Interesting.
dexxy57:
Most advanced democratic countries have a second chamber. It’s a kind of ‘must have’ if you want an alternative to dictatorship.
There are some lulus of monocameral national govs…China, North Korea… but also: New Zealand, Finland, Norway, Sweden…they manage OK don`t they?
cav551:
Franglais:
Spardo:
Anybody with Lord or Sir (except for those who have done exceptional service beyond what they were paid to do) before their name should be reduced to just plain Mister (or Missus) and allowed, like all British citizens, to vote like normal people do.Yep.
Having 90 hereditary peers in the Lords is unacceptable, as is having various sky-pixie believers helping decide our future.
“Take Back Control” Ha!Dunno about that one, Is there any real proof that the politically rewarded are any better or actually know more about what is being discussed? I think the hereditary peers will know a great deal more about Great Britain than all the Johnny come latelies who will have bagged a nice directorship for services past in the lobby group.
It’s all to do with democracy, either we want it or we don’t, but if we do all that lot has to be directly voted for. And there is nothing proving the fitness of any of them to be more likely to run the country sensibly.
Now, if we are saying that a great mass of the voting population doesn’t know what it is talking about, then tough, that’s the price of democracy.
Spardo:
It’s all to do with democracy, either we want it or we don’t, but if we do all that lot has to be directly voted for. And there is nothing proving the fitness of any of them to be more likely to run the country sensibly.Now, if we are saying that a great mass of the voting population doesn’t know what it is talking about, then tough, that’s the price of democracy.
Part of having a population "knowing what it is talking about " must be, Id suggest, having an honest and reliable media. The BBC may be less than perfect....but I dont agree with
ramone:
TV Licences should be scrapped and the BBC should find the money elsewhere like other broadcasting companies do , or close imho
The thought of rich individuals such as the “Dirty Digger” or media companies enslaved to advertising monies, being the only sources of information and news, is horrific.
Franglais:
Why do you believe that someone inheriting a title would “know more about Great Britain” than anyone who had to earn their place in the upper chamber?
Earn their place? ie rewarded for towing the party line more like. It is simply because they are not selected on the basis of following dogma that they are so important. Perhaps above all they are not politicians and all that entails regarding the mindset. As said below they are more inclined to follow the arguments of an issue than to blindly do as they are told by the party and its selection committee. The 14th Earl will also have full knowledge of everything to do with the 1st to the 13th Earl and the arguments and issues thay have gone before, how that is relevant today and what the errors and successes of past centuries have to guide us today. The likes of Blair and the political opponents to Hereditary Peerage will know little more than how they managed to lie their way into the Commons, but see abolition as a route to personal gain.
cav551:
Franglais:
Why do you believe that someone inheriting a title would “know more about Great Britain” than anyone who had to earn their place in the upper chamber?Earn their place? ie rewarded for towing the party line more like. It is simply because they are not selected on the basis of following dogma that they are so important. Perhaps above all they are not politicians and all that entails regarding the mindset. As said below they are more inclined to follow the arguments of an issue than to blindly do as they are told by the party and its selection committee. The 14th Earl will also have full knowledge of everything to do with the 1st to the 13th Earl and the arguments and issues thay have gone before, how that is relevant today and what the errors and successes of past centuries have to guide us today. The likes of Blair and the political opponents to Hereditary Peerage will know little more than how they managed to lie their way into the Commons, but see abolition as a route to personal gain.
I don`t say all who end up in the Lords deserve to.
Lord West of Spithead, (RN) you may agree earned his place? Ex Cabinet Ministers, who are no longer subject to party whips, may have merit?
But are we discussing Angels Dancing on a Pinhead? House of Lords badlyneeds reforming.
Why do you assume the 14th Earl of ■■? is an history expert, rather than a foolish wastrel? Or just an average person??
I hold no torch for Blair, but how can he stand to personally gain from abolition of the Lords?
> Franglais:
> Interesting.
There are some lulus of monocameral national govs…China, North Korea… but also: New Zealand, Finland, Norway, Sweden…they manage OK don`t they?
[/quote]
Ok, i seriously never knew that most of Scandinavia’s parliaments only had one chamber. Blimey. Who knew? (not me, obviously).
