Labour to ditch House of Lords

Chris_Boro said:
No, you're not, you're spinning it to your point of view. Starmer has said he wants to abolish the current system of HoL nomination.

Abolishing the HoL first requires reform, one cannot happen without the other or our legislative process falls apart.

Consultation on the reform is also required as to the best way forward, especially if it was to become an elected house. Do the current Lords stand for election or are they essentially sacked? Is that even legal? Who pays them compensation?

More importantly, who is able to stand? The HoL scrutinises details in government legislative policy which isn't a job for a random person.

Everything in that artical and what Starmer said is required to move away from a nomination system that is embedded in our political structure. If you don't think that is correct then please feel free to offer an alternative process rather that make a false accusation that he is "rearranging deck chairs".
Click to expand...
Dear Christopher,

Please try to understand :

I havent - nor will I - proffer an opinion on Kier Starmer or his proposals.
I`m merely questioning the "journalism" - with the banner headline "Labour Would Abolish The House of Lords".
Read deeper into what was actually said by Kier Starmer - and place it into the context in which he expounded his proposal, then the headline "Labour to Propose Reform of The House of Lords" - is far more accurate.
The proposal aims to "reform" the House of Lords - not to abolish it.
That is the point Im raising.

Kind regards,

r00fie1
 
r00fie1 said:
Dear Christopher,

Please try to understand :

I havent - nor will I - proffer an opinion on Kier Starmer or his proposals.
I`m merely questioning the "journalism" - with the banner headline "Labour Would Abolish The House of Lords".
Read deeper into what was actually said by Kier Starmer - and place it into the context in which he expounded his proposal, then the headline "Labour to Propose Reform of The House of Lords" - is far more accurate.
The proposal aims to "reform" the House of Lords - not to abolish it.
That is the point Im raising.

Kind regards,

r00fie1
Click to expand...

Please don't patronise me, I never wrote you an email.

The creation of an election for HoL representatives is by definition, abolition as it fundamentally changes it.

What it or it's representatives are called after that is irrelevant even if its remains the HoL. A second chamber in some form is essential to our legislative process.

If you don’t believe that then I want to hear your argument as to why, not pedantry over select words in the article headline which is essentially correct.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Please don't patronise me, I never wrote you an email.

The creation of an election for HoL representatives is by definition, abolition as it fundamentally changes it.

What it or it's representatives are called after that is irrelevant even if its remains the HoL. A second chamber in some form is essential to our legislative process.

If you don’t believe that then I want to hear your argument as to why, not pedantry over select words in the article headline which is essentially correct.
Click to expand...
If you want my opinion on the House of Lords and not on the "journalism" then that`s a different thing altogether. (y)
 
r00fie1 said:
If you want my opinion on the House of Lords and not on the "journalism" then that`s a different thing altogether. (y)
Click to expand...

That was the implication of all the questions I asked you.

You're suggesting reform doesn't equal abolition when converting the house to an elected one fundamentally changes it to the point it ceases to exist in its current form.

Unless you feel the HoL or an equivalent is not required at all, which was then the point of my questions to you which interests me more than what words are used in the headline.
 
I have had dinner twice in the the Clement Attlee room in the House of Lords at the invitation of Lord Julian Hunt, the former Director General and CEO of the Met Office. Scran was nice as I recall, with a nice selection of wine!
 
Sounds like you two are pretty clone too agreeing here.

Roofie, also sounds like you are splitting hairs a bit.
But
We should all know we ought to be circumspect when a politician says anything.
And, if we haven’t heard it be even more circimspect.

It’s in the media for a reason.
Suspect they will now run the focus group and, if it plays out well, we will hear more.
 
Chris_Boro said:
That was the implication of all the questions I asked you.

You're suggesting reform doesn't equal abolition when converting the house to an elected one fundamentally changes it to the point it ceases to exist in its current form.

Unless you feel the HoL or an equivalent is not required at all, which was then the point of my questions to you which interests me more than what words are used in the headline.
Click to expand...
I`ll leave others to argue the pros and cons of "reform" of the House of Lords.
If people wish to dress in Ermine and long red robes - thats up to them.
1668967222079.png
 
r00fie1 said:
I`ll leave others to argue the pros and cons of "reform" of the House of Lords.
If people wish to dress in Ermine and long red robes - thats up to them.
View attachment 48009
Click to expand...

You could be a politician with such deflection of questions.

You don't think what Starmer is suggesting means what is stated or implied, please do elaborate on either how you think creating an elected second chamber doesn't fundamentally change it or why such a thing isn't required.
 
Chris_Boro said:
You could be a politician with such deflection of questions.

You don't think what Starmer is suggesting means what is stated or implied, please do elaborate on either how you think creating an elected second chamber doesn't fundamentally change it or why such a thing isn't required.
Click to expand...
Is that a title for my homework?

"You don't think what Starmer is suggesting means what is stated or implied..." Really? I havent made any such comments. Please avoid telling other people what they think.

Good night.(y)
 
r00fie1 said:
Is that a title for my homework?

"You don't think what Starmer is suggesting means what is stated or implied..." Really? I havent made any such comments. Please avoid telling other people what they think.

Good night.(y)
Click to expand...

r00fie1 said:
"Reform" doesnt mean "abolition".
"Reform" = compromise and consultation
"Abolition" = end of [a definite]
I`m pointing out the difference between the words he used and the interpretation by some reporter - who actually qualifies what Starmer actually did say, further into the article.
He wants to retain the House of Lords and reform its function.
Thats not abolition.
Starmer moves the deck-chairs, but hasnt suggesting getting rid of them.
Click to expand...

You literally disagreed with what was stated (Starmer) and what was implied (Journalist).
 
Laughing said:
It seems to me that this has been announced now to trigger a debate on electoral reform more generally. An elected upper house has to be, well elected. That means picking a voting system. That means talking about voting systems. If something other than fptp is used for the Lords there is an obvious question about the commons.
Click to expand...

I would like to believe that perhaps this change in nominating for the HoL could be a the very early stages of a very gradual move on the eventual discussion on changing FPTP to a more democratic system of voting….but it would have to be done very carefully. It would have the full support of the other opposition parties also.
I mean there’s only Belarus who retain the same system.
 
Ziggy said:
I would like to believe that perhaps this change in nominating for the HoL could be a the very early stages of a very gradual move on the eventual discussion on changing FPTP to a more democratic system of voting….but it would have to be done very carefully. It would have the full support of the other opposition parties also.
I mean there’s only Belarus who retain the same system.
Click to expand...
At least one of the opposition parties will never support a more proportional representation.
 
Ziggy said:
I would like to believe that perhaps this change in nominating for the HoL could be a the very early stages of a very gradual move on the eventual discussion on changing FPTP to a more democratic system of voting….but it would have to be done very carefully. It would have the full support of the other opposition parties also.
I mean there’s only Belarus who retain the same system.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about proportional representation but I know fptp is cack. But, preference aside, my point exactly.
 
Once gave a presentation to a HoL Select committee. Given a hard time by John MacGregor. Thatcherite *astard. Boy, he was sharp though. The hereditary ones weren’t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top