Could someone please explain to me ...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 john arran 18 May 2018

... why Corbyn is not acting like one might expect from a leader of the opposition and objecting strongly to the political stacking of peers in the Lords by the Tories?

I'm even more baffled by this than by most of his other actions.

Removed User 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

So am I.

 Greasy Prusiks 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

Jeremy Corbyn is Theresa May in disguise? She did turn down TV debates with him... 

 

I'm as baffled as you are. I find him very difficult to predict. 

Post edited at 20:44
1
 skog 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

If you make a list of the times Corbyn's Labour has actually opposed anything Theresa May's Tories have done, and another of the times they've supported them or just abstained or stayed out of the way, I believe you'll see a pattern emerge.

Ultimately, there's no real point in worrying about stuff such as this, when there's simply nothing you can do about it. It's just the way UK politics are, and will be, until something changes dramatically.

 

 
Post edited at 21:01
OP john arran 18 May 2018
In reply to skog:

> If you make a list of the times Corbyn's Labour has actually opposed anything Theresa May's Tories have done, and another of the times they've supported them or just abstained or stayed out of the way, I believe you'll see a pattern emerge.

I was with you until there, but ...

> Ultimately, there's no real point in worrying about stuff such as this, when there's simply nothing you can do about it. It's just the way UK politics are, and will be, until something changes dramatically.

Not so much worrying, but if nobody questions actions by our political leaders, how are they ever to be held to account? I'm not claiming to be acting in any meaningful way to instigate changes, but surely changes will never come about if nobody is even talking about the need for them?

 skog 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Not so much worrying, but if nobody questions actions by our political leaders, how are they ever to be held to account? I'm not claiming to be acting in any meaningful way to instigate changes, but surely changes will never come about if nobody is even talking about the need for them?

I'd have agreed not so long ago, but I'm just tired of it now.

More people voted for this lot than any of the alternatives, and most of the rest voted for the alternative that's basically just propping them up. I can't see any sign that there would be a huge change in that if another election was held tomorrow, so I have to conclude that this is basically what the population wants, or at least that they don't want anything else enough to make it happen.

Things will get better sometime, but they'll probably have to get worse first, to make people care.

1
In reply to skog:

> Things will get better sometime, but they'll probably have to get worse first, to make people care.

That's such a gloomy prediction, but probably true because the electorate is just so indolent now.

I'm bracing myself for quite a horror story now, and wish it were just a movie I was working on (for thought-provoking entertainment) rather than a shocking reality.

 

1
 Rob Parsons 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

Apart from the tricksy title of this thead - and, fair play, I read it - what's your detailed question? And what's its context?

OP john arran 18 May 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Apart from the tricksy title of this thead - and, fair play, I read it - what's your detailed question? And what's its context?

My detailed question is: why is Corbyn is not acting like one might expect from a leader of the opposition and objecting strongly to the political stacking of peers in the Lords by the Tories?

The context is that of finding ourselves in a situation in which the leader of the opposition appears to be behaving in a manner that is unexpected for an opposition leader, and I'm curious to seek possible explanations for that.

Although to be fair, I thought that much was pretty obvious from my OP.

 Rob Parsons 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> My detailed question is: why is Corbyn is not acting like one might expect from a leader of the opposition and objecting strongly to the political stacking of peers in the Lords by the Tories?

Is this in relation to something happening today? (Serious question: I have no idea what you're specifically referring to.)

> Although to be fair, I thought that much was pretty obvious from my OP.

Trying to be nice: please, give it a rest. Don't imagine that we all know what you're currently thinking about ...

11
OP john arran 18 May 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Your post just caused me to look up the story on the BBC website, and I really had to search to find it, so buried is it that few would chance upon it by accident, and then even then it's written in such bland language you wouldn't think anything of note was being reported: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44167066

The story is better reported on the Guardian site: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/18/may-names-nine-new-tory-pe...

I'm guessing it's being reported uncritically, if at all, on the sites owned and controlled by those standing to gain personally from Brexit.

 Rob Parsons 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

That's mainly a report about government (currently, Conservative) parties' appointments to the House of Lords, right? I (or you) mightn't like them - but the fundamental issue is nothing at all new.

