Newbie to this Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) Seems Nigel Farage has set his sights on the House of Lords, now that Brexit is well under way. Should the Lords be worried? Nigel seems to have a knack of fielding policies that people want and of late a lot of his policies seem to be becoming everday policies. I think they should be worried, he is talking of a fully elected upper house and no longer a job for the 'friends/contributers/failed or disgraced politicians' upper house. Edited February 23, 2020 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: Seems Nigel Farage has set his sights on the House of Lords, now that Brexit is well under way. Should the Lords be worried? Nigel seems to have a knack of fielding policies that people want and of late a lot of his policies seem to be becoming everday policies. I think they should be worried, he is talking of a fully elected upper house and no longer a job for the 'friends/contributers/failed or disgraced politicians' upper house. A fully elected HoL is a bad idea. If you look at who is in the house of Lords, they're there for a particular reason, often because of serious expertise in a particular area. The wider public is just as guilty - if not more so - of voting for people they just like the look of, regardless of any common sense counter argument. How else do you explain Corbyn's rise! Have a look at who actually is in it. It's a 700+ cross section of backgrounds, political persuasion and expertise. There are bound to be some duds in there, and it probably is time to ditch hereditary peerage, but having people like Baroness Grey-Thompson rubbing shoulders with life long politicians and business leaders is an institution worth protecting, what could be better explained is the makeup and role of the House of Lords to the wider public. It probably has far greater diversity than any other public body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 12 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: A fully elected HoL is a bad idea. If you look at who is in the house of Lords, they're there for a particular reason, often because of serious expertise in a particular area. The wider public is just as guilty - if not more so - of voting for people they just like the look of, regardless of any common sense counter argument. How else do you explain Corbyn's rise! Have a look at who actually is in it. It's a 700+ cross section of backgrounds, political persuasion and expertise. There are bound to be some duds in there, and it probably is time to ditch hereditary peerage, but having people like Baroness Grey-Thompson rubbing shoulders with life long politicians and business leaders is an institution worth protecting, what could be better explained is the makeup and role of the House of Lords to the wider public. It probably has far greater diversity than any other public body. I have always found that the general public don't like any sort of "public sector" or service job that is well paid. Head of the council on £100k a year? They're spitting feathers. Even heads of massive charities being paid properly, there is absolute outrage. Whats the average wage in the U.K. ? Isn't average HOUSEHOLD income about £28,000 a year? People seem to think that they would be capable of doing these high end jobs, and because they are paid much less, then no one should be paid so much. Wage envy I call it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted February 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: Wage envy I call it. Not many jobs where you can get a cab to work on expenses, leave the cab waiting outside with the meter running, go into work sign in, leave and get back in the cab having now secured your pay for the day, without doing one bit of work. Not to mention the pay is set to go up! Edited February 23, 2020 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 29 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: they're there for a particular reason, often because of serious expertise in a particular area. That is certainly how it should be, but these days, it isn't. In my view - there should be senior persons from 'public life' such as ; retired Bishops (and equivalents from other major religions), Military (all services), the legal profession (e.g. judges), business and industry, finance the medical profession. academics The should become eligible after they have retired from their occupation, and have a term of 5 years, and allowed a maximum of 2 terms. Selection of candidates should be a shortlist selected by the present HoL (non political), followed by a public ballot to choose from the shortlist. What is being looked for are expertise and 'level headed' reasoning. The following should not be eligible to stand; Former MPs (they have done their time in governing) Civil servants from normal civil service jobs in government (i.e. not (non government specialists like legal, military etc.) - they have also done their bit in governing Officials from political organisations and parties, trades unions, pressure groups - the aim is to make it a group of subject matter experts, not political. There should be a minimum level of attendance of (say 80% of sitting days) and an MPs salary and legitimate expenses. The 'title' is relinquished when you leave the HoL. Those who fail to meet the attendance without good reason (e.g. health problems) should loose their seats. There should be a significantly smaller number, thinking about half of the number of MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted February 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: That is certainly how it should be, but these days, it isn't. In my view - there should be senior persons from 'public life' such as ; retired Bishops (and equivalents from other major religions), Military (all services), the legal profession (e.g. judges), business and industry, finance the medical profession. academics The should become eligible after they have retired from their occupation, and have a term of 5 years, and allowed a maximum of 2 terms. Selection of candidates should be a shortlist selected by the present HoL (non political), followed by a public ballot to choose from the shortlist. What is being looked for are expertise and 'level headed' reasoning. The following should not be eligible to stand; Former MPs (they have done their time in governing) Civil servants from normal civil service jobs in government (i.e. not (non government specialists like legal, military etc.) - they have also done their bit in governing Officials from political organisations and parties, trades unions, pressure groups - the aim is to make it a group of subject matter experts, not political. There should be a minimum level of attendance of (say 80% of sitting days) and an MPs salary and legitimate expenses. The 'title' is relinquished when you leave the HoL. Those who fail to meet the attendance without good reason (e.g. health problems) should loose their seats. There should be a significantly smaller number, thinking about half of the number of MPs. I'll go with that, it all sounds reasonably sensible and the public have the final say on who is elected. Edited February 23, 2020 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: That is certainly how it should be, but these days, it isn't. In my view - there should be senior persons from 'public life' such as ; retired Bishops (and equivalents from other major religions), Military (all services), the legal profession (e.g. judges), business and industry, finance the medical profession. academics The should become eligible after they have retired from their occupation, and