“Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform

RT @leftfootfwd: “Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform: http://is.gd/79jZ9 #reasonsnottovotetory

Redistribute power to the ‘powerless’ by allowing Brown and the Labour party to have their parliamentry dictatorship without scrutiny? Perfectly sensible statements by both Cameron and Grieve.

RT @LeftFootFwd “Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform: http://is.gd/79jZ9

I've been quoted on the @leftfootforward blog calling Cameron's plans on Lords reform "shallow" and an "utter joke" http://tiny.cc/SAbXr

I've been quoted on the @leftfootfwd blog calling Cameron's plans on Lords reform "shallow" and an "utter joke" http://tiny.cc/SAbXr

Thomas, how does removing hereditary peers cause a “parliamentary dictatorship”?

For me, it’s just a step towards an elected lords, in the same fashion that AV is s stepping stone for those who wanted PR. I don’t want any more messing around with it, and it shouldn’t have been done in the first place

There is cause for concern however that removing them removes even more the indepedence of the Lords. I’m not averse to talking some sort of elected Lords, however only if the Parliament act was given the boot, which no-one I’ve talked to about it wishes to concede. (hence what would cause the PD)

Shambles!

I don’t agree with all the reform proposals; change to the voting system and an elected upper house I do not agree with, but I believe abolishing the hareditary principle is important.

Yet again, all airbrushed talk and no substance.

Remind me again where we are on “Reform of the lords” from the Labour Party conference 1995/6/7….

Thomas, if the second chamber became elected then it would inevitably gain greater powers because of the greater legitimacy it enjoys, so I’m sure the Parliament Act would need to be re-considered.

By supporting the hereditaries in there you’re supporting an illigitemate, and therefore weaker, unelected chamber which, if anything, is more likely to mean a “parliamentary dictatorship” (or “executive dictatorship” which I think is more accurate).

RT @leftfootfwd: “Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform: http://is.gd/79jZ9

RT @Jon2aylor: RT @leftfootfwd: “Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform: http://is.gd/79jZ9

Left Foot Forward – “Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform http://bit.ly/9dErdA

RT @Paul0Evans1: Left Foot Forward – “Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform http://bit.ly/9dErdA << surprised?!

I think the hereditary peers in the Lords have a great deal of social responsibility towards people. There’s no much point in wandering along to the nation’s Parliament to listen to rather dry debate on certain issues unless you really want to make a difference.

They do a damn good job, the pre blair parliament was arguably more accountable before they butchered the Lords amongst other things.

I can’t believe there are still people defending hereditary peers. Of course, the appointed peers (often semi-retired party hacks or large donors) are arguably as bad, but is there any serious argument against having an elected second chamber?

A shame that the Labour government hasn’t got round to sorting this out once & for all.

[...] for the abolition of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, prompting democracy campaigners to describe his leader David Cameron as “shallow” and “an utter joke” on the issue of [...]

Henry, the big problem that I would have with an elected or parcially elected second chamber is that this could introduce party-politics in to its work, meaning it gets like the commons, and legislation may not be scrutinized properly.

I personally don’t have a problem with the current system (except for the hereditaries); it is made up of people with a wide range of expertees, who can lend something to scrutiny of legislation.

So, apart from removing the hereditaries I don’t think it needs changing.

There is probably no such thing as democacy and certainly not in our society, and any elected government is a commisariat for the secular comeercialised state. Abolishing the hereditaries will most definitely hand power form the powerless to the powerful, as we have no say over the political agenda, no say over the issues to which we are dictated to give our assent, politicians who are obliged to grovel to the media (mark thompson in a meeting with davd cameron last year said the bbc wants the tories back in power and with the power of the bbc at his disposal will probably get it)all aprt of a political monolith made of capitalists, libertarians sorry liberals and the Guardian. the strength of the unelected house is precislely that, it cannot be influenced. Further, hereditary peers being born into it are of necessity a reassuringly different breed from the elected who are required to be self-seekers. No wonder Guardianistas and their poodles in the house of commons want them out. I say bring back the hereditaries, and involve Her Majesty more as well.