> I'm guessing it's being reported uncritically, if at all, on the sites owned and controlled by those standing to gain personally from Brexit.

That's probably just you.

Post edited at 22:14
5
 Andy Hardy 18 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

What you have to remember john is that Corbyn *wants* brexit.

The fact that it will screw us entirely is irrelevant to him.

1
 Big Ger 19 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> ... why Corbyn is not acting like one might expect from a leader of the opposition and objecting strongly to the political stacking of peers in the Lords by the Tories?

Corbyn is anti-Eu, he wants May to achieve Brexit, then he can dethrone her and she will always be blamed for Brexit.

3
 Big Ger 19 May 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> The fact that it will screw us entirely is irrelevant to him.

He doesn't see it that way. He sees it as the UK not being subsumed under the evil capitalist EU. The UK will then flourish under his new 5 year plan.

 

3
 MG 19 May 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Normally Lords new appointments try to reflect the balance of MPs. Here they don't (and the Tories are over represented already anyway). May is trying to bypass the system. Oddly Corby is ignoring this. Perhaps because he supports Brexit and is against the Lords. 

 skog 19 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> He doesn't see it that way. He sees it as the UK not being subsumed under the evil capitalist EU. The UK will then flourish under his new 5 year plan.

 

Yeah, it's not all that often I agree wholeheartedly with you, but I think you've probably hit the nail bang on the head there.

Brexit, whatever way you feel about it, supersedes almost all other issues just now. Corbyn has his dream goal, and the end justifies the means, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and all that stuff.

It's probable that things may start to get better once Brexit is properly resolved and out of the way. That could a decade or more away, though - as whichever flavour of Brexit happens there will almost inevitably be a large chunk of the population screaming about how they've been betrayed by the others.

Bogwalloper 19 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

Come on John, why do you think?

W

OP john arran 19 May 2018
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> Come on John, why do you think?

Getting a bit philosophical there Bogwalloper!

 

 Timmd 19 May 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Trying to be nice: please, give it a rest. Don't imagine that we all know what you're currently thinking about ...

I knew exactly what he meant in his OP.

In reply to john arran:

To understand Corbyn all you need to do is ask yourself "What would Wolfie Smith do?"

youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA&

He doesn't like the EU because the rules about state aid would prevent the Tooting Popular Front restoring a 1970s socialist utopia.

1
OP john arran 19 May 2018
In reply to Timmd:

To be fair, if it was covered as poorly by whatever media he chooses to source news from as it was on the BBC news site, I can well understand that he had no idea what I was referring to; a sad reflection of our media, more than anything personal. It wasn't until I went looking for it on the BBC site that I realised how such a significant story could be virtually ignored so as not to inform the people of an uncomfortable truth, while at the same time pretending to remain impartial.

 Rob Parsons 19 May 2018
In reply to Timmd:

> I knew exactly what he meant in his OP.


Congratulations! You win any fluffy toy from the top row!

4
Moley 19 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

The Tories are probably following an old labour tradition. Nothing new. A quote below.

During his first term of office, Blair created 203 life peers, whom the Conservatives referred to as "Tony's Cronies".

Have a look at these figures, admittedly 2 year old, but labour have 35% and Tory 27% of peers, maybe just balancing the books?

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2016-00...

??????

1
 Bob Kemp 20 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> He doesn't see it that way. He sees it as the UK not being subsumed under the evil capitalist EU. The UK will then flourish under his new 5 year plan.

The first sentence makes sense. The second is purely rhetorical. A better critique of Corbyn's brand of leftism is based on seeing it in the broader context of the long struggle in the Labour Party between the revolutionary socialist and democratic socialist elements. In that struggle, the revolutionaries are not actually interested in Labour in power. That's just putting a sticking plaster on capitalism as far as they're concerned. In this interpretation, Labour is an obstacle to the revolution.  The object is to take control of the Labour Party and use its organisations and resources to build a mass movement that can be used to further the coming revolution. 

In case that sounds like rightist paranoia, there is plenty of evidence, historical and contemporary, to support this kind of interpretation. Try this for example:

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43124/Why+Lenin+said+Communists+must+try+...

