[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

Peteinblack · Apr 23, 2024

Funny how the Tories suddenly complain that the House of Lords is undemocratic, and so has no right to obstruct the Bills of an elected government.

They've been in government for 14 years, so had plenty of time to reform the Second Chamber.

And of course, if and when the House of Lords blocks the legislation of a Labour government, the Tories will be praising it as essential to checks-and-balances, and a vital bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism.

Usual hypocritical Tory BS.

Hugo Rune · Apr 23, 2024

Peteinblack said:
Funny how the Tories suddenly complain that the House of Lords is undemocratic, and so has no right to obstruct the Bills of an elected government.

They've been in government for 14 years, so had plenty of time to reform the Second Chamber.

And of course, if and when the House of Lords blocks the legislation of a Labour government, the Tories will be praising it as essential to checks-and-balances, and a vital bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism.

Usual hypocritical Tory BS.

Let’s hope Labour are serious about reforming it.

I think a second chamber is essential but its lack of accountability is astounding. The Lords should be apolitical and peers should be voted in, not given ‘life’ jobs like Johnson’s half sister (allegedly).

jcdenton08 · Apr 23, 2024

Hugo Rune said:
Let’s hope Labour are serious about reforming it.

I think a second chamber is essential but its lack of accountability is astounding. The Lords should be apolitical and peers should be voted in, not given ‘life’ jobs like Johnson’s half sister (allegedly).

Exactly this, in my view. It’s very important to have a dispassionate, neutral second “layer” to prevent zeitgeist and knee-jerk nonsense passing through Parliament.

But what we have isn’t that. But then, look at the US, where horrible laws like pro-life scumfuckery is getting waved through the upper house. The Lords is crucial, but needs root and branch reform.

Peteinblack · Apr 23, 2024

jcdenton08 said:
Exactly this, in my view. It’s very important to have a dispassionate, neutral second “layer” to prevent zeitgeist and knee-jerk nonsense passing through Parliament.

But what we have isn’t that. But then, look at the US, where horrible laws like pro-life scumfuckery is getting waved through the upper house. The Lords is crucial, but needs root and branch reform.

The Republicans and Christian Fundamentalists are 'pro-life' up until the moment the baby is born, and then they don't give a **** about its subsequent life, or mental or physical well-being.

Also, they oppose an NHS on the grounds that this would grant the State control over people's bodies and physical well-being, but they want the State to have control over women's bodies and deny them choice over their reproductive decisions.

The hypocrisy of these people is matched only by their ignorance and stupidity - rather like many Tories here in Britain!

Thunder Bolt · Apr 23, 2024

nicko31 said:
I used to vote for them because of people like him and Heseltine. The party has lost the plot, not being racist enough for the crypto-fascists on the right but losing the centre.

I see they got their bill through. From here it will be lefty lawyers, foreign courts, ECHR this, ECHR that etc etc ...

The question is if anyone does go to Rwanda, who do they send back in return as part of the 1:1 swap?

Stop the world, I want to get off.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Apr 23, 2024

jcdenton08 said:
Exactly this, in my view. It’s very important to have a dispassionate, neutral second “layer” to prevent zeitgeist and knee-jerk nonsense passing through Parliament.

But what we have isn’t that. But then, look at the US, where horrible laws like pro-life scumfuckery is getting waved through the upper house. The Lords is crucial, but needs root and branch reform.

I hate to say this given the archaic state of the Lords, I prefer it to an elected upper chamber. Here's why.

With an elected upper chamber, whether seats are via FPTP or via some other form of voting, the make up will reflect the position of the electorate at the moment of voting. Now, you can elect an upper chamber either at the same time as the lower chamber is elected, or at mid cycle.

If both chambers are elected at the same time, they will both reflect the electorate at that time in the same way. So if we have a big swing to labour (like seems likely now), the upper chamber will also swing left. In which case, in what way would the upper chamber be motivated to exert checks and balances on parliament?

If on the other hand the electoral cycle is out of synch, what normally happens is after a couple of years the public is bored of that lot in the house of commons and so would vote for the other lot in upper chamber elections. In which case the upper chamber would tend to want to block the initiatives of the house of commons and HMG.

Before anyone starts arguing that if the upper chamber were elected by PR it would me more consensual and would not block HMG's government's bill reflexly.....what would be the point of that? It would be the equivalent of the weapons inspection protocol of Hans Blix. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing, other than be polite and drink tea. Probably that chamomile muck..

