Off Topic Political Debate

http://www.ccma.cat/324/labadessa-d...o-tenim-por-votar-es-natural/noticia/2809654/

War games between the Spanish & Catalonia Governments about to reach a new low? Nuns announce that they will open their convent to allow Independence Referendum voting.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iament-peers-house-a7957541.html?S2ref=641648

It's time this nonsense was stopped in my opinion - peers milking the system whilst doing nothing, and even having the gall to claim that "£300 a day is not worth travelling to HoL"

John Bercow is, surprisingly, on the right track in saying the size is patently absurd and needs to be halved. Get rid of the lot of them & replace them with an elected Senate.

 

Most of the Liberal Peers should be chucked out first, they are vastly overrepresented for such a tiny political party.

 

Given that the Liberals have hardly had power since before WW2, save for one reasonable attempt at getting the country going pre wicked witch of the north and one suicidal effort in much more recent memory, one has to ask how they got there? Personally speaking I think the current system is better than a two tiered electoral system because one house of self serving sycophantic professional scheissters is more than enough. Despite its shortcomings and evidence for the implementation of reform, the system as a stop-check for bad legislation from the HoC is just fine. I find the hypocrisy of the tories, now that the HoL is no longer flooded by their chosen few, crying foul absolutely laughable.

 

The numbers in the House of Lords should be at least halved. The political make up should also roughly reflect the views of the electorate. It is clear the Lib Dems due to their present unpopularity are well over representative and should be culled.

 

Their current unpopularity is solely due to their recent injudicious choice of bedfellows. What should be culled are the more sycophantic nodding dogs that vote along party lines rather than independent minds that think for the good of the nation. There should be no clear party majority but a rational consensus in how they vote.
The additional executive powers that the current administration are seeking are dangerous and wide open to abuse... hell, they've even chosen to get into bed with a bunch of xtian fascists. The political situation in the USA is almost intolerable with government bought and paid for by big business... and now they want to let the church in when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution expressly and implicitly to stop the religious nut jobs get their grubby mitts on power.
We must not allow our country to be dragged down into the same sorry mess. Absolutely not. But this is where bad and unchecked legislation by a minority government, or an overpowerful one, will lead us.

 

And if course you were making precisely this claim when the lords was stuffed with hereditary peers (almost exclusively Tory) and Labour was in government?
If the Lords swung with Commons there would be no point to them-arguably a good thing. However after the governments latest disgraceful attempts to a) rig the substantive committees in their favour when they do not have an outright majority
b) remove the commons from scrutiny of vast amounts of law making
And then protest that it's all in the name of efficient government, when in fact it's entirely their own self-serving geeed for power that got us here in the first place
It seems to me that the best thing a 2nd chamber should be is completely opposed to the antics of the first one. A bit of common sense in the Commons would be welcome for all of us, even the most one-eyed right wing muppets, of whom there are far too many already.

 

Conservative 251 30.8%
Labour 213 26.1%
Liberal Democrat 108 13.2 %
Crossbench 177 21.7%
Other Parties 16 2.0 %
Non-Affiliated 24 3.0 %
Bishops 26 3.2%

These are the actual numbers of the HOL. The fact that nearly 22% are crossbench members means that they cannot be whipped by any party, and therefore a far better representative opinion is likely to be heard. As there are no crossbench MPs in the HOC, it cannot show a similar membership.

 

The House of Lords should have a maximum of 450 members elected by AV or PR, no Bishops, no life Peers, no hereditary life Peers. Perhaps there should be a percentage of the 450 as people's peers or non political, just elected for their expertise. It is important that those chosen generally reflect the views of the electorate at the same time as a general election.

Until that happens most of the Lib Dem Peers should follow the vast majority their MP's and just disappear.

 

What's the difference between Crossbench and Non-Affiliated?

 

What the Lords has is actually a mirror of the Commons, a government without a majority.

 

Crossbenchers do have a convener who gets briefings from government. Non-Affiliated are outside that loop.

 

http://archive.is/lXHjE

The Telegraph showing its bias here - "Iran defies Trump and tests new missile that could hit Israel."

No mention whatsoever of the Israeli strike on Damascus the same day.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41375302

Oh ffs!!! Can somebody please get rid of Trump...

 

He is a danger to the world. His speech to the UN was a total disgrace. If there is the slightest hint that the UK wishes to support him it will be the end of democracy in these islands, unless you are prepared to put sense aside in the hope of a trade deal. Time for Americans to rise up and tell him to stop.

 

He is hated more than anywhere else here, talk about pissing off your neighbours.

 

The UK is just learning how to do that to your neighbours.

 

To be honest, I am surprised someone hasn´t knocked him off yet.

 

My next door neighbour who has a house in Florida is also surprised.