 Timmd 20 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> To be fair, if it was covered as poorly by whatever media he chooses to source news from as it was on the BBC news site, I can well understand that he had no idea what I was referring to; a sad reflection of our media, more than anything personal. It wasn't until I went looking for it on the BBC site that I realised how such a significant story could be virtually ignored so as not to inform the people of an uncomfortable truth, while at the same time pretending to remain impartial.

I guess I'd heard about the appointments on R4 when they were mentioned in passing, and joined the dots about what you meant, but he wouldn't have known to do that without already knowing that May had appointed some peers very recently. Pardon me for piping up, Rob Parsons.  

 

Post edited at 01:12
OP john arran 20 May 2018
In reply to Moley:

According to the articles I linked, Tories appear to currently have 244, which is already more than Lavour (whose total is not quoted). This new move will extend the imbalance.

But really it's the timing that's most disturbing as it strongly suggests stacking of votes on a particular issue, effectively trying to turn the Lords into a rubber stamping chamber, or as close to that as they can get.

OP john arran 20 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> It seems reasonably balanced to me.

Why I am not surprised that Con 244, Lab 187 seems reasonably balanced to you? And when it becomes 253 to 190 will it still be reasonably balanced in your eyes?

I'm not going to claim the current HoL is in any way a great system of maintaining checks and balances on the HoC, but stacking it with former MPs of any government flavour of the day is surely a good way to make it worse.

 Big Ger 20 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Why I am not surprised that Con 244, Lab 187 seems reasonably balanced to you? And when it becomes 253 to 190 will it still be reasonably balanced in your eyes?

Why am I not surprised that you omitted to mention the 98 Limp Dems, 181 cross benchers ( do you know what that means BTW,) 28 non-affiliated  (do you know what that means BTW,) 15 "others", 26 Bishops, or that Tories and Labour peers combined make up a smidge over half the membership of the lords?

In 2011 the figures stood at 243 Labour peers, four  hereditary, 218 Conservatives, 48  hereditary, and 93 Liberal Democrats, four  hereditary, alongside a further 184 Lords serving as crossbenchers, with 25 bishops and 29 listed as "other", I'm sure you wouldn't be bleating about those if they remained.

Try again John.

 

 

Post edited at 10:03
10
 Rob Parsons 20 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> But really it's the timing that's most disturbing as it strongly suggests stacking of votes on a particular issue, effectively trying to turn the Lords into a rubber stamping chamber, or as close to that as they can get.

The timing does seem suspicious, however the process was started in November according to The Guardian article you posted. However that same article also says:

"The nominations will tilt the balance of the chamber slightly in favour of May, taking her party’s total of peers from 244 to 253. But no party has a majority in the 780-strong upper house, and the government has been so heavily defeated on some amendments that introducing a handful of more supportive peers will only make a modest difference in getting Brexit through parliament."

The Lords is a very weird institution all right - nobody would invent it nowadays - but, against expectations perhaps, it generally seems to provide a useful and thoughtful balancing function.

OP john arran 20 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Perhaps because they aren't relevant to the point at hand and therefore a pointless distraction? Just a thought. 

 Big Ger 20 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

Ah, so the fact that they could, and possibly should, prevent one of the two main parties from having dominance quite easily is "an irrelevance"?

Just goes to show how partisan your views are.

You make me smile.

8
 timjones 20 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> ... why Corbyn is not acting like one might expect from a leader of the opposition and objecting strongly to the political stacking of peers in the Lords by the Tories?

> I'm even more baffled by this than by most of his other actions.

He is acting exactly as most people would expect.

He knows that he will do exactly the same if he gets elected.

OP john arran 20 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Yes, of course dear.

1
 MG 20 May 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm sure you wouldn't be bleating about those if they remained.

> Try again John.

From the guy who "beats" about others making personal attacks... 

 

2
In reply to Big Ger:

> It seems reasonably balanced to me.

It's a f*cking joke and national embarassment.  It is so discriminatory and biased I am amazed it is even legal under EU sex/race/religion discrimination laws.   

Let's start with 45.6% of the Lords being from London and the South East.  https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2016-0...

How about racially biased.  Well they don't ask members to provide race/religion statistics despite the fact that pretty much every other aspect of government collects that data.  I wonder why?  The best data seems to be it is about 5% black and minority ethnic compared with 13% in the population as a whole. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2014-01...

