[brian bromley]

Quite ironic the house so often accused of being an unelected outdated sham is the place that rejected the anti protesting bill, originally passed by our elected reps.

[exgaffer]

Quite ironic the house so often accused of being an unelected outdated sham is the place that rejected the anti protesting bill, originally passed by our elected reps.

Well it is an unelected, outdated sham and it can’t ‘reject’ anything   .

It can send a bill back to the Commons but ultimately the elected chamber has the final say.

It is a shite bill though, so hopefully the elected shower will think again.

[DeepBlue]

Quite ironic the house so often accused of being an unelected outdated sham is the place that rejected the anti protesting bill, originally passed by our elected reps.

When a heavily tory-leaning House of Lords rejects a tory bill it is a sure sign that it was a very bad bill. 

The Lords is an antiquated nonsense of a system to have in a modern democracy, but there needs to be something to stop the excesses of a dogma-driven government (of either flavour) so if we get rid of the lords we would need to put something in its place. And I wouldn't trust any of the current parties to implement something that did not favour them heavily.

[Tufnell_Chimes]

I heard an idea of an alternative Lords on the radio the other day. It was make the House of Lords like the jury service - select members of the public to temporarily hold the office, for about a year, maybe two. Or, to head off the chance of a second chamber full of dins (hey, it could happen), it was counterbalanced with a similar number of experts in their field (medicine, heavy industry, creative industry, finance, social services, etc.) so then there'd be a mix of applied knowledge and what could be loosely described as 'common sense'.

[brian bromley]

that is a good idea add in restrictions on political allegiance, share holdings and anything else that could sway impartial judgement.

then you have a real effective second house.

[exgaffer]

Quite ironic the house so often accused of being an unelected outdated sham is the place that rejected the anti protesting bill, originally passed by our elected reps.

When a heavily tory-leaning House of Lords rejects a tory bill it is a sure sign that it was a very bad bill. 

The Lords is an antiquated nonsense of a system to have in a modern democracy, but there needs to be something to stop the excesses of a dogma-driven government (of either flavour) so if we get rid of the lords we would need to put something in its place. And I wouldn't trust any of the current parties to implement something that did not favour them heavily.

Where do you get the ‘heavily Tory leaning’ idea from then Deep? Is it just because they are called ‘Lords’? If you have a look, it is anything but Tory leaning, as their voting record shows.

Regardless, it should be abolished at the earliest opportunity.

[brian bromley]

[font="Google Sans Text", arial, sans-serif]Current composition of the House of Lords
Group
Sitting members
Conservative Party
257
Crossbench
185
Labour Party
168[/font]

[DeepBlue]

[font="Google Sans Text", arial, sans-serif]Current composition of the House of Lords
Group
Sitting members
Conservative Party
257
Crossbench
185
Labour Party
168[/font]

Don't confuse Gaffer with facts.

[Tufnell_Chimes]

Honestly, I don't think its fair to confront Guffer with his own bullshit on a Friday evening. There he was, looking forward to a weekend of trolling all kinds of bullshit and he gets called out before he's even started. Now what's he going to do? sit at home doom-scrolling through his bookmarked rightwing bollox until he thinks the heat's died down.

Uncalled for.