have a term of 5 years, and allowed a maximum of 2 terms. Selection of candidates should be a shortlist selected by the present HoL (non political), followed by a public ballot to choose from the shortlist. What is being looked for are expertise and 'level headed' reasoning. The following should not be eligible to stand; Former MPs (they have done their time in governing) Civil servants from normal civil service jobs in government (i.e. not (non government specialists like legal, military etc.) - they have also done their bit in governing Officials from political organisations and parties, trades unions, pressure groups - the aim is to make it a group of subject matter experts, not political. There should be a minimum level of attendance of (say 80% of sitting days) and an MPs salary and legitimate expenses. The 'title' is relinquished when you leave the HoL. Those who fail to meet the attendance without good reason (e.g. health problems) should loose their seats. There should be a significantly smaller number, thinking about half of the number of MPs. That would work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 26 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: Not many jobs where you can get a cab to work on expenses, leave the cab waiting outside with the meter running, go into work sign in, leave and get back in the cab having now secured your pay for the day, without doing one bit of work. Not to mention the pay is set to go up! How many actually do that? And thsat doesn't mean the house should be abolished, it means those practices should be banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 13 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: I'll go with that, it all sounds reasonably sensible and the public have the final say on who is elected. But people are idiots! Who goes into the HoL shouldn't be picked by people who are clueless as to how it actually works! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: But people are idiots! Who goes into the HoL shouldn't be picked by people who are clueless as to how it actually works! Which is why the 'incumbent' HoL creates a shortlist from which the public select the sitting member Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted February 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: How many actually do that? And thsat doesn't mean the house should be abolished, it means those practices should be banned. Doesn't matter how many! And abolished was not mentioned. 8 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: But people are idiots! Who goes into the HoL shouldn't be picked by people who are clueless as to how it actually works! Maybe we shouldn't have a say on any of our government, seeing as we are all Idiots! Unelected Dictatorship is the way forward Some people may be idiots, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have any say on who makes their rules, laws and policies. Edited February 23, 2020 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B725 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said: I have always found that the general public don't like any sort of "public sector" or service job that is well paid. Head of the council on £100k a year? They're spitting feathers. Even heads of massive charities being paid properly, there is absolute outrage. Whats the average wage in the U.K. ? Isn't average HOUSEHOLD income about £28,000 a year? People seem to think that they would be capable of doing these high end jobs, and because they are paid much less, then no one should be paid so much. Wage envy I call it. £100k and more there is a lot on the £60k_£90k aswell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 minute ago, B725 said: £100k and more there is a lot on the £60k_£90k aswell So? If base line staff are on £30k, then staff higher up the chain are going to be on more... I am on a base line ish job within the council, I would expect my seniors to be on more money, the team manager to be on more again, the head of service to be up another band, and the head of the whole council to be on more again... otherwise whats the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted February 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: How many actually do that? Just heard on LBC, that 1 in 7 got paid and did not contribute in any debate last year. Edited February 23, 2020 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, chrisjpainter said: A fully elected HoL is a bad idea. If you look at who is in the house of Lords, they're there for a particular reason, often because of serious expertise in a particular area. The wider public is just as guilty - if not more so - of voting for people they just like the look of, regardless of any common sense counter argument. How else do you explain Corbyn's rise! Have a look at who actually is in it. It's a 700+ cross section of backgrounds, political persuasion and expertise. There are bound to be some duds in there, and it probably is time to ditch hereditary peerage, but having people like Baroness Grey-Thompson rubbing shoulders with life long politicians and business leaders is an institution worth protecting, what could be better explained is the makeup and role of the House of Lords to the wider public. It probably has far greater diversity than any other public body. Disagree on the hereditary bit. We had some very intelligent people in the Lords back then and they are far better than many of those there now because they covered the palm of some PM or Political leader or just happened to work in the Civil Service for a few years. I believe a second fully elected chamber, reduced in size by at least 50% would be a good idea. The Corbyns fortunately are in the small minority and the areas designated for the electoral areas for the Lords shoulbe be drawn not on council boundaries but along the lines on an OS map and that way you would get a much more diverse population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B725 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 I also work for a council but like all government place's they are top heavy with managers, of course the higher up you go you should be paid more, but a tree needs solid root's to hold up all the leaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 ..............and why the unbelievable idea to move the Lords to York. What is that going to cost and I can't get the potholes in our lanes repaird and never get a proper salting on frosty nights. Definitely jobs for the boys and should be sorted. 3 minutes ago, B725 said: I also work for a council but like all government place's they are top heavy with managers, of course the higher up you go you should be paid more, but a tree needs solid root's to hold up all the leaves. I said that in a letter to the Police Federation back in 1974 when the accelerated promotion for Uni Graduates was brought in and they went ahead anyway. Now look at the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B725 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 Did you get a reply or just told to go away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 Had a lot of support from proper policemen and women back then who could see the way things where going. In the last 15yrs of my service I saw them come and go, couldn't make a decison without checking their Cs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 2 hours ago, chrisjpainter said: But people are idiots! Who goes into the HoL shouldn't be picked by people who are clueless as to how it actually works! Maybe it doesn't? Clear the lot out and start over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.