We either want an upper chamber to exert checks and balances.... or not.

In any case I'm pretty sure that a tory government, fed up with having archbishops and the like blocking one of their madcap bills, changed the law so that Lords can piss parliament about for only so long (a year?) whereupon and whence the outcome is resolved by parliament. Thus Lords can delay but not block.

When MPs were men and women of honour, having one's collar felt by Lords meant something and HMG would play ball. However, for quite some time now, the Tories have been run by men and women of dishonour: chavs, little lord Fauntleroys, carpetbaggers and shysters. They don't care about democracy, and only about getting their own way.

So we may as well bin the Lords, but I'd be happy to leave it as is. Changing it to an elected house would be the worst option as it would give an appearance of greater democracy that would be illusional, and its behaviour may become more capricious that what we have now. And as I have said 100 million times, we are not f***ing Germans, Danes or Italians. I don't care what they do. If anyone mentions Germany I may have to trot out an old joke that would probably earn me an infraction at the very least.

Pevenseagull · Apr 23, 2024

nicko31 said:
Another day, another Tory

Wouldn't happen in Germany

Germany spying: Far-right party aide held in China spy probe

Prosecutors identify the suspect as Jian G and accuse him of passing information to Chinese intelligence.

www.bbc.co.uk

...oh

Thunder Bolt · Apr 23, 2024

Five confirmed dead in the Channel, by the French coastguard, this morning. Three men, a woman and a child.

jcdenton08 · Apr 23, 2024

Thunder Bolt said:
Five confirmed dead in the Channel, by the French coastguard, this morning. Three men, a woman and a child.

Very sad every time this happens. Nothing else to be said really. Not sure what it has to do with the Tories though? These tragedies would happen under any government.

Is it PotG? · Apr 23, 2024

Thunder Bolt said:
Five confirmed dead in the Channel, by the French coastguard, this morning. Three men, a woman and a child.

Very sad indeed.

Odd thread to post such awful news on though.

Sid and the Sharknados · Apr 23, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I hate to say this given the archaic state of the Lords, I prefer it to an elected upper chamber. Here's why.

With an elected upper chamber, whether seats are via FPTP or via some other form of voting, the make up will reflect the position of the electorate at the moment of voting. Now, you can elect an upper chamber either at the same time as the lower chamber is elected, or at mid cycle.

If both chambers are elected at the same time, they will both reflect the electorate at that time in the same way. So if we have a big swing to labour (like seems likely now), the upper chamber will also swing left. In which case, in what way would the upper chamber be motivated to exert checks and balances on parliament?

If on the other hand the electoral cycle is out of synch, what normally happens is after a couple of years the public is bored of that lot in the house of commons and so would vote for the other lot in upper chamber elections. In which case the upper chamber would tend to want to block the initiatives of the house of commons and HMG.

Before anyone starts arguing that if the upper chamber were elected by PR it would me more consensual and would not block HMG's government's bill reflexly.....what would be the point of that? It would be the equivalent of the weapons inspection protocol of Hans Blix. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing, other than be polite and drink tea. Probably that chamomile muck..

We either want an upper chamber to exert checks and balances.... or not.

In any case I'm pretty sure that a tory government, fed up with having archbishops and the like blocking one of their madcap bills, changed the law so that Lords can piss parliament about for only so long (a year?) whereupon and whence the outcome is resolved by parliament. Thus Lords can delay but not block.

When MPs were men and women of honour, having one's collar felt by Lords meant something and HMG would play ball. However, for quite some time now, the Tories have been run by men and women of dishonour: chavs, little lord Fauntleroys, carpetbaggers and shysters. They don't care about democracy, and only about getting their own way.

So we may as well bin the Lords, but I'd be happy to leave it as is. Changing it to an elected house would be the worst option as it would give an appearance of greater democracy that would be illusional, and its behaviour may become more capricious that what we have now. And as I have said 100 million times, we are not f***ing Germans, Danes or Italians. I don't care what they do. If anyone mentions Germany I may have to trot out an old joke that would probably earn me an infraction at the very least.

