TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 From the Telegraph; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/05/hereditary-peers-removed-house-of-lords-next-summer/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dainty duck Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 well stoats will be pleased to hear this ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 Hello, They will be phoning accountants to get the last claims in !!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pushkin Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 (edited) Ha can't wait to see Toni Bliar being escorted off the premises and hopefully out of the country Pushkin Edited September 20 by Pushkin Spelling error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mellors Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 Got to make some room for financial backers, mates and freebie providers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pushandpull Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 Tony Blair is not a member of the House of Lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 43 minutes ago, Pushandpull said: Tony Blair is not a member of the House of Lords. Yet.....................watch this space Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 1 hour ago, mellors said: Got to make some room for financial backers, mates and freebie providers. ^^^ This ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 Great news. We'll done Kier for delivering the first part of the reform agenda. Let's get the rest chopped. Who thinks a bloated house of Lords is needed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuarta Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 For each one Starmer kicks out there will be some just as useless labour/union person put in their place. if the people can't elect them they should not be in government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armsid Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 26 minutes ago, Stuarta said: For each one Starmer kicks out there will be some just as useless labour/union person put in their place. if the people can't elect them they should not be in government. And people still want to go back into the EU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 He is only kicking out hereditary peers. I suspect they will be mainly Tories and Two Tier is pulling a fast one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted September 20 Report Share Posted September 20 31 minutes ago, Gordon R said: He is only kicking out hereditary peers. I suspect they will be mainly Tories and Two Tier is pulling a fast one. This, hereditary peers tend to be conservative, get rid of them and then stick some more labour cronies in there and all you plans get through without much trouble. If they are getting rid of hereditary peers they should also get rid of the church lot who sit there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 10 hours ago, oowee said: Great news. We'll done Kier for delivering the first part of the reform agenda. Let's get the rest chopped. Who thinks a bloated house of Lords is needed? Depends totally on what replaces it. We need an 'upper house', but not one full of "party donor' cronies (from any party). 8 hours ago, Gordon R said: He is only kicking out hereditary peers. I suspect they will be mainly Tories and Two Tier is pulling a fast one. Seems likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 21 Author Report Share Posted September 21 8 hours ago, welsh1 said: This, hereditary peers tend to be conservative, get rid of them and then stick some more labour cronies in there and all you plans get through without much trouble.If they are getting rid of hereditary peers they should also get rid of the church lot who sit there. Amen to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 9 hours ago, Gordon R said: He is only kicking out hereditary peers. I suspect they will be mainly Tories and Two Tier is pulling a fast one. Rightly so. Kier is standing up to power and privilege. Pulling a fast one 🤣 its for exactly the reason you explained. Tories using privilege of position to hold onto power. Get rid and stamp it out. Next he needs to cut the numbers. We don't need hundreds and hundreds of Lords. Charlotte Owen is a classic. Borris knows the woman 6 weeks and makes her the youngest lord ever for life???? Madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 Fact is when push came to shove in 1988 with Thatcher's self-loading rifle ban and in 1996 with John Major's pistol ban these hereditary peers in a then pre-Blair reform House of Lords could have stopped both measures. They didn't. So all this Telegraph "guff" about protecting the people against the tyranny of bad law passed by the House of Commons is just "hot air". Not about "us" but about merely preserving their comfortable grift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 We need to go down the Swiss route of politics. Small government, and consult the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 21 Author Report Share Posted September 21 4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: We need to go down the Swiss route of politics. Small government, and consult the people. What a revelation, all those PROFESSIONAL Politicians with nothing to do. BRING IT ON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 13 minutes ago, enfieldspares said: hereditary peers in a then pre-Blair reform House of Lords could have stopped both measures. No - since the Parliament Act, they can always be overruled by the Commons. they can only delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said: No - since the Parliament Act, they can always be overruled by the Commons. they can only delay. They didn't even do that though did they. But let it go through. It wasn't an election manifesto Bill so the H of L could have stopped it, as below, and the Government then had to have to reintroduce it. But they didn't. The Parliament Acts define the powers of the Lords in relation to Public Bills as follows. Money Bills (Bills designed to raise money through taxes or spend public money - such as the Budget) start in the Commons and must receive Royal Assent no later than a month after being introduced in the Lords, even if the Lords has not passed them. The Lords cannot amend Money Bills. Most other Commons Bills can be held up by the Lords if they disagree with them for about a year but ultimately the elected House of Commons can reintroduce them in the following session and pass them without the consent of the Lords. Edited September 21 by enfieldspares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 1 minute ago, enfieldspares said: Most other Commons Bills can be held up by the Lords if they disagree with them for about a year but ultimately the elected House of Commons can reintroduce them in the following session and pass them without the consent of the Lords. As I say - they can only delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 (edited) 28 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: As I say - they can only delay. Correct except, and I may be wrong, had the Lords used that power to delay the Bill that became the 1988 Act would have failed as its progress would have gone past the 1988 General Election and so it would have automatically have been out of time and so lost. I think the same, may, also have applied to Major's handgun ban. So yes the H of L can only delay that is right. But if that delay takes the process of the original delayed Bill past a General Election being called it is fatal to it. That Bill fails when Parliament is dissolved. Edited September 21 by enfieldspares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 10 minutes ago, enfieldspares said: I may be wrong, had the Lords used that power to delay the Bill that became the 1988 Act would have failed as its progress would have gone past the 1988 General Election and so it would have automatically have been out of time and so lost. There was no election in 1988. The Firearms act amendment bill received Royal Ascent in November 1988. Thatcher had re-elected in 1987 and was not succeeded by Major until 1990, so even if delayed, it would still have been in Thatcher's time. Who knows if the delay would have changed anything? My guess is that the outcome would have been the same; Thatcher was re-elected in 1987 and succeeded by Major in 1990 and Major won in his own right in 1992. Next was Blair in 1997. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 22 Author Report Share Posted September 22 Well, I feel that the "upper house" needs to be thinned out and "hereditary" peers should go. I would like people to be in there who have some life experience, some business acumen and possibly even better records kept of their actual attendance and voting. It really is an "old boys club", achieves very little and needs "streamlining". 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.