Turn on thread page Beta

Tories enrage Labour with bid to save last hereditary peers in Lords watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeanofJelly)
    The tories don't object on a matter of principle. They object because having such a large number of unelected supporters in a position of some power is a major advantage to their own party.

    The tories would be stock against the idea if the hereditary peers all happened to have labour loyalty.
    The Conservatives are conservative. The oppose major constitutional upheaval. You may suggest that is because the current situation suits them, but it's a bit of a chicken and egg argument.

    (Original post by GlamCanyon)
    Born with a sense of duty? What on earth are you talking about?
    Noblesse oblige

    (Original post by JNV)
    A lot of the arguments used in favour of keeping hereditary peers seem to be very similar to the arguments used against universal suffrage
    I'm not really sure I agree with universal suffrage.

    I can't wait to see the responses this gets.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    it works -_-

    Why fix what isn't broken?
    this
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like any change to the constitution. I would have the Hereditary Peers back.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JNV)
    You do both relise that he was talking about Hilary Benn not Tony.
    I was indeed talking about Hilary, but that is neither here nor there, Hilary is Tony's son for crying out loud. Same background?

    I made a list of Labourites who went to private school, and that includes Hilary Benn, as he attended Westminster Under School and Norland Place - both private schools I believe?

    When did I suggest that I was talking about secondary schools? Any private schooling, junior or otherwise, is still classed as private school, so my inclusion of him in my list remains correct. Tony was of course clever enough to not send his son to a private senior because of the backlash he would face as a hypocritical socialist, but he clearly would have done if he could have got away with it. And he sent his son to the best flippin' comprehensive he could find, the best in the country, that shows his yearning for his son to get the best.

    My point remains correct, Labour MPs are toffs in disguise, they do not represent 'the people', understand them, or have their real interests at heart. Does Hilary Benn represent the average person? His parents could clearly have afforded to send him to private school for every day of his life, he isn't in touch with the working class any more than David Cameron. My view, vote Tory, you at least know what you're getting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JNV)
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6999919.ece
    Just goes to show that all Cameron’s claims about a new progressive Conservative party are just bull ****.
    It works, why fix something that is broken?

    At the end of the day, we had these heredity peers for centuries, especially during this Labour government, it is ironic that these peer have been the only ones listening and voicing and actually doing something for the better for the outside public. In fact, much of Parliament problems lies with the House of Commons and not the Lords.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say the majority of the people on this forum support 'heridatary peers' purely on the basis that it is part of the British heritage. You have to ask the question - are these people really making an objective choice, or are they just supporting the lords purely on the basis of carrying on tradition.

    I have no problem with these families getting involved in politics. But they should have to compete against local representatives for the same position, not simply inherit it. Are these people genetically better leaders, or are they simply afforded a better education and therefore more suited for the position than 'common-folk'?

    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Just think about it. It will not make the Lords any more "democratic" by kicking the hereditaries out. Instead of these hereditary peers who have been elected by other hereditary peers, we'll have a Lords which is entirely appointed (by the PM).
    There is nothing at all democratic about the election of heriditary peers. If there was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4G_dollars)
    It works, why fix something that is broken?

    At the end of the day, we had these heredity peers for centuries, especially during this Labour government, it is ironic that these peer have been the only ones listening and voicing and actually doing something for the better for the outside public. In fact, much of Parliament problems lies with the House of Commons and not the Lords.
    If the heriditary peers are so effective, then they won't have any trouble getting the position in a democratic election, would they?

    What's the big deal?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lust of a Gardener)
    There is nothing at all democratic about the election of heriditary peers. If there was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
    You can't have it both ways. You can't be satisfied with having a non-elected Lords, but unhappy with having a few who aren't party-political appointees. Equally you can't seriously want an elected Lords, yet be satisfied with removing the last remaining hereditaries.

    If we were having a debate about Lords Reform, on which there is a very real debate to be had, then we wouldn't be wasting our time fussing about the small minority of people in the Lords who actually have more "legitimacy" than the rest!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lust of a Gardener)
    If the heriditary peers are so effective, then they won't have any trouble getting the position in a democratic election, would they?

    What's the big deal?
    First of all not a lot of people are going to vote a second house in.
    Secondly, the fact they are not elected, they do not have to give into party loyalties and not be scared of losing their seat. Why fix something that is not broken?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lust of a Gardener)
    If the heriditary peers are so effective, then they won't have any trouble getting the position in a democratic election, would they?

    What's the big deal?
    We won't get to elect them, otherwise it will just be a replica of the house of commons.

    They will be appointed by political parties like most are now. We shouldn't want a house of puppets and Alan Sugar, we should want a house of people whose only priority is to do the right thing. They are more likely to do what the public wants, as whenever they try to block a popular bill there is a mass call for hereditary peerages to be removed. A house fully occupied by party appointees will be a complete waste of space. They will no longer serve as a failsafe as they will simply vote along party lines. 48 days detention would have got through.
    Offline

    14
    We still have a hereditary peers in the house of lords? Aliens must be looking at our society laughing at how backwards we are. We cannot move into 21st century as a modern state, if we have a flawed system based on inheritance holding us back. The only reason the Tories want to keep the hereditary peers, is for their support.

    Robert Crichton wrote:
    This is democracy. Heredity lords have NO place in the government. The only reason they're still there is the government didn't have the guts to get rid of them before. The same cut should be made to the Bishops - they do not represent the religious vase of GB and have not done now for a considerable time. Let's get rid of the whole lot in one big cut.

