browns not backing down so looks like more road blocks ahead

Problem is with elected anything is the level of apathy in the UK right now having elections more often is no good till we can get people involved in politics again. For that sadly we need some politicians of worth people that have a message to deliver that actually is for the good of the people and a person that can be in the public eye without some scandal coming to light. Not going to happen anytime soon i think and therefore the idea of getting elected officials for parliament and HOL good as it would probably be is a non starter for now.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

The problem with this is that the independence of the HOL may well be affected if we go for elected candidates especially if it comes down to members being promoted by either of the three main political parties.

What I like about the present system is that each hereditary lord is not bound to support any party because their position is already secure and not reliant on support from a political party.

A lot of those hereditaries are affiliated to the Tory party though coggy, the leader of the Conservatives in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde is an hereditary, until the 2002 house of Lords reform act the Tories had an inbuilt majority by way of hereditaries which had given them a majority for nearly a thousand years. Even now the hereditary make up of the Lords is
Conservative 42
Liberals 3
Labour 2
Cross 28
Others without voting rights 16

After the reform bill the Labour government made more life peers who were affiliated to the Labour party so as to balance the benches.

Having said this the higher echelons of the Conservative party no longer want the hereditary situation to continue, and the remaining 92 will eventually be phased out by "natural wastage" ie: death. By which time hopefully all three major parties will have agreed a consensus.

As it stands now the make up is as follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_o...nt_composition

Originally Posted by frogstamper

A lot of those hereditaries are affiliated to the Tory party though coggy, the leader of the Conservatives in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde is an hereditary, until the 2002 house of Lords reform act the Tories had an inbuilt majority by way of hereditaries which had given them a majority for nearly a thousand years. Even now the hereditary make up of the Lords is
Conservative 42
Liberals 3
Labour 2
Cross 28
Others without voting rights 16

After the reform bill the Labour government made more life peers who were affiliated to the Labour party so as to balance the benches.

Having said this the higher echelons of the Conservative party no longer want the hereditary situation to continue, and the remaining 92 will eventually be phased out by "natural wastage" ie: death. By which time hopefully all three major parties will have agreed a consensus.

As it stands now the make up is as follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_o...nt_composition

But don't you see that if you make them an entirely elected second house then the divisions will be along exactly the same lines as in the Commons.I want a second house that is entirely independent of the influence of party lines.

I've not been entirely happy about the imbalance of the past but I fail to see how an elected body won't bring us back to frequent imbalance every time there is an election.I frankly think what we have now is preferable to that plus at least with a Lord who is in for life that they aren't affected by short termism as so frequently affects the Commons.Someone complained about the kneejerk reactions of government but it has to be said that the HOL can avoid all that at present.An elected body may not be able to resist.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

But don't you see that if you make them an entirely elected second house then the divisions will be along exactly the same lines as in the Commons.I want a second house that is entirely independent of the influence of party lines.

I've not been entirely happy about the imbalance of the past but I fail to see how an elected body won't bring us back to frequent imbalance every time there is an election.I frankly think what we have now is preferable to that plus at least with a Lord who is in for life that they aren't affected by short termism as so frequently affects the Commons.Someone complained about the kneejerk reactions of government but it has to be said that the HOL can avoid all that at present.An elected body may not be able to resist.

To be perfectly honest coggy I'm not sure what is best, as you point out a 100% wholly elected house along party lines would just be a rubber stamp for the governing party, then or course if you have a wholly appointed house there's the question of who does the appointing. So it has to be a compromise between the two, whereby no party ever has a majority, say 60% elected 40% appointed. The problem comes I suppose with the appointees political affiliations, as I say I'm not sure, its just that I detest the idea of some Tufton Bufton from the shires whose only qualification is by accident of birth.

PS I like the new avatar, very sexy.

How about an upper house filled with ordinary members of the public every five or six years a set amount of people from across the UK are chosen and they form the upper house and oversee parliament. If nothing else it would certainly get the puiblic back into politics and would be a first for any developed country.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by seaofpepsicola

So it seems if he is not willing to cut prices, then it seems those haulage guys are going to pack it in as it is not worth it, and where does that leave the UK then.

It seems a catch 22 either way...UK is finished...

They are finished anyway, Europe has saw to that yesterday when they allowed foreign truckers the right to do other jobs once they had finished the one that brought them here, what a pish take, you know they are re-fuled by foreign tankers in a lot of cases, they pay nothing into the economy

[mouqeet]

the price off petrol is going a bit to high

[Hom3r]

Well last saturday 24th I paided 125ppl today the same garage is charging 128ppl.

That taking the p.

[Graham M]

Originally Posted by mouqeet

the price off petrol is going a bit to high

You think so?

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

How about an upper house filled with ordinary members of the public every five or six years a set amount of people from across the UK are chosen and they form the upper house and oversee parliament. If nothing else it would certainly get the puiblic back into politics and would be a first for any developed country.

Seems a good idea; the only thing is how would you define 'ordinary'. These people would be responsible for checking laws ensuring they serve the public and do not sacrifice liberty, safety, or otherwise unduly infringe upon the public in a way that outweighs the benefits of the law.

I would want the upper-chamber to be qualified to make these decisions; I think we often forget how difficult government must be. While there are not necessary any checks on suitability now, I think in most cases we elect people who have the intellect, if not always the competence, to make these choices.

Selecting ‘ordinary’ people would be a bad idea unless we select smart, responsible people.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Damien

Seems a good idea; the only thing is how would you define 'ordinary'. These people would be responsible for checking laws ensuring they serve the public and do not sacrifice liberty, safety, or otherwise unduly infringe upon the public in a way that outweighs the benefits of the law.

I would want the upper-chamber to be qualified to make these decisions; I think we often forget how difficult government must be. While there are not necessary any checks on suitability now, I think in most cases we elect people who have the intellect, if not always the competence, to make these choices.

Selecting ‘ordinary’ people would be a bad idea unless we select smart, responsible people.

Exactly, something along these lines would be a disaster if people were recruited as they are for jury duty, also what would worry me is how politically neutral any such person would be.

Or you could simply have experts that advise on the issues where there may be a lack of knowledge. While some on here seem to have large amounts of the UK population down as stupid and not as capable as some i have a little more faith that people have a grasp of things and could make reasoned arguments. Not being funny but for everyone on here and out in the real world that thinks they are more intelligent or more responsible then someone else there is someone that thinks your an idiot and not as responsible as them where does it stop. Also could it possibly be worse then what we have now where party lines matter more then the issue being debated\voted on.

[tweetiepooh]

My thoughts

1)We have in a sense been less hit here with fuel prices than else where BECAUSE tax is so high, the percentage increase is smaller (though the VAT element also increases).

2)Financially we are in the doodoos. Labour took over a growing economy and will pass over a sinking one. Whoever comes in will need to deal with that and have less room to manouver since Gordon sold of the family jewels.

3)The unelected nature of the upper house is brilliant. They don't have to follow party lines and instead can rule on what's good law etc. They don't have to be popular either. As unelected they quite rightly can't make law but they can and do reform it. Also as unelected they are not paid. True that may mean that they need to keep a day job but then surely that makes them more like the electorate in some senses.