I think the Lords should be appointed, but by a committee of people/MPs from across the spectrum. Instead of by whoever happens to be in power/resigning at the time.
If everybody (or I don't know, maybe 75%) of people on said committee don't agree to somebody being appointed, they don't get in.
No implication of democratic mandate, people should be appointed purely on the basis of competence and integrity. And I guess actually being willing to do it.

Thunder Bolt · Apr 23, 2024

Is it PotG? said:
Very sad indeed.

Odd thread to post such awful news on though.

The whole point of the Tory government passing the Rwanda bill was that it is a deterrent to small boats. Maybe these poor deceased souls didn't hear the news last night?
Dead migrants in the Channel are very much part of this thread slating the Conservatives.

I am heartbroken at what this country has become.

Thunder Bolt · Apr 23, 2024

jcdenton08 said:
Very sad every time this happens. Nothing else to be said really. Not sure what it has to do with the Tories though? These tragedies would happen under any government.

President Macron offered to have an asylum processing centre in France, but Theresa May turned it down. Before 2018, there were very few boats, and easily dealt with by Border Force officials.
It is very much to do with this government.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Apr 23, 2024

Thunder Bolt said:
Five confirmed dead in the Channel, by the French coastguard, this morning. Three men, a woman and a child.

Soon that will all stop, with the sensational new deterrent.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Apr 23, 2024

Sid and the Sharknados said:
I think the Lords should be appointed, but by a committee of people/MPs from across the spectrum. Instead of by whoever happens to be in power/resigning at the time.
If everybody (or I don't know, maybe 75%) of people on said committee don't agree to somebody being appointed, they don't get in.
No implication of democratic mandate, people should be appointed purely on the basis of competence and integrity. And I guess actually being willing to do it.

Good suggestion.

nicko31 · Apr 23, 2024

Thunder Bolt said:
President Macron offered to have an asylum processing centre in France, but Theresa May turned it down. Before 2018, there were very few boats, and easily dealt with by Border Force officials.
It is very much to do with this government.

Not to mention binning the Dublin agreement, ie there's no longer a returns arrangement with France. Boom time for criminal gangs, esp with Europol binned and data sharing scrapped.

Soaring immigration legal and illegal is the work of the Tories and their botched Brexit. What's more Farage aided their large majority in 2019 so he's an accessory too.

Sid and the Sharknados · Apr 23, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Good suggestion.

I can pretend to think we should elect it using Party List PR if that would be more fun?

Audax · Apr 23, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I hate to say this given the archaic state of the Lords, I prefer it to an elected upper chamber. Here's why.

With an elected upper chamber, whether seats are via FPTP or via some other form of voting, the make up will reflect the position of the electorate at the moment of voting. Now, you can elect an upper chamber either at the same time as the lower chamber is elected, or at mid cycle.

If both chambers are elected at the same time, they will both reflect the electorate at that time in the same way. So if we have a big swing to labour (like seems likely now), the upper chamber will also swing left. In which case, in what way would the upper chamber be motivated to exert checks and balances on parliament?

If on the other hand the electoral cycle is out of synch, what normally happens is after a couple of years the public is bored of that lot in the house of commons and so would vote for the other lot in upper chamber elections. In which case the upper chamber would tend to want to block the initiatives of the house of commons and HMG.

Before anyone starts arguing that if the upper chamber were elected by PR it would me more consensual and would not block HMG's government's bill reflexly.....what would be the point of that? It would be the equivalent of the weapons inspection protocol of Hans Blix. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing, other than be polite and drink tea. Probably that chamomile muck..

We either want an upper chamber to exert checks and balances.... or not.

In any case I'm pretty sure that a tory government, fed up with having archbishops and the like blocking one of their madcap bills, changed the law so that Lords can piss parliament about for only so long (a year?) whereupon and whence the outcome is resolved by parliament. Thus Lords can delay but not block.

When MPs were men and women of honour, having one's collar felt by Lords meant something and HMG would play ball. However, for quite some time now, the Tories have been run by men and women of dishonour: chavs, little lord Fauntleroys, carpetbaggers and shysters. They don't care about democracy, and only about getting their own way.

So we may as well bin the Lords, but I'd be happy to leave it as is. Changing it to an elected house would be the worst option as it would give an appearance of greater democracy that would be illusional, and its behaviour may become more capricious that what we have now. And as I have said 100 million times, we are not f***ing Germans, Danes or Italians. I don't care what they do. If anyone mentions Germany I may have to trot out an old joke that would probably earn me an infraction at the very least.