Move on to 578 male peers vs 202 women.

Then how about the religious bias  - 26 bishops of the Church of England?  How in hell do they get away with that kind of blatant religious discrimination.  The Church of England isn't even the established church in the whole of the UK.   

Then let's consider Northern Ireland.   The DUP get multiple Lords, the most recent of them once advocated air strikes on the Irish Republic.  How in hell is someone like that even considered for a seat in the Lords.   The nationalist/Catholic community don't have any representation in the Lords but constitute about half the electorate of Northern Ireland.

The UK is not supposed to be a two-party system but Lords appointments are a total Con/Lab stitch up with a hang over from the days where the Lib Dems mattered because it is a job for life.   There are no SNP Lords which leaves you wondering who the 9.6% of the Lords that say they are from Scotland are.  My guess is hereditary landowners,  Labour Party apparatchiks and a few business people who are Tory party donors. 

 

The bottom line is the House of Lords represents the two party London political establishment.

 

1
 FactorXXX 20 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The reason that there are no SNP Lords is because the SNP have decided that they don't want any.

 Big Ger 20 May 2018
In reply to MG:

> From the guy who "beats" about others making personal attacks... 

A "personal attack" is an off topic ad hominem, I addressed the topic.

Unlike, say you, who merely posted a personal attack.

Post edited at 11:58
6
 Big Ger 20 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's a f*cking joke and national embarassment.  It is so discriminatory and biased I am amazed it is even legal under EU sex/race/religion discrimination laws.   

Luckily we're leaving the EU and will not have our style of government chosen by Brussels Eurocrats.

> Let's start with 45.6% of the Lords being from London and the South East.  https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2016-0...

Yes, and?

> How about racially biased. 

Why should membership of the house of Lords be determined by skin colour ratio?

> Move on to 578 male peers vs 202 women.

Why should membership of the house of Lords be determined by gendre ratio?

> Then how about the religious bias  - 26 bishops of the Church of England? 

There I agree with you.

> Then let's consider Northern Ireland.   

Still a part of the UK if I remember rightly? How about these scroungers?

Sixty four peers living in Scotland shared a payout of £1.83m from tax payers in just one year, The Ferret can reveal.

The three most expensive Lords were all Liberal Democrats. They were the only Scottish peers to receive more than £50,000 each in one year.

On average, peers claimed £28,528 each, or £346.38 for each day worked. Each person typically signed in to the House of Lords for 78 days in the last 12 month period for which records are available, August 2014 to July 2015. The most active peer, Lord Purvis, attended for 128 days.

 

Collectively, peers spent £287,896 on air travel between Scotland and London, a figure described as “disappointing” and “excessive” by critics.

They also spent £28,776 on taxis, parking and bridge tolls.

> The UK is not supposed to be a two-party system but Lords appointments are a total Con/Lab stitch up with a hang over from the days where the Lib Dems mattered because it is a job for life.   

That's why nearly half the membership are not from either of those parties

> The bottom line is the House of Lords represents the two party London political establishment.

Says you.

 

7
In reply to Big Ger:

> Sixty four peers living in Scotland shared a payout of £1.83m from tax payers in just one year, The Ferret can reveal.

They should fire the whole lot of them: they have no connection to the current views of the Scottish electorate.  Peers from Scotland are mainly:

a. landowners that own an estate in the Scotland and put it down as their address on the form.

b. Labour party apparatchiks appointed when Labour owned Scottish politics

c. business people that donate to the Tories.

> The three most expensive Lords were all Liberal Democrats. They were the only Scottish peers to receive more than £50,000 each in one year.

Well yeah, the Lib Dems have traditionally had a presence in the Highlands/Islands. If you live in Skye or Fort William or Inverness and travel to Westminster it isn't cheap.   The Lib Dems are the most defensible of the current Scottish peers.

> That's why nearly half the membership are not from either of those parties

Maybe they don't write Tory/Labour on the form.   But you get the job either by inheriting a title or by being pals with Tory/Labour politicians.

> Says you.

Say's anyone with any sense.  The House of Lords is indefensible.  It doesn't even try to look democratic.

 

 Big Ger 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm sure when you eventually gain the People's Republic of Alba, they'll be first against the wall.

