HoLords reform hits the skids

[Guest]

Apparently senior Tories in the House of Lords (senior Tories are always 'grandees' making them sound like some rarefied alcoholic pudding - oh I get it! ) are determined to scupper the Coalition's plans for reforms because they see them as a capitulation too far by Mr Cameron to Mr Clegg.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/07/house-lords-reform-david-cameron

I can't resist highlighting this bit :

"Senior Lib Dems insisted that Lords reform was a key part of the coalition agreement and hinted that, if the Tories did not back it, they might be less willing to hold to their side of the bargain.

"The coalition agreement is not some kind of a la carte menu. It is not about having a pick and mix approach. You cannot have the parts you like and reject the parts you don't. A deal is a deal and it up to them deliver that deal," said a senior party figure."

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?

Wasn't the original idea of the coalition the much vaunted responsibility to 'save the country'?

You gotta love those LibDems

[MrGongGong]

Wasn't the original idea of the coalition the much vaunted responsibility to 'save the country'?

Wasn't Henry V on TV last night ?

classic strategy

convince everyone that there's a "crisis" which only "strong leadership" will save us from then seize power

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a71_91srz0I

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ah reform .... now that might well be interesting ......

[Pabmusic]

Apparently senior Tories in the House of Lords (senior Tories are always 'grandees' making them sound like some rarefied alcoholic pudding - oh I get it! ) are determined to scupper the Coalition's plans for reforms because they see them as a capitulation too far by Mr Cameron to Mr Clegg.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/07/house-lords-reform-david-cameron

Good post, Ams. But I must take you to task about "HoLords" I suppose the other is HoComms? How about HoHum? Or HoKum?

I can't resist highlighting this bit :

"Senior Lib Dems insisted that Lords reform was a key part of the coalition agreement and hinted that, if the Tories did not back it, they might be less willing to hold to their side of the bargain.

"The coalition agreement is not some kind of a la carte menu. It is not about having a pick and mix approach. You cannot have the parts you like and reject the parts you don't. A deal is a deal and it up to them deliver that deal," said a senior party figure."

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?

Wasn't the original idea of the coalition the much vaunted responsibility to 'save the country'?

You gotta love those LibDems

Very good post, Ams. But - "HoLords"?

I suppose the 'other place' is HoComms? Or HoKum? Or HoLoadarubbish? Or ...?

[Gordon]

HoL-istic?

[Pabmusic]

HoL-istic?

[Gordon]

Well the other place is definitey HoC-us Pocus

[amateur51]

Very good post, Ams. But - "HoLords"?

I suppose the 'other place' is HoComms? Or HoKum? Or HoLoadarubbish? Or ...?

My apologies - I'm never certain where the title gets chopped orf, y'see

[Flosshilde]

Very good post, Ams. But - "HoLords"?

As some of the Lords rent themselves out to any company that wants them, 'Ho' Lords is probably very appropriate.

[MrGongGong]

a song for the Ho Lords ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VnwL4-Ghn0

go for it Gareth

[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?