According to Wikipedia the House of Lords has been around for just over 200 years, long enough for you and I to get used to it. So, we can take it as read, a second Chamber is here to stay.
But hereditary/rewarded peers are not the way forward. I don’t see anything wrong with electing a second chamber. I certainly don’t see the reason to abolish a second chamber. (I’m sure you’re not suggesting that).
The Lords do what they do, they are who they are, and occaisionally they get bad press, or project an image of old biffers turning up to settle down for a snooze, but they serve a purpose. And they’re really the only safety net we’ve got to prevent a government trying to bulldoze unpopular legislation through.
Not having a second chamber?
Makes me feel a bit uncomfortable to be honest. The system we’ve got isn’t perfect, but let’s try and work with what we’ve got before we, hopefully, reform it.
Spardo:
It’s all to do with democracy, either we want it or we don’t, but if we do all that lot has to be directly voted for. And there is nothing proving the fitness of any of them to be more likely to run the country sensibly.Now, if we are saying that a great mass of the voting population doesn’t know what it is talking about, then tough, that’s the price of democracy.
To be fair Spardo, there’s not a lot to prove they DON’T.
But that’s not the point, I know, they should be elected.
I have to say down here in the far west of Cornwall our Lord was one of those to lose his seat in the Lords reshuffle a few years ago.
I don’t think anyone thought of him as supporting a particular party, but rather one who looked after our interests regardless of who was in power in Westminster, whilst it’s not a perfect system if you have a good lord then it works.
Our Lord was known to everyone as Lordy - and when he was on walkabout in town people would always call out to him and say ‘Alright Lordy?’ and he would generally reply with 'Yeh Alright & You Too?"
Well loved & sadly missed - proper Cornish Lord - had a nice house too: 
dexxy57:
Who knew? (not me, obviously).
Ill pass up on feeling superior... Twas your comments made me wonder, and got my google finger itching. So I knew only a few minutes before you.
Half the world manages with one chamber, some better than others.
Our system is far from the worst, but if we sit around congratulating ourselves about how great we are, we will fall back as others overtake us.
We need an overhaul of many of our systems of government.
Democracy is not a stable state, it is an evolving, ongoing, process.
Im not saying abolish the second chamber, nor am I saying it must be kept. It was ripe for reform in 1999, and is past its sell by date now.
Lords/2nd Chamber, Proportional Representation, Referendum/Representative/Delegative systems…
Nothing else on the horizon? Sort it tomorrow morning then. 
Franglais:
Ill pass up on feeling superior... Twas your comments made me wonder, and got my google finger itching. So I knew only a few minutes before you.
Half the world manages with one chamber, some better than others.Our system is far from the worst, but if we sit around congratulating ourselves about how great we are, we will fall back as others overtake us.
We need an overhaul of many of our systems of government.
Democracy is not a stable state, it is an evolving, ongoing, process.I
m not saying abolish the second chamber, nor am I saying it must be kept. It was ripe for reform in 1999, and is past its sell by date now.
Lords/2nd Chamber, Proportional Representation, Referendum/Representative/Delegative systems…Nothing else on the horizon? Sort it tomorrow morning then.
I am genuinely amazed that these countries have only one parliamentary chamber.
I’ll try and sort out these other issues before tomorrow (don’t hold your breath).
dexxy57:
I’ll try and sort out these other issues before tomorrow
Sigh…a good night`s sleep at last!
P.S.
Check out “sortition”…
Google, wiki, TED Talk, whatever…
Franglais:
P.S.
Check out “sortition”…
Google, wiki, TED Talk, whatever…
Hmm . . . Checked it out. Maybe Aye, maybe no. You fancy having CF as your MP?
Sortition for Jury Service is how it works at the moment. Isn’t it?
But to use it for government, even just the Upper House . . . I don’t think so.
dexxy57:
Sortition for Jury Service is how it works at the moment. Isn’t it?
But to use it for government, even just the Upper House . . . I don’t think so.
Loyalty is to conscience not to political party.
Got to admit, I like that bit. But how would that work in the UK?
Actually, that could probably work very well in the Upper House. Until, of course, Politics reared its ugly head.
Maybe I’m being a bit cynical.
dexxy57:
dexxy57:
Sortition for Jury Service is how it works at the moment. Isn’t it?
