Lords obstructing the governement...

[d9f1c7]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314
Apart from the benefitees, who could possibly object to a benefit cap? How can a democracy let these unelected dinosaurs block the legitimate plans of the elected?

[rojash]

"Apart from the benefitees, who could possibly object to a benefit cap?"

Actually, quite a lot of people do. Not everyone holds an opinion based purely on selfishness.

"How can a democracy let these unelected dinosaurs block the legitimate plans of the elected?"

Erm, this is a coalition Government and wasn't actually elected outright.

[NOX]

'Unelected Dinosaurs'- that's 'Call me Dave' and Nick 'whatever you say Dave' Clegg' then.

[WyeDyed]

The lords is there to question the, sometimes, ill thought out at rushed legislation of the incumbent government (of any persuasion). We do have 'The Parliament Act' which allows the House of Commons to override the House of Lords on the grounds that it is the elected house and it's will should be obeyed, although it is used rarely as the upper chamber usually sends back poor legislation on very good grounds.

[Gromit]

The last Labour Government was defeated by the Lords over 400 times.

http://www.palgrave-j...4t1.html#figure-title

Did you whinge then?

[WyeDyed]

The House of Lords has a natural leaning to the right of the political spectrum, so if this has been sent back there has to be some serious flaws in it.
(BTW I haven't checked the reports yet)

[Gromit]

WyeDyde

The current composition of the the Lords is

242 Labour
216 Conservative
88 Liberal Democrat.

Hardly a majority right leaning.

[d9f1c7]

The currenct governement are elected, they all won their seats and were voted in. Our system means that an out right majority was not achieved so they must cooperate. That hardly constitutes "unelected". On that basis averey coalition in existance can be branded "unelected" and if we followed what many want and introduced PR, we'd never have an "elected" government.

Rojash "Actually, quite a lot of people do. Not everyone holds an opinion based purely on selfishness. "

I think it's prettty selfish to scrounge off those of us that are working. Any inducement to get people away from a life on benefits has to be good.

Yes wyedyed, not sure where the "right leaning" comes from! see Gromit's figures.

Gromit, yes I did winge then.

[venator]

A second Chamber is a tried & tested way to curb the excesses and occasional sillinesses which slip through the Parliamentary system.

Govenments in power tend to pack the Lords with their own superannuated cronies, so the composition will gradually lean a bit more to the right & libdem.

I think we could start by sending Mr Cable there.

The best second chamber would have 50% taxi drivers and 50% grannies.

[venator]

and a smattering of AB posters, perhaps?

Who would you ennoble?

[venator]

Lord Gromit of AB?

[Davethedog]

Love it - When the Lords are blocking Labours ammendments and Labour say there should be an elected 2nd house tories are up in arms "hrrrmph hrrmph"
now the boots on the other foot they are dinosaurs.

Because this is carelessly thought out blanket legislation, it needs to be re-thought.

Lets take £26,000 a year only certain cases would get anywhere near that but of course that doesn't suit or even get near the right wing medias agenda does it.

Due to a lack of social housing (who caused that I wonder) people have to go into the private sector however if you lose your job you can't pay your rent. If you are low paid the only way you can get a place is to rent and get housing benifit, because landlords are allowed to set the rent without regulation.

So the introduction of this bill would of made many people homeless because withdrawal of benifit would have meant that people couldn't afford the rent.

[Gromit]

I seem to remember much praising of the Lords and dancing in the streets when the Lords defeated Brown's Labour Government over their shabby treatment of those plucky Gurkhas. That was the time Joanna Lumpy was made a Saint.

[anotheoldgit]

Anyone who can't manage on £500 per week wants looking into.

There are many struggling hard working families who do not get anything like that wage.

Those who are on these large housing benefits for the luxury of living in huge houses in expensive areas of London and who cannot afford their expensive private rents, should downsize and move into less affluent areas, the same as some working families have to do.

But as Cameron has said the majority of the nation are behind this capping, and it has got to go back to the commons yet.

[WyeDyed]

Thank you Gromit, it would seem my statement about the Lords' bias was based on outdated information and I unreservedly withdraw it.
I stand by my other opinions though ;-)

[jackthehat]

Which people are receiving £500 in their hands, AOG?

[anotheoldgit]

I did not say £500 in their hands.

[Gromit]

// Anyone who can't manage on £500 per week wants looking into. //

Most of these London rent prices are above £500 per week for a 3 bedroom or above property. Then you have to feed and cloth your family. Maybe anyone who is unfortunate to lose their job in the affluent south east should be banished to Northumbria.

http://www.londonprop...ge_rental_prices.html

Perhaps if the Government built more houses and built up the public housing stock, then we would not have to pay rip off landlords huge amounts from the taxpayer. You never know, stimulating the housebuilding sector might actually reduce unemployment, boost local economies and kick start a badly needed recovery. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Davethedog]

If they are not receiving £500 in their hands how can they manage it? Also what are they receiving and can they manage it?