Any Tories care to defend this?

I haven't seen a story so far where other factors haven't had a huge impact on how the person died. A lot of these people were already mentally ill and doctors or coroners say the cut in benefits 'triggered' them - I don't know how familiar you are with mental health, but 'triggers' are not the cause of the death in that case. Anorexic people for example are 'triggered' by people talking about what diet they are on, and this can cause their illness to get worse, but that's the illness - it's not the fault of the person talking about their diet. It's still the fault of the mental illness itself, and anyone with mental health issues can be triggered by various things. Someone who has depression, with one of the most common symptoms being a feeling of helplessness or like there's no way out, will obviously find a cut in their benefits more sensitive than someone who is not depressed. They may be triggered by having their benefits cut, but their illness has killed them, not the benefits cut.

And some of them like take David Clapson in that article: "They included David Clapson, 59, a former soldier from Stevenage. He was a diabetic who was found dead in his home last July after his benefits were slashed and he did not apply for hardship payments." Why didn't he? Take some responsibility for yourself if you're on welfare, people aren't going to come round ladling it out to you.

So far I haven't seen a single news story that has convinced me of a direct correlation between benefit cuts and death. There are always other factors or mental illness involved.

No it is not ok. The lords should be scrapped, every Tory, Labour and Liberal democrat who sits in there. Even if it was on a policy I supported I would still oppose their ruling as democratic process sits in my top 3 most important policies (which is why I have always been opposed to the idea of the EU and the lords), you will never find support from me to the lords.

If the HoL is to be scrapped, what should replace it?

This is subjective depending on what use you consider the lords to be. I believe a democratically elected government (based on a system democratically voted for in a referendum a few years ago) should have the policy they proposed passed in government. Since no one voted for the representatives of the lords they have no right to dictate the policy of a democratic system of governence.

I don't see any ramifications of removing the lords. Please list them. There are many functional governments managing just fine without an unelected body.

On the topic of the EU, apart from our representatives in the EU parliament (which are a minority and vastly different to the many europhiles present), that is as far as it goes. The EU cabinet set up by Junker and has him select which countries govern via a representative, what policy areas. He had the British representative govern the climate change and energy policy for example.

It gets better. We have EU funded bodies like the EU liberal and social democrats party which goes round pushing a biased EU agenda around the EU. There is an in-proportionate share of power among the nations. Take Camerons proposals to limit benefits for migrants, snubbed by almost all states. The second Germany (or more precisely Merkel) proposes the same exact policy, no one bats an eyelid and it is ok. You will most likely dismiss this for whatever reason but most see it for what it is. Germany has influence far greater than any other EU nation. What Merkel says is the rule of law. The EU is by far one of the most undemocratic systems, this is even recognised by the left and right, so not merely a one party stance on the issue.

Why should it be replaced? The HoL has the power to overrule policy, I don't think that is right. Only elected bodies dictate policy. Independent bodies have the right to assess policy and make a request for any recommedned changes, but as far as changing policy, no independent body should have that power. It contradicts the whole purpose of a democracy. If we do not like the Tories, we vote them out, simple. That's how democracy works. Not a body which is fixed.

For a person that seems to sing the praises of democracy, you do sure seem rather ignorant on the vital components that ensures checks and balances that enables democracy to flourish and bounds to be not overstepped.

Please elaborate?

(If you are referring to the FPTP system as an example that was settled in a democratic referendum in which AV lost. Even though I am against FPTP on a personal note, I support the will of the people)

Say the people vote to stay in the EU, I will hate it and be angry admittedly but I will accept it, retract from my eurosceptic standpoint and leave it at that

It's absurd that you keep bringing up your obsession with the EU in a discussion about the HoL.


What is to stop Cameron and the Conservatives gerry-mandering their way into total and absolute control of the House, and as a result, the entire country meaning they can pass whatever law they want without impunity?

What is to stop David Cameron, or any future party leader from rigging the elections and passing laws that will give him authoritarian powers?


Democracy does involve the will of the people, but if you take away the checks and balances on the people chosen to wield that authority, it quickly falls apart.

Independent bodies manage the election rules. Cameron can't get shifty with that.

I think the Tories should be able to enforce their manifesto and then we have the chance to vote them out come 2020. That's democracy.

If your desire to keep the HoL rests on the fear Cameron will install a dictatorship style of politics then I can't play along as that is absurd.