But to use it for government, even just the Upper House . . . I don’t think so.Loyalty is to conscience not to political party.
Got to admit, I like that bit. But how would that work in the UK?
Actually, that could probably work very well in the Upper House. Until, of course, Politics reared its ugly head.
Maybe I’m being a bit cynical.
One interesting point with current system is that Lords aren’t afraid of party whips, which seems a good thing.
But in the Commons some of the current issue is with MPs following their conscience and not the party line, of course.
.
Then we have other systems whereby Sheriffs are elected or prosecutor are political appointees in the US. Seems open to abuse to me, be it consciously or not?
.
Sortition is counter to what is our norm and takes quite a conscious effort to look at fairly.
Franglais:
Spardo:
It’s all to do with democracy, either we want it or we don’t, but if we do all that lot has to be directly voted for. And there is nothing proving the fitness of any of them to be more likely to run the country sensibly.Now, if we are saying that a great mass of the voting population doesn’t know what it is talking about, then tough, that’s the price of democracy.
Part of having a population "knowing what it is talking about " must be, I
d suggest, having an honest and reliable media. The BBC may be less than perfect....but I dont agree withramone:
TV Licences should be scrapped and the BBC should find the money elsewhere like other broadcasting companies do , or close imhoThe thought of rich individuals such as the “Dirty Digger” or media companies enslaved to advertising monies, being the only sources of information and news, is horrific.
The thought of owning a tv in Britain and told you must pay for a licence instead of being able to opt out of having BBC on your tv is more horrific.
ramone:
Franglais:
Spardo:
It’s all to do with democracy, either we want it or we don’t, but if we do all that lot has to be directly voted for. And there is nothing proving the fitness of any of them to be more likely to run the country sensibly.Now, if we are saying that a great mass of the voting population doesn’t know what it is talking about, then tough, that’s the price of democracy.
Part of having a population "knowing what it is talking about " must be, I
d suggest, having an honest and reliable media. The BBC may be less than perfect....but I dont agree withramone:
TV Licences should be scrapped and the BBC should find the money elsewhere like other broadcasting companies do , or close imhoThe thought of rich individuals such as the “Dirty Digger” or media companies enslaved to advertising monies, being the only sources of information and news, is horrific.
The thought of owning a tv in Britain and told you must pay for a licence instead of being able to opt out of having BBC on your tv is more horrific.
I find it hard to jump and down and say youre wrong, so I wont.
And to argue against my point, C4 News generally does a good job.
Franglais:
ramone:
Franglais:
Spardo:
It’s all to do with democracy, either we want it or we don’t, but if we do all that lot has to be directly voted for. And there is nothing proving the fitness of any of them to be more likely to run the country sensibly.Now, if we are saying that a great mass of the voting population doesn’t know what it is talking about, then tough, that’s the price of democracy.
Part of having a population "knowing what it is talking about " must be, I
d suggest, having an honest and reliable media. The BBC may be less than perfect....but I dont agree withramone:
TV Licences should be scrapped and the BBC should find the money elsewhere like other broadcasting companies do , or close imhoThe thought of rich individuals such as the “Dirty Digger” or media companies enslaved to advertising monies, being the only sources of information and news, is horrific.
The thought of owning a tv in Britain and told you must pay for a licence instead of being able to opt out of having BBC on your tv is more horrific.
I find it hard to jump and down and say you
re wrong, so I wont.
And to argue against my point, C4 News generally does a good job.
R
No choice is the point im making ,the BBC should fund theirselves
ramone:
No choice is the point im making ,the BBC should fund theirselves
They might as well do, the bloody repetitive advertising between each programme is as long as the others, especially the one that invites me to watch on IPlayer, What’s IPlayer? 
Something I haven’t got, that’s for sure. 
Franglais:
C4 News generally does a good job.
I agree, usually watch the hour long evening programme of theirs, but that John Snow is past his sell by date now I reckon, stumbling over his words, mixing up his script and the false emphasis to try and look young and trendy. If that’s all it takes, I could do that job. 
The other day in Parliament he was seen to shove someone out of the way because his light came on. 
And then, when interviewing outside Grenfell, he forgot someone’s name, seconds after introducing her. Definitely a job I could do. 