Jump to content

 

 

SNP - the madness continues


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

Why?

Why not?

 

A small number of hereditary Peers, a large number of political pensioners and a few appointees because of achievement in their own field ,which doesn’t mean they’re good at anything else, isn’t representative. 
 

Parliament needs to be reformed. I don’t know how to do it. I might start by disqualifying Arts and Social Sciences graduate until they’ve done a real job for five years. 
 

Where’s Oliver Cromwell when you need him? Keep Her Majesty, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scott7 said:

Why not?

 

A small number of hereditary Peers, a large number of political pensioners and a few appointees because of achievement in their own field ,which doesn’t mean they’re good at anything else, isn’t representative. 
 

Parliament needs to be reformed. I don’t know how to do it. I might start by disqualifying Arts and Social Sciences graduate until they’ve done a real job for five years. 

You ask why not and an obvious answer follows; you might not have a better alternative.

 

People, in general, appear completely addicted to claiming that the House of Lords needs to be abolished or reformed.  This claim is almost never accompanied by any real discussion of what the House of Lords does and how it should be different.

 

You mention the appointees.  Would you like to elect them instead?  If so then why bother having a second chamber at all? 

 

You also mention Arts and Social science graduates.  I'm guessing that this is a reference to the House of Commons as I doubt many are appointed to the Lords fresh out of a university.  If you are in fact referring to the Commons then that's an odd complaint to make about our parliamentary system given that we all get a chance to reject candidates as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

You mention the appointees.  Would you like to elect them instead?  If so then why bother having a second chamber at all? 

Indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Indeed.

If you don't want a second chamber then you need to explain why the existing role of the House of Lords is no longer required.

 

Why would it be better to remove part of the process that can't be controlled by the Government?

Why would it be better to stop revising poorly thought out legislation?

Why would it be better to remove a point in the process where someone can push back on occasion?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.