    Spot on.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hereditary peers were arguably better than appointed peers. The current lot are merely party puppets who can have a title added or taken away on the PM's whim. Hereditary peers are there for life and are less affected by long-term political change.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As much as I'm not supposed to approve of the conservatives, I think I'm with them on this one. It can't hurt to have someone outside the main system having genuine influence.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flugelr)
    Hereditary peers were arguably better than appointed peers. The current lot are merely party puppets who can have a title added or taken away on the PM's whim. Hereditary peers are there for life and are less affected by long-term political change.
    Well yes arguably. But wrong. They're (except the 92 Hereditary and the Lords Spiritual) now life peers and so there for their lifetimes unless they retire or the Lords is reformed (except disciplinary issues perhaps). So they can't have their titles taken away by the PM. Also since 2000 their appointments are the Lords Appointments Committee. So the PM has a limited role to play. About 20% are Cross Benchers so no party affiliation there. Otherwise the split between the parties is pretty representative. Lords increasingly don't vote with their parties and becoming more likely to reject or suggest changes to new legislation. The Lords is full of talented and expert people who have been at the top of their various professions. This is in contrast to a hereditary Lords full of toffs who had no relevant qualifications whatsoever. And the Lords was totally skewed towards the Conservatives.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Have any of you actually spoken to a parliamentarian or peer about the hereditary’s ?

    My mate’s mother was the secretary for Lord Walton of Detchant, a life peer. She was telling me the Hereditary Peers were a good bunch; old money normally is in my experience. There was a hardcore of about 3-400 hundred who regularly attended debates and voted. Most of them had the best education money could buy and went on to Oxford or Cambridge. They had time on there side, some of them being there since they were 30 or 40 and now in there 80’s they knew the crack. They had no major political allegiances, if they thought it was wrong they vote to amend it no matter which party it came from. Best of all they would specialise in certain topics in order to make themselves more useful.

    What can the party whips do to men who have no major political interests and want for nothing? They don’t get paid for sitting in the House; they turn up from a real sense of duty to the nation.

    Compare that to what we have now, a bunch of political lackeys who have already brought the House into disrepute with the expenses scandal.

    Bring back the Heredity’s I say
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Shame on Labour for destroying the Lords... the "reform" was no more then an act of institutionalized class hatred. Where once the Lords was comprised of great and noble families, we now have "Lord Sugar of Clapton."

    The hereditary peers served an important purpose. They were a stabilizing force and represented authority over and above whimsical party politics, they did not have to tow any party lines and could speak with an independent mind, and the endurance of the institutions which enabled effective governance, stability and prosperity were in their interests; which is to say they were able to represent the interests of future generations and the long term interests of the country over and above the the short term aims of party politics. They had nothing to benefit from the title of Lord because they inherited it. Today the Lords is filled with opportunists and party stooges, no more so then the now EU foreign minister Catherine Ashton... whose sole aim in the Lords was to force through the Lisbon treaty against just about everyones wishes. Not much nobility in that now is there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Shame on Labour for destroying the Lords... the "reform" was no more then an act of institutionalized class hatred. Where once the Lords was comprised of great and noble families, we now have "Lord Sugar or Clapton."

    The hereditary peers served an important purpose. They were a stabilizing force and represented authority over and above whimsical party politics, they did not have to tow any party lines and could speak with an independent mind. They had nothing to benefit from the title of Lord because it came to them by default. Today the Lords is filled with opportunists and party stooges

    Agreed. I hope we reverse back to the way it was. It was not broken in the slightest.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Have any of you actually spoken to a parliamentarian or peer about the hereditary’s ?

    My mate’s mother was the secretary for Lord Walton of Detchant, a life peer. She was telling me the Hereditary Peers were a good bunch; old money normally is in my experience. There was a hardcore of about 3-400 hundred who regularly attended debates and voted. Most of them had the best education money could buy and went on to Oxford or Cambridge. They had time on there side, some of them being there since they were 30 or 40 and now in there 80’s they knew the crack. They had no major political allegiances, if they thought it was wrong they vote to amend it no matter which party it came from. Best of all they would specialise in certain topics in order to make themselves more useful.

    What can the party whips do to men who have no major political interests and want for nothing? They don’t get paid for sitting in the House; they turn up from a real sense of duty to the nation.

    Compare that to what we have now, a bunch of political lackeys who have already brought the House into disrepute with the expenses scandal.

    Bring back the Heredity’s I say
    Lol you sound like a public school kid from the 19th Century. None of the positive points of the pre-reformed Lords have been lost and fortunately alot has improved. They were unrepresentative, totally unqualified and no doubt nearly as out of touch as you sound. Peers still don't get paid like before, they still have their positions for life and they're better educated and far more experienced and knowledgeable than before. They're also broadly representative despite being unelected. We need to go wholly appointed I say; finish off what Labour began.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by johnw1)
    Lol you sound like a public school kid from the 19th Century. None of the positive points of the pre-reformed Lords have been lost and fortunately alot has improved. They were unrepresentative, totally unqualified and no doubt nearly as out of touch as you sound. Peers still don't get paid like before, they still have their positions for life and they're better educated and far more experienced and knowledgeable than before. They're also broadly representative despite being unelected. We need to go wholly appointed I say; finish off what Labour began.
    There appointed by the PM who only appoints because of there political allegiances. Yes they still put in experts in various fields but the place has also been flooded with political hacks.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 10, 2010
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.