The Windsors you can't keep a good family down

[glasfryn]

But are there not real fears that Charles will "interfere", as and when he ascends to the throne, far more than our dear Queen.

I can cope with the Queen at the moment, but I think Charles would set my republican tendencies on fire.

they have already set mine ablaze

 

[Doc Lynam]

You really believe that they have no real power?
And if we had President Blair (although I don't know who would vote for him now), if he was crap, we could vote him out, and we wouldn't have to support his Mother, Father, Brothers, Sisters , old uncle Tom Cobbly and all

Also if you remove the birth right of power and influence the Windsors have you move to the next logical bit of business, the house of lords. Why should these unelected individuals have the right to have political influence in our lives? And lets get rid of the voting bishops as well.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

You really believe that they have no real power?
And if we had President Blair (although I don't know who would vote for him now), if he was crap, we could vote him out, and we wouldn't have to support his Mother, Father, Brothers, Sisters , old uncle Tom Cobbly and all

You wouldn't have to support him. His calculating and scheming other half has already ensured that team Blair are set up for life.
( Why do you think we had an open door immigration policy under his tenure? )

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Also if you remove the birth right of power and influence the Windsors have you move to the next logical bit of business, the house of lords. Why should these unelected individuals have the right to have political influence in our lives? And lets get rid of the voting bishops as well.

Agreed - the House of Lords is one of the most ridiculous political organisations going. Weirdly, I'd rather it was only hereditary - you have some chance of luck that it will be a even spread then. I detest the 'appointed' Lords ( your photo example being one of them ). It's political and nothing else. The problem is that a vast majority of us don't trust politicians as far as we could throw them. So how do we make the whole system fair and transparent ? I don't have the answer but the House of Lords should be full of experts - lawyers, entrepreneurs, doctors etc etc - only they can scrutinize the political laws put forward by parliament. How those people are selected I have no idea.

 

[glasfryn]

Agreed - the House of Lords is one of the most ridiculous political organisations going. Weirdly, I'd rather it was only hereditary - you have some chance of luck that it will be a even spread then. I detest the 'appointed' Lords ( you photo example being one of them ). It's political and nothing else. The problem is that a vast majority of us don't trust politicians as far as we could throw them. So how do we make the whole system fair and transparent ? I don't have the answer but the House of Lords should be full of experts - lawyers, entrepreneurs, doctors etc etc - only they can scrutinize the political laws put forward by parliament. How those people are selected I have no idea.

firstly you go out and buy a gun

 

[beorhthelm]

Also if you remove the birth right of power and influence the Windsors have you move to the next logical bit of business, the house of lords. Why should these unelected individuals have the right to have political influence in our lives? And lets get rid of the voting bishops as well.

for the sake of argument, whats wrong is unelected chamber? it create law, it carries out review and revision of the law. now one might like to attend to the make up - certainly get rid of bishops - so that its reflective of business, industry and public, but there's alot to said for the principle of a essentially neutral upper chamber. the alternative, another block of politicians chasing votes and toeing the party line seems pointless and often unworkable.

 

[Doc Lynam]

for the sake of argument, whats wrong is unelected chamber? it create law, it carries out review and revision of the law. now one might like to attend to the make up - certainly get rid of bishops - so that its reflective of business, industry and public, but there's alot to said for the principle of a essentially neutral upper chamber. the alternative, another block of politicians chasing votes and toeing the party line seems pointless and often unworkable.

Unelected end of, no one deserves that power. I understand where you're coming from but i disagree from the start.

 

[DTES]

there's alot to said for the principle of a essentially neutral upper chamber.

There is, but that is not what the House of Lords is. Those sitting in the House of Lords are still appointed by political parties; just we don't get any say in these ones.

The perfect example that sticks two fingers up at democracy is Sayeeda Warsi. She has stood for election once (in 2005), and lost. The electorate said they didn't want her. So what do those in power do? Ignore the electorate, pull some strings, get her in the House of Lords and appoint her to the shadow cabinet (and ultimately the Government) anyway. Whatever you think of Warsi, that is an affront to democracy.

 

[DTES]

Personally, I'd make the House of Lords electable under Proportional Representation.

1) The parties still get to put whoever they want on the lists - but the electorate the say of how many each party actually has.
2) Under PR, it's highly unlikely that any party will get a majority - even Lab/Con would be lucky to even get 1/3 of the seats as it stands.

Those in favour of the current Lords setup often cite its checks of legislation - I don't see any reason why that wouldn't still hold. If the parties are appointing the right people now, they can put those same people on the lists.

 

[severnside gull]

I'm sure buck palace would make a lovely old peoples home

You'd be amazed what a shit hole the palace is behind the scenes and away from all the pomp. It would fail even basic health, safety and hygiene regs.

 

[Dick Head]

I'm sure buck palace would make a lovely old peoples home

Have you got your eye on it?

 

[beorhthelm]

Personally, I'd make the House of Lords electable under Proportional Representation.

