Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Obviously, the 'Commons' want to abolish or at least stifle the 'Lords' to suit their own purposes.

I was taught many years ago whilst doing 'British Constitution' at college whilst in 'Plod', that the 'Upper House' was there to act as a buffer between the people of this country and its elected government.

.................. and long may it do so.

I quite often watch proceeding in the 'Lords' on Free Sat, and I have to say that they talk far more sense than some of the idiots in the 'Commons'.

God knows how they got elected in the first place, apart from the fact that some mis-guided people voted them in !!!!

TUESDAY RANT OVER !

Why is it that an unelected European Commission, which makes 75% or more of our laws, is no problem whatsoever to the LIBLABCON yet an unelected House of Lords is?

Just asking like

Mid A 15 wrote:Why is it that an unelected European Commission, which makes 75% or more of our laws, is no problem whatsoever to the LIBLABCON yet an unelected House of Lords is?

Just asking like

Good question, Andy............

.......... Think I'll stay out of this one !

Alan P5age wrote:According to Montesquieu's "Spirit Of The Laws" the separation of power between an elected House of Commons (representing the will and interests of the people) and an un-elected House of Lords (representing the will and interests of the monarchy) ...

Did the House of Lords ever represent the will and power of the monarchy? Perhaps, in Montesquieu's day, it did; but the original purpose of the House of Lords was quite different. It was a mechanism to deal with those people whose power could challenge and perhaps defeat the king's power. It obliged them (and gave some incentives) to meet in one place, where the king could keep an eye on them, and to talk where the king could hear them. They also had to swear an oath of allegiance.

Perhaps we could do with some modern equivalent: a place where the people whose power can challenge the state (e.g., the Bob Diamonds and Rupert Murdochs) are obliged to declare their allegiance to the society in which they operate, and to meet and hold their discussions in public, so that we can keep a proper eye on them.

Another thread which has been hijacked by the non-CH 'AlanP5age' whoever he/she is - in respect of which I will unsubscribe immediately.

kerrensimmonds wrote:Another thread which has been hijacked by the non-CH 'AlanP5age' whoever he/she is - in respect of which I will unsubscribe immediately.

To be fair he did initiate this topic so it is a little unfair to claim that he hijacked it. Also, in this instance I don't think he has written anything to which one might reasonably object. I'm actually quite enjoying a thread that hasn't (yet) become personal!

I believe that many people (especially MPs) cannot see the wood for the trees. I doubt that there are many people who would not agree that something needs to be done to improve the House of Lords. What I (and, I suspect, many others) object to is what is actually being proposed.
1. The elected members should serve for 15 years. This is dreadful. Having been elected they would then have security of tenure for what would amount to half a working life. They would become lazy, both intellectually and physically. Anyway, why 15? Why not 6?
2. The candidates should be chosen from party lists as with the EU elections. Big deal! This would ensure that the parties controlled who got on to the lists. It would then result in the same situation as with current MEPs: who knows who their MEPs are, where are their UK offices; do these MEPs ever come round to see constituents?
3. A number of CofE bishops would remain. Why, and why only CofE?

Foureyes wrote:I believe that many people (especially MPs) cannot see the wood for the trees. I doubt that there are many people who would not agree that something needs to be done to improve the House of Lords. What I (and, I suspect, many others) object to is what is actually being proposed.
1. The elected members should serve for 15 years. This is dreadful. Having been elected they would then have security of tenure for what would amount to half a working life. They would become lazy, both intellectually and physically. Anyway, why 15? Why not 6?
2. The candidates should be chosen from party lists as with the EU elections. Big deal! This would ensure that the parties controlled who got on to the lists. It would then result in the same situation as with current MEPs: who knows who their MEPs are, where are their UK offices; do these MEPs ever come round to see constituents?
3. A number of CofE bishops would remain. Why, and why only CofE?

I suspect because Her Majesty The Queen is head of State, AND Head of the Church of England.

J.R. wrote: I suspect because Her Majesty The Queen is head of State, AND Head of the Church of England.

Probably - but that makes it a sinecure. Until the CofE shows leadership at that sort of level and stops in-fighting over women bishops and gays in the clergy perhaps the Lords Spiritual had better spend their time tidying their own house before holding forth in Parliament's?