In 2003, the House of Commons was invited to vote on seven options for reform of the House of Lords. It voted against every option. In 2007, it was again invited to vote on the options and on this occasion there was a majority for the 80% and 100% elected options. This as far as I am aware was the only occasion that a majority was achieved. Despite this, Lord McNally, the Justice Minister, has claimed that establishing an elected second chamber is ‘the settled view’ of the House of Commons. On Wednesday, in answer to an oral question, he asserted that it was ‘the settled and consistent view’ of the House of Commons. I am not quite sure how a vote on one occasion constitutes a settled and consistent view. I have tabled a parliamentary question to elicit the basis for the claim.
In 2007 the settled view of the Commons was a lot different to at any other time, Lord McNally cannot state it is now the settled view factually.
It simply isn`t done that one member of a Board should state that another member should get his seat in a particular way without the whole boards approval. Each part of our system is entitled to it`s say before anything is approved, one should not automatically give rise to a portion of our lawmaking system, which in all probability is in place for less than 4 years, to make such monumental decisions.
ANY constitutional change, especially one as large as Lord McNally states should be put before the electorate if at all. It matters not one jot what is or is not the settled view of the Commons in terms of our costitution or it shouldn`t. If however the Commons seeks to go behind the electorates back with a view to altering the very basic makeup of our system this would be immoral and may even be illegal.
Ridding oneself of political opponents or opposition is not something that should happen in a democracy though we do see it in Countries we consider bad. The proposal of elected members to the House of Lords is merely a way to shift something that MAY stand in the way of the Commons. Stalin and Hitler did similar though consequences were more serious. It is not the right of any authority to remove or alter something that judges it, the very idea is corrupt.
“But if you think it automatically follows that we need a wholly elected upper house…I once thought that, but I have changed my mind.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/01/britain-needs-house-of-lords-reform
Hello, what’s this? Another convert from The Guardian (and who appears to have have recently shared a lunch with Quentin Letts).
Talking of ‘unsettling’ isn’t it about time this woman got a ‘right of reply’ on this blog ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568226/Profile-Shriti-Vadera.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/4244276/Shriti-Vadera-A-profile-of-the-Business-Minister-nicknamed-Shriti-the-Shriek.html
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/12/the-american-embassys-view-of-labour-brown-was-abysmal-harman-lightweight-balls-dull-and-mcbride-a-p.html
I have also seen this and wondered the same.
I don’t object to the view, but I do wonder!
Bedd Gelert:
Why did she not wash her knickers at any time during the term at University? (Daily Telegraph article)
<P.On occasions she would even tear Tony (Blair) off a strip for failing to get development policy right.”
And he would smile his manicured smile, touch her hands with his fingernails, and carry on his way, having failed to notice that a tear was what she intended.