This has got me thinking...
Why not just abolish the House of Lords and replace it with.....nothing!
Why not just abolish the House of Lords and replace it with.....nothing!
-
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero -
because it acts as a counter balance to the idiots in the house of commonsOriginally posted by Waldorf View PostCoffee's for closers -
Er, because then there would be no one to keep the Government of the day 'in check'? Also, lots of Bills are introduced via the Lords because there just isnt enough Parliamentary time to introduce what a Government wants in the Commons.Originally posted by Waldorf View Post
Why dont you investigate the British Constitution and Politics then you might have a better understanding? Its available from MacMillan Press I believe.I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!
Comment
-
-
This is another ill thought out piece of legislation. More politicians with their noses in the electoral trough....my quagmire of greed....my cesspit of laziness and unfairness....all I am doing is sticking two fingers up at nurses, doctors and other hard working employed professionals...
Comment
-
It just seems to be a trough. Nothing electoral about it. If there are any life peers left they need abolishing straight away - and replaced with nothing.Originally posted by Lockhouse View PostComment
-
If the majority of both houses are from the same party, legislation will just be rubber stamped, I assume the House of Commons will still have the last say, so at the very least it will be a delaying chamber.Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
There is no reason why the scrutiny if new legislation can be solely done by the Commons, I would have no objection to Commons committees bringing on some experts to assist with complex bills.
Just think outside the box, just because we have always had two chambers, there is no reason why we have to it the future.
Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Hungary.....they all seem to get by with just one chamber."The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." CiceroComment
-
We could save more money by having no chambers - like Zimbabwe!Originally posted by Waldorf View Post
Comment
-
Just wait till Blair regains powerOriginally posted by BrilloPad View PostWe could save more money by having no chambers - like Zimbabwe!Coffee's for closersComment
-
Or what about a system where it is full of people with a solid education, a good deal of money (thereby less likely to be bribed) and see it as their duty to serve the country? I never worked out what was so bad with that.Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostComment
Comment