for sometime. And, yet, they reamin with ther hands in the pockets of us all whilst not delivering the goods. They should be in a court of law to forde them to uhold their contract and compenstion should be given in the billions to restore the confidence to the people.

      Put the beasts in the dock.

      I have to assumme, LB, that you are as bent as a nine bob note.

      Here is how the tax should be levied, 94%, until we are out of the mess they put us in.

      • Lord Blagger
        13/08/2012 at 10:29 am

        Google owes the British government meaning the tax payer the tax it dodged.


        It hasn’t dodged any tax. Just as BMW hasn’t dodged any tax.

        We no longer live in a world where you can send the gunboats out to get the cash from other countries or companies by force.

        You need to start looking at why government’s aren’t delivering. The reason is that they have run up massive debts off the books.

        That’s why they are blaming other people like Google, and you believe them. Just like the Nazi’s blamed the Jews for government’s errors. Scapegoating.

        You can of course check whether I’m right or wrong. Find out how much the government owes for the state pension for people’s past contributions, and if its on the books. Pretty simple thing to find out you would have thought.

        Now its not published. Any figures if there are them are a state secret. Given that just for the state pension alone, its 2.4 trillion of debt, that’s the real reason why its a mess and the poor get cut off from government funding. [The Peers carry on at 2,700 a day]

      • Lord Blagger
        13/08/2012 at 10:31 am

        They should be in a court of law to forde them to uhold their contract and compenstion should be given in the billions to restore the confidence to the people.


        I agree. There should be a contract. However, contract or not, they still can’t pay because there aren’t enough Googles or citizens wealthy enough to pay in the UK. They have run up debts they can’t pay.

        Now I think that’s clear fraud, because they have to know that they can’t pay, but carry on taking the money from people promising to pay. That’s a Ponzi, and that is fraud.

Comments are closed.