Secret Squirrel here sees that the present coalition government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, that of Clegg and Cameron,is (are), now intent on altering the constitution of The House of Lords, which, all things being considered, neither has actually clearly been mandated by the people to do,at least not according to their plans and intents laid before the electorate at the time of the election, neither having the clear majority to rule, actually.What's to occur now, each having had a different stated plan, will they create some form of aglomerate travesty,will their love child take on the trappings of some child of Chernobyl.Well alter the House of Lords and the days of the voting going not to have Sankrit prayers in public schools,or having that....or,indeed, having school taught in foreign languages so that the immigrants to the UK never have to bother to learn English,will be gone,or upon us,dependent on an absolute unopposed majority.
In it's place, will be.........DICTATORSHIP.........elected DICTATORSHIP, a DICTATORSHIP in which the general people, John Doe Everyman,Joe The Plumber, will be free only for the brief period of casting a ballot, which we all hope will forever at least properly count.And if THEY wish, you'll have Sanskrit prayer in public schools,that and more, at the whim of the thence elected party,in the majority,as they choose.
The elected leader of Britain will be the leader of the party with the most members.....regardless of quality as we have learned under New Labour.The House of Lords was a grand Wall,thorn,hinderance,obstacle ,to the rule of one(and others)Tony Blair. How did it all work,how did and was Tony Blair unable to push through legislation, changes(and change is by no meansgood for the people, dependent,and the Lords in their wisdom knew this and so refused to pass
these at times).But why? Well, his ideas of government,rule,finances legislation, HE wished for the people,being the party head, were seen to be a detriment to the British people,and so were blocked.Of course this stick in the craw of any Prime
Minister, dictation,absolute dictation, cannot be achieved,the absolute ruler, is absolutely overruled.
The House of Lords could not be held to a party whip,to a party leadership DICTATION, nayindeed not. They could vote no,vote against, and so BLOCK a legislation,rejecting it, sending it back ,repeatedly, to the Commons, hoping that the Commons sees the sense in that the bill they're trying to pass is not suitable for the people of Britain, they could also drag out all debates on such bills, delaying even yet longer, in hopes the government of the day sees sanity.
They,themselves, know no party lines, only the lines of the people. Remove the Lords and, yes, Britain would have total DICTATION, by whatever leadership qualities the political parties,New Labour,Tories et all have,rule by the dictating idiocy of the party leader(England does not elect the Prime Minister, he's in on the numerical presence of his party being elected in majority(America votes separately, for the two Houses, AND for the LEADERSHIP).The 'House of Lords' aids democracy! it does have the advantage of allowing the 'Lords' to make decisions individually,not based on party lines, nor party dictates,each individually voting according to their thoughts and beliefs on the matter at hand being in the better interests of the British people, or not.Also consider the role of the House Of Lords,The House of Lords,this second chamber with voting rights on all Government legislation,makes laws, holds the Government to account, investigates policy issues ,and
provides a forum of unbiased,uninfluenced,independent expertise.
Could and would any incumbent DICTATING political party be entrusted to investigate itself?Nay!Can an incumbent party intent on passing legislation then be said to debate itself the value of said legislation handed down by the obviously DICTATING party head?Again Nay,not a chance,unbelievable it would be,inconceivable.Rules? Rules made for the English people.....rules made by a DICTATING party,unfettered,as IT pleased, rules possibly repressive,oppressive,Draconian,unfiltered by the wisdoms of those not toeing party lines.Corruption,sleeze,cash for honors,cash for laws,expenses scandals, have heavily rocked the House Of Commons, the House of Lords relatively untouched by these. Imagine the scenario,implied,on a two House system of party lines,The Prime Minister says "Let's have a free vote today on my policy and rule which you can defeat and makes myself, and you,in all truth, look like utter idiots and burkes so we can have an election in which the people will look at that and think..idiots,out with'em"? "Course the people would have to wait for election time for such a thing as they could'nt be turfed out until such a time as the regular election, no mechanism for removal until then, not at all.
Would the government allow for a public referendum,a free vote,a plebiscite on the issue? No! Why?To abolish the House Of Lords it to pave the way for any government party leader, and it's party, to dictate absolutely,unfettered,unchecked, any law,bill,legislation that it so wishes to introduce and pass,without fail.The attraction of Absolute Power for any Prime Minister,Absolute Rule, Dictation of All Things, is the attraction to them
all,regardless.
You will be told, that's what you elected them for.You will be free only the day of the election, locked in thereafter,taken for a ride wherever the party politics dictates, a one way ride,and that is what will be. Absolute power attracts absolutely, and you will have no vote on the matter. They SHALL abolish the House Of Lords,not with you, but without you, as they do everything, unless the House Of Lords objects for you. Abolish the Lords and an evil will run free throughout the land, unfettered,unhindered.
