HoLords reform hits the skids

[Resurrection Man]

Great..let's all get smug with our little snipes and jibes at the House of Lords and yet, for all the negatives, at least it does have some members who (a) actually have experience in running things (b) creating things and (c) some life experience (yeah, yeah, just stands back to get the usual little smug digs about hereditary peers, blah blah blah). Unlike the House of Commons...well, you've seen the result there of what the great British public would elect.

The House of Lord acts as a brake on the more esoteric aspects of any Government. Long may it do so.

[MrGongGong]

Great..let's all get smug with our little snipes and jibes at the House of Lords and yet, for all the negatives, at least it does have some members who (a) actually have experience in running things (b) creating things and (c) some life experience (yeah, yeah, just stands back to get the usual little smug digs about hereditary peers, blah blah blah). Unlike the House of Commons...well, you've seen the result there of what the great British public would elect.

The House of Lord acts as a brake on the more esoteric aspects of any Government. Long may it do so.

Surely we could do much better ?
and (as with getting rid of the tedious royal family) there are more possibilities than what one would fist imagine

[french frank]

So if a political party makes an offer as part of its election strategy to the electorate like, say, students fees, then that's something that can be cast aside once they're in power and negotiating the coalition. But if two political parties enter into a coalition then the deal is absolute and binding?

The key difference was that in the LibDems' 'deal' with the electorate, the electorate didn't keep its part of the bargain, not even to return the 30%+ that they were 'promising' before the poll. The party came out of the election worse off than they went into it. What kind of endorsement was that for their election policies?

Oh, of course - it's that à la carte menu again - the pick 'n' mix approach, isn't it? 'You may have got enough of your policies through to enrage the right-wing of the Tories, but that isn't enough. You should have delivered everything (or at least on tuition fees) - even if we didn't back you.'

[MrGongGong]

The key difference was that in the LibDems' 'deal' with the electorate, the electorate didn't keep its part of the bargain, not even to return the 30%+ that they were 'promising' before the poll. The party came out of the election worse off than they went into it. What kind of endorsement was that for their election policies?

Oh, of course - it's that à la carte menu again - the pick 'n' mix approach, isn't it? 'You may have got enough of your policies through to enrage the right-wing of the Tories, but that isn't enough. You should have delivered everything (or at least on tuition fees) - even if we didn't back you.'

not again Frenchie

the tuition fees thing wasn't just a line in the manifesto it was termed a "pledge"

no mandate
no democracy

(starting to sound a bit like mr Lydon )

none of them really want to reform the lords because they see it as part of their career progression to end up there ............. turkeys and christmas ?

[Flosshilde]

Unlike the House of Commons...well, you've seen the result there of what the great British public would elect.

So you would do away with elections? Perhaps have a fully appointed parliament? Hmm - who would select members, as the great British public aren't capable? Oh, I know! - how about the monarch?

[MrGongGong]

So you would do away with elections? Perhaps have a fully appointed parliament? Hmm - who would select members, as the great British public aren't capable? Oh, I know! - how about the monarch?

I thought we have "done away" with elections anyway ...............

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep time to elect a new people innit

[Flosshilde]

The 'great British public' seem to have done so

[Resurrection Man]

So you would do away with elections? Perhaps have a fully appointed parliament? Hmm - who would select members, as the great British public aren't capable? Oh, I know! - how about the monarch?

Putting words into my mouth. I never said that. I am advocating that we do not elect members to the House of Lords as is being suggested. Membership selection seems to work quite well at the moment IMO. There are some excellent members in the Lords. Your comment regarding the monarchy is facile. Ditto MrGG's comments (predictable though they are) regarding the Royal Family....perhaps we should call you Red Herring?

[JohnSkelton]

The key difference was that in the LibDems' 'deal' with the electorate, the electorate didn't keep its part of the bargain, not even to return the 30%+ that they were 'promising' before the poll. The party came out of the election worse off than they went into it. What kind of endorsement was that for their election policies?

Oh, of course - it's that à la carte menu again - the pick 'n' mix approach, isn't it? 'You may have got enough of your policies through to enrage the right-wing of the Tories, but that isn't enough. You should have delivered everything (or at least on tuition fees) - even if we didn't back you.'

The 'deal' in a party manifesto isn't with "the electorate" though, surely? It's a prospective deal with that section of the electorate who go on to vote for the party whose manifesto contains the policies etc. Unless the LibDem manifesto said 'we'll oppose any rise in tuition fees and work to abolish them if we get enough votes to form a government on our own, otherwise we reserve the right to abandon the policy in a coalition' then LibDem voters have every cause for complaint should they choose to complain? Non LibDem voters might have cause to be generally irritated by the negotiable character of political 'pledges' and to point to this specific instance as glaring. I'm not sure what the New Labour position on tuition fees is now or was then, but that's not unusual. Perhaps the lesson is to say nothing concrete about anything, but when you do it's a bit lame to complain that the "electorate" didn't back you. The "electorate" never backs anything, because it can't: it's a chimera. The "electorate" didn't speak and vote for a coalition: people voted Tory in greater numbers than New Labour and voted Tory and New Labour in greater numbers than LibDem but some collective unconscious wasn't at work. It's just what happened when people who did vote voted.

All of that is worsened by the current electoral system, but for me the system is a secondary problem to the effective consensus between the three largest parties. I simply don't accept the story that people don't vote because of apathy: I think they don't vote out of cynicism which produces apathy, but I think a lot of people don't vote because they simply don't feel any of the largest parties represents them or has any interest in them. New Labour gave up any interest in representing as against preaching to the working class and the poor in the 90s / 2000s (that's any vestige of an interest). The LibDems are a party of predominantly middle class progressive issues, and the Tories are a party of the middle and upper middle classes with a deep set contempt for the poor (especially when they come over all concerned. Look at Iain Duncan-Smith's moralising savagery).