7
 jkarran 21 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> My detailed question is: why is Corbyn is not acting like one might expect from a leader of the opposition and objecting strongly to the political stacking of peers in the Lords by the Tories?

Is it not just convention that the party in power gets to pack the lords largely unopposed on the basis the opposition's time to do the same will surely come next?

I suppose there's some desire to clip the wings of the lords over brexit on the part of both leaders so as to avoid bringing further constitutional chaos at a time where there is already plenty looming but I suspect this weighs far heavier on May than Corbyn.

jk

 Big Ger 21 May 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Very well put.

3
 FactorXXX 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They should fire the whole lot of them: they have no connection to the current views of the Scottish electorate.  Peers from Scotland are mainly:

> a. landowners that own an estate in the Scotland and put it down as their address on the form.
> b. Labour party apparatchiks appointed when Labour owned Scottish politics
> c. business people that donate to the Tories.

 

The reason that there are no SNP Lords is because the SNP have decided that they don't want any.

 

 

In reply to jkarran:

> Is it not just convention that the party in power gets to pack the lords largely unopposed on the basis the opposition's time to do the same will surely come next?

That amounts to a convention that the Tories and Labour will rule the country for ever: no new party can get a significant foothold in the Lords for decades after it is founded and only unionist parties will be represented. 

 

1
 FactorXXX 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> That amounts to a convention that the Tories and Labour will rule the country for ever: no new party can get a significant foothold in the Lords for decades after it is founded and only unionist parties will be represented. 

I'm assuming that the reason that the non-unionist parties in Northern Ireland aren't represented is the same as the SNP's i.e. they don't want to be represented.

In reply to FactorXXX:

> The reason that there are no SNP Lords is because the SNP have decided that they don't want any.

Which is the only morally justifiable position.

Even if they did want some they'd need to go cap in hand to the Tory government at Westminster and ask nicely.   They'd be handed 1 maybe 2 seats so nobody could say they didn't get anything.  At the rate of 1 or 2 new SNP Lords per parliamentary cycle it would take decades before the SNP had as many 'Scottish' Lords as Labour despite having far more Scottish MPs.

1
 FactorXXX 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Which is the only morally justifiable position.

You can't have it both ways.
You can't complain that there are no SNP Lords and then say that the correct choice is not to have any SNP Lords for moral reasons.
It has to be one or the other...

 

 GrahamD 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Even if they did want some they'd need to go cap in hand to the Tory government at Westminster and ask nicely.   

Tam O Shanter, surely ?

 MG 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Which is the only morally justifiable position.

> Even if they did want some they'd need to go cap in hand to the Tory government at Westminster and ask nicely.   They'd be handed 1 maybe 2 seats so nobody could say they didn't get anything.  At the rate of 1 or 2 new SNP Lords per parliamentary cycle it would take decades before the SNP had as many 'Scottish' Lords as Labour despite having far more Scottish MPs.

The Lords can be criticised in all sorts of ways but isn't this inertia intended and desirable?  It means that the country is less likely to lurch from one position to another, or at least if it does, the lurches are moderated somewhat (e.g. as may be happening with Brexit).  With 50 odd MPs, over time the SNP would have a significant representation in the Lords if they chose.  That they choose not to is their decision.

 Big Ger 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Which party supported by the electorate is being deprived / forbidden to have lords?

The limp dems   have a minuscule number of MPs but half the number of lords that the major parties have.

 jkarran 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> That amounts to a convention that the Tories and Labour will rule the country for ever: no new party can get a significant foothold in the Lords for decades after it is founded and only unionist parties will be represented. 

Well the LibDems, hereditary peers and meritocratic cross bench appointments do change that a little but yeah, the whole thing is designed (evolved I suppose is more appropriate) to be super conservative in the long run, small reversible changes are allowed occur periodically with cycles of government but serious reform takes centuries if it's possible at all. The upper house and our dreadful exclusive electoral system both desperately need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and I'm sure they will be, probably some time mid 22nd

jk

In reply to FactorXXX:

> You can't complain that there are no SNP Lords and then say that the correct choice is not to have any SNP Lords for moral reasons.

I can and I just did.

The morally correct option is to boycott the Lords because it is completely undemocratic and needs to be abolished.