But what if they change things such as The Lords remain,but in their place an elected Lords as it were,unlike the appointed ones of the day. Well, consider, this could be a grave error for them, the politicians who would do this.And so now why?Well Consider, at present there is The Parliament, made up of The House Of Commons and The House Of Lords.Well now, there's talk of an elected House Of Lords.Interesting,what now if you have an elected House Of Commons, Tories Majority, the the bill goes to the equally elected House Of Lords, Labour Majority................ah what then, a dead bill, deadlocked, tied, stuck, a
tie is a no, just as a no in the Commons would be a no, A yes in the Commons and a No in the Lords would also then be a no.............so.................I wonder if they've pondered that. Would this elected house of lords be a elected cash cow
capon, as impotent as a man with no testicles?
Interesting, Who's to be Prime Minister, a PM party leader with the most elected members, but he can have a majority in the Common's minority in the Lords, or a Majority in the Lords, and minority in the commons?There are 650 MP's.......House of Lords, 738..........But regardless of who's PM when, he may not have control of both houses,a good thing when one ponders the likes of Tony Blair.Britain's political system is broken. The way this country is run means that the Government does not have to listen to the people. One party can gain control of Parliament even if only a quarter of the people support them.Will the Prime minister then be the Party Head of the Majority of those voted in for the Commons, or for the Lords?What of a combination of both?Still there's a problem, control of one House and not the other. Top it all off,they have themselves pointed out, that it is possible, for a Prime Minister to come in to being with only an actual 25% of the popular vote, so on top of everything else, in Britain, there really is not representation by population,but rather the old system of the rotten burrough still is functional in a manner of sorts.
Electing both chambers of the Houses of Parliament would create legitimacy issues because both houses would be able to claim to represent the people;two would and could claim rightly to be Prime Minister,and in any events, popular percentage vote, number of seats in either house, either would and could cancel the other,one being considered to be the Senior Prime Minister of not.Neither house would have a right to superiority over the other as both have a democratic mandate. This would lead to the House of Lords becoming an alternative government entitled to as much power as the House of Commons. British governments tend to find it hard to agree internally – Blair vs. Brown, Cameron vs. Clegg -, do we really trust that they would be able to work with an equally, if not more, valid alternative government operating from the same building? Having two bodies who can claim a mandate would lead to a constitutional crisis and the jamming of the gears of government, reducing the power of not only the Lords, but also the Commons.
Now we dealt with real numbers, but the politicians want reduced but elected numbers for the new House Of Lords.However, even with that, the above mentioned problems still remain.Exactly what are they intent on doing, and why, and how?Consider what was to be found in the Australian Times with respect to the present British government fascination with altering the House Of Lords...............
The Timeshttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lords-dig-in-for-trench-warfare/story-e6frg6so-1226066736682
The Times sent questions to each of the 789 peers entitled to sit in the Lords. A total of 310 responded, in almost precise proportion to how their parties are represented on the red benches. The results revealed that:
80 per cent oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber, even though the policy was in all three party manifestos and is in the coalition agreement;
74 per cent believe it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act -- a warning to Mr Cameron to think long and hard before triggering a legislative war with the Lords;
81 per cent believe the Lords works well as it is -- a challenge to Mr Clegg, in particular, to explain what is wrong with the system; Mr Clegg's peers are deeply split, 64 per cent believing the Lords works well, 46 per cent opposing a large
elected element and 54 per cent saying it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act.
The results are likely to inflame coalition tensions, emboldening Tory MPs to question whether the goal of an elected Lords is worth a civil war within their party and the legislative gridlock that would follow. It is understood that Tory ministers,
including Home Secretary Theresa May, have voiced concern that other public service reforms risk being sacrificed in the coming session by the anticipated trench warfare over Lords reform.The poll findings offer the first in-depth survey of
opinion in the Lords since Mr Clegg published plans this month to replace its members with a wholly or 80 per cent-elected chamber of about 300. They would be elected by thirds every five years and serve single 15-year terms. Party leaders in both chambers will soon select 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up final proposals by February. It is expected to be chaired by a senior Labour figure.............An overwhelming majority of Britain's upper house believes it would be unconstitutional for the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to create an elected chamber in the face of objections from peers..........Frances D'Souza, convener of the crossbench peers, said legislating for a fully elected upper chamber would in effect be to abolish the Lords. "Then I think the use of the Parliament Act legally would be impossible," she said.
Here ends the Australian Times excerpt.
And so ,then,perhaps taking all things and arguments presented above in to account, then what with all the resultant problems,constitutionally and yet the others mentioned, perhaps it's better,say I,I say, neither either, either neither,
neither, let's call the whole thing off.Permissum quietus cannus recubo(Let sleeping dogs lie).Abolish The House Of Lords?Nay, let's not even yet waste time considering it,beyond it being clearly unthoughtout idiocy.
"I have come to condemn politicians,not to praise them."
-Secret Squirrel
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but a politician can only advise the people to vote for them."
-Secret Squirrel
Secret Squirrel.
No comments:
Post a Comment