From my view the Tories are too soft and liberal to go down that route and it would be illegal anyway

Independent bodies manage the election rules. Cameron can't get shifty with that. I think the Tories should be able to enforce their manifesto and then we have the chance to vote them out come 2020. That's democracy. If your desire to keep the HoL rests on the fear Cameron will install a dictatorship style of politics then I can't play along as that is absurd. From my view the Tories are too soft and liberal to go down that route and it would be illegal anyway

Why should an unelected body be in charge of how elections are run? Is that not an affront to democracy?



And what about things that are not on their manifesto? What if they enact it into policy? What do you do then?



My argument is that the HoL curbs the excesses of elected party politicians, and makes the government think again about some of their policies.



If done right, the Tories will be able to gerry-mander and worm their way into making sure that no opposition party will come close to challenging them ever again.

"Soft and liberal" - Whatever are you talking about? Trade union bills, campaign finance bills, electoral reform are all policies that the Conservative government have tried to rush through, just 9 months after gaining a slim majority.


And here's the kicker - It won't even be illegal.

Your problem is you do not understand how bills are passed to Royal Assent (Made Law).

The Work & Welfare Bill has passed report stage where all major amendments have been made. The commons then have one chance to try and satisfy the ruling majority of the Lords and if they don't then its boo hoo. The Lords may just decide to rebel like they did with the Tax Credit cuts.

Just because the Conservatives are the ruling majority in the commons doesn't give them a licence to do what the hell they like.

The House of Lords is like a proxy to which all new laws have to be moral and in good character. It stops dictators from doing what the hell they like.

I think the Lords who said no to the Tax Credit cuts and have who have also blocked the Work & Welfare Bill have good moral conscious. I know that is a bit rich coming from me as someone who has limited knowledge of what real empathy is but I don't think the word morality describes starving children and making lives for disabled people like myself worse.

You have not read my previous comments on the House of Lords. I understand the due process, I am saying I disagree with the House of Lords and oppose the whole idea of the HoL.

Of course. I expect a lot of Tories to be extremely upset about not being able to cut disabled peoples welfare. I mean after the Tory conference and Disabled People Against Cuts throwing eggs at them I can some what understand the trauma.

An independent body has to run the election process, it helps enforce democracy by eliminating bias that any one party would have. My argument is unelected bodies dictating governmental policy which is wrong. These electoral institutions are not dictating policy like education, defence ect.

Well it's impossible to not pass laws that are not in the manifesto as it all ties in with current affairs. The Syrian question was not even a topic during the election campaign. But you must remember, you are voting for a representive in which you trust to make judgement calls. Therefore the policy should still go through as these MPs were elected to be trusted.

If you disagree with a policy, use your vote in local, regional and general elections to voice your opposition. I do not understand the confusion. If the Tories are so bad then people will choose to vote them out.

Ohhhhhh. Apologies. I didn't realise. To be honest my issues isn't with benefits. It's with the way it is shared out

I haven't seen a story so far where other factors haven't had a huge impact on how the person died. A lot of these people were already mentally ill and doctors or coroners say the cut in benefits 'triggered' them - I don't know how familiar you are with mental health, but 'triggers' are not the cause of the death in that case. Anorexic people for example are 'triggered' by people talking about what diet they are on, and this can cause their illness to get worse, but that's the illness - it's not the fault of the person talking about their diet. It's still the fault of the mental illness itself, and anyone with mental health issues can be triggered by various things. Someone who has depression, with one of the most common symptoms being a feeling of helplessness or like there's no way out, will obviously find a cut in their benefits more sensitive than someone who is not depressed. They may be triggered by having their benefits cut, but their illness has killed them, not the benefits cut.

And some of them like take David Clapson in that article: "They included David Clapson, 59, a former soldier from Stevenage. He was a diabetic who was found dead in his home last July after his benefits were slashed and he did not apply for hardship payments." Why didn't he? Take some responsibility for yourself if you're on welfare, people aren't going to come round ladling it out to you.

So far I haven't seen a single news story that has convinced me of a direct correlation between benefit cuts and death. There are always other factors or mental illness involved.

It's proportional! There are more old people than there are on regular benefits. And you know why we give old people pensions? Because a majority have worked their arses off. You are wrong about welfare spending. In entirety it is almost 698 billion. It makes up 10% maximum. Also ESA is not the only benefits, overall we spend over 40 billion in benefits. Stop drawing up stats which support your argument and ignoring the truth.

Is that what I said? No. Don't twist words. I said people claiming they have committed suicide because of the DWP is rubbish - which it is.