The pragmatically correct option is to boycott the Lords because it is not worth trading political capital for the sake of one or two peers per 5 year parliamentary cycle.   It would be decades before you got enough for it to make the slightest bit of difference and the whole thing will be moot long before that happens - either Scotland will be Independent or the House of Lords will be abolished or both.

The outcome I am complaining about is that Scotland is 'represented' in the Lords by a group of people whose views are diametrically opposed to those of the Scottish electorate and there is no mechanism to resolve that in any reasonable period of time.

 

Post edited at 15:59
1
In reply to MG:

> The Lords can be criticised in all sorts of ways but isn't this inertia intended and desirable?  

It's intended and desirable for Tories and Labour and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems. 

Some inertia may be useful but a house where people are appointed for life and appointments are at the gift of the governing party is the sort of thing that communist states do.

 

1
 Big Ger 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

 

> The outcome I am complaining about is that Scotland is 'represented' in the Lords by a group of people whose views are diametrically opposed to those of the Scottish electorate and there is no mechanism to resolve that in any reasonable period of time.

So by you and the SNP boycotting them you hope they will realised the profound gravity and truth of your views and resign? Bets of luck with that.

Post edited at 16:36
1
 MG 21 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The morally correct option is to boycott the Lords because it is completely undemocratic and needs to be abolished.

I don't think being undemocratic is immoral necessarily.  We use democracy because we think it delivers good (or least bad) government, which is what we desire, not for its own sake.  Oddly the Lords have probably delivered at least as good government as the democratic HoC for at least a century.  On this pragmatic basis I'd say there is a case for keeping them.  I'd say reform of the HoC is a much more urgent concern.

In reply to Big Ger:

> So by you and the SNP boycotting them you hope they will realised the profound gravity and truth of your views and resign? Bets of luck with that.

No, I think it is a rigged game which it isn't worth playing.  

1
In reply to MG:

> I don't think being undemocratic is immoral necessarily.  We use democracy because we think it delivers good (or least bad) government, which is what we desire, not for its own sake.  

When you have a system that is blatantly regionally biased (45% from the London/South East), religiously biased (C of E bishops), sexually discriminatory, racially discriminatory, has places for feudal landowners and where new members are selected by patronage and occasionally bribery then I submit it is obviously not moral and needs changed.   

You can't directly compare the quality of governance of the Lords and the Commons because the Lords don't have the power to really f*ck things up in the way the commons can.   We have a weak and corrupt second chamber which isn't able to hold the first chamber to account in the way that one with a proper mandate and significant powers could.   

 

1
 Big Ger 22 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> No, I think it is a rigged game which it isn't worth playing.  

Don't complain about the result then.

In reply to Big Ger:

> Don't complain about the result then.

If the SNP don't take part they get no Lords and Labour politicians who have been comprehensively rejected in the last few elections in Scotland, Tory donors and landowners stack the place out with a ton of Unionist nominally 'Scottish' Lords.

If the SNP ask nicely (and as a result tacitly accept the system) the Tory/Labour duopoly may possibly give them one or two Lords every 5 years which is nothing like enough to make a difference in any reasonable time frame.  

It is heads I win, tails you lose.  They have every right to complain about the 'result'.  

1
 Big Ger 22 May 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That sort of deadefeatist  attitude isn't a vote winner either.

2
In reply to Big Ger:

> That sort of deadefeatist  attitude isn't a vote winner either.

Nothing defeatist about it.  The fights that matter to the SNP are elections to the Scottish Parliament and future independence referendums.   

1
 BFG 22 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Perhaps because they aren't relevant to the point at hand and therefore a pointless distraction? Just a thought. 

Well, they are relevant. Whilst not taking away from the general points from Tom regarding makeup; if you look at just the Tory / Lab split, it makes the Tories look like they have a 13% advantage over labour. If you compare their percentages of the overall number, it makes them look like they have a 6% advantage. Given that the power of the Lords is distributed across all its members, the latter number is more accurate.

If it was me, I'd take the power to appoint to the HoL out of govt hands. But, given that the Tories have 48% of the seats in the Commons and only 31% of the seats in the Lords, it's not massively surprising that they appointing more people there.

Plus, it is of course extremely politically expedient. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...