Might be worth doing some research into electorally defined 2 chamber systems that exist already before jumping to conclusions about how they'd work? eg Australia has a second chamber (the Senate) that is elected via a form of PR. Senator terms are offset - unless there's a "double dissolution" general election (interestingly, in Australia the Rwanda bill would have triggered this rather than go through extended ping-pong) only half the chamber is up for election at each general election. Very, very rarely does it produce a majority for any given party. But equally, it is only very rarely that the Senate imposes its will on the lower chamber. But it does exert enough power to prevent any excesses from an incumbent government from being forced through the way we've seen the Rwanda bill pushed through.

FWIW - I personally think the Rwanda bill is undemocratic. As voters, we've never been given an opportunity to vote against it at a GE. It's never been in a manifesto. Just because the government that has forced it through was democratically elected, does not make the bill itself democratically implemented.

Nobby Cybergoat · Apr 23, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I hate to say this given the archaic state of the Lords, I prefer it to an elected upper chamber. Here's why.

With an elected upper chamber, whether seats are via FPTP or via some other form of voting, the make up will reflect the position of the electorate at the moment of voting. Now, you can elect an upper chamber either at the same time as the lower chamber is elected, or at mid cycle.

If both chambers are elected at the same time, they will both reflect the electorate at that time in the same way. So if we have a big swing to labour (like seems likely now), the upper chamber will also swing left. In which case, in what way would the upper chamber be motivated to exert checks and balances on parliament?

If on the other hand the electoral cycle is out of synch, what normally happens is after a couple of years the public is bored of that lot in the house of commons and so would vote for the other lot in upper chamber elections. In which case the upper chamber would tend to want to block the initiatives of the house of commons and HMG.

Before anyone starts arguing that if the upper chamber were elected by PR it would me more consensual and would not block HMG's government's bill reflexly.....what would be the point of that? It would be the equivalent of the weapons inspection protocol of Hans Blix. In other words, it would do absolutely nothing, other than be polite and drink tea. Probably that chamomile muck..

We either want an upper chamber to exert checks and balances.... or not.

In any case I'm pretty sure that a tory government, fed up with having archbishops and the like blocking one of their madcap bills, changed the law so that Lords can piss parliament about for only so long (a year?) whereupon and whence the outcome is resolved by parliament. Thus Lords can delay but not block.

When MPs were men and women of honour, having one's collar felt by Lords meant something and HMG would play ball. However, for quite some time now, the Tories have been run by men and women of dishonour: chavs, little lord Fauntleroys, carpetbaggers and shysters. They don't care about democracy, and only about getting their own way.

So we may as well bin the Lords, but I'd be happy to leave it as is. Changing it to an elected house would be the worst option as it would give an appearance of greater democracy that would be illusional, and its behaviour may become more capricious that what we have now. And as I have said 100 million times, we are not f***ing Germans, Danes or Italians. I don't care what they do. If anyone mentions Germany I may have to trot out an old joke that would probably earn me an infraction at the very least.

I agree with you.

I class the idea of an elected upper chamber in the same way as VAR or Kim Kardashian. Superficially attractive, but when you think a little harder about what the idea would entail obvious problems soon become apparent..

I also don't mind it being archaic. I don't particularly mind the idea of mad old viscounts being there by virtue of their birth At worst they are going to put up some resistance to social change, but are never really going to stop anything. What I object to is politicians putting KGB operatives, party donors, or mysterious young women with no obvious credentials, but almost certainly a proclivity for blackmail. I object to Prime Ministers being able add lords when they resign, even if they've lasted for a shorter period of time than a lettuce.

Scappa · Apr 23, 2024

Peteinblack said:
Funny how the Tories suddenly complain that the House of Lords is undemocratic, and so has no right to obstruct the Bills of an elected government.

They've been in government for 14 years, so had plenty of time to reform the Second Chamber.

And of course, if and when the House of Lords blocks the legislation of a Labour government, the Tories will be praising it as essential to checks-and-balances, and a vital bulwark against tyranny and authoritarianism.

Usual hypocritical Tory BS.

Odd for a party that gives out peerages like they were dodgy PPE contracts

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Enemy of the People

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Anti-greed coalition

Silly old bat

Enemy of the People

Thrifty non-licker

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Silly old bat

Attachments

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Boing boing boing...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page