1) The parties still get to put whoever they want on the lists - but the electorate the say of how many each party actually has.

and the Lords becomes accountable only to the party machines. i see little practical difference between PR and the current appointment system, in a case like Warsi she'd be put on the list so voted in. currently there nearly a quarter of the Lords are crossbenchers, any change should make that greater not remove it.

 

[Creaky]

Agreed - the House of Lords is one of the most ridiculous political organisations going. Weirdly, I'd rather it was only hereditary - you have some chance of luck that it will be a even spread then. I detest the 'appointed' Lords ( your photo example being one of them ). It's political and nothing else. The problem is that a vast majority of us don't trust politicians as far as we could throw them. So how do we make the whole system fair and transparent ? I don't have the answer but the House of Lords should be full of experts - lawyers, entrepreneurs, doctors etc etc - only they can scrutinize the political laws put forward by parliament. How those people are selected I have no idea.

I'd like to see members of the Lord elected on a constituency basis at the same time as MPs are so little additional cost.

However it should be mandatory that those standing for election do NOT display any party affiliations and are NOT supported by any political party but offer themselves up for election based on their own experience and views.

 

[glasfryn]

Have you got your eye on it?

maybe

You'd be amazed what a shit hole the palace is behind the scenes and away from all the pomp. It would fail even basic health, safety and hygiene regs.

not now though

 

[DTES]

and the Lords becomes accountable only to the party machines. i see little practical difference between PR and the current appointment system, in a case like Warsi she'd be put on the list so voted in. currently there nearly a quarter of the Lords are crossbenchers, any change should make that greater not remove it.

To be fair, I'm not completely certain what the current appointment system actually is. Who gets to decide how many Conservative Lords that Cameron can appoint? Or Labour/Lib Dem/etc Lords?

I don't disagree about crossbenchers actually, but surely there must be some control on how many of each party there are there?

Re Warsi - as it stands, not only was she part of the Government, she actually had a cabinet role despite being rejected by the electorate. I guess it seems like a technicality, but if she named on a candidate list prior to a PR Lords election and the Tories then pick up enough votes (which they would if she were near the top), then it's fair enough that she's in there.

 

[DTES]

Oh - and whatever happens the Bishops have to go! There are (I believe) only two 'democracies' in the world that reserve seats in their parliament for religious leaders: Iran and the United Kingdom.

 

[beorhthelm]

Re Warsi - as it stands, not only was she part of the Government, she actually had a cabinet role despite being rejected by the electorate. I guess it seems like a technicality, but if she named on a candidate list prior to a PR Lords election and the Tories then pick up enough votes (which they would if she were near the top), then it's fair enough that she's in there.

it is a technicality, the point being with PR you don't have the option to "reject" anyone either. seems an all round worse solution.

 

[DTES]

it is a technicality, the point being with PR you don't have the option to "reject" anyone either. seems an all round worse solution.

I think the difference between FPTP and PR (besides the obvious) is that the former is designed to elect/reject an individual (regardless of their party affiliation), with the latter designed to elect/reject parties (regardless of who the individuals are). Warsi could be rejected under PR - if the Tories didn't pick up enough votes at all. That's unlikely to happen, I realise.

I also realise that even under FPTP most people will vote for a party rather than individual, it's just that that isn't at all reflected in the results. Not only are they completely disproportional, it's quite possible that the Tories will get more votes than Labour in May but end up with fewer MPs. Having said that, I'd wager Caroline Lucas will pick up plenty of Brighton votes in May because of her personal record as an MP rather than the fact she is standing for the Green Party. Independent MPs do exist too, which I guess also shows the individual matters.

The reason I advocated PR for the Lords though is that there needs to be some control on those in the Commons just picking however many they want in the Lords. Whether there are crossbenchers or not, I don't see what that control is right now.

 

[beorhthelm]

The reason I advocated PR for the Lords though is that there needs to be some control on those in the Commons just picking however many they want in the Lords. Whether there are crossbenchers or not, I don't see what that control is right now.

control is a good point, i dont know how the current system works either, other than by a nice little convention observed. and it sort of works with the elected government not overtly stuffing the place with only its peers (i've not doubt there's bias). so what we want to address this issue isnt a party driven process but something that takes the decision process elsewhere. a committee? proxy vote? i've mused that district or county council appointments would be an interesting way forward, giving those bodies a bit more prominence and maybe higher turnout.

what i beleive is real advantage of our peers is their longer term view, that they arent chasing a vote or pandering to a party whip, so can take a more measured perspective. bearing in mind they dont bring forward new legislation, only revise, i think we shouldnt be hung up on directly electing them. we should have businessmen, scientists, lawyers, unionist, engineers, even the odd politican in there, who know what the hell is going on and what the impact of legislation from the commons might be. simply having another elected body would be a poorer solution with constant bickering on which house has primacy, or blanket support/opposition to the government of the day.