Plans to curb House of Lords powers 'dropped'

By Laura Kuenssberg

BBC political editor

 

LONDON: -- Plans to curb the power of the House of Lords have been dropped by the government, sources have told the BBC.

 

Former House of Lords leader Lord Strathclyde came up with a proposal to remove peers' veto over laws - called statutory instruments - after a series of government defeats last year.

 

Sources say plans to remove the power from the Lords, where the Tories do not have a majority, have now been dropped.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38008315

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2016-11-17

The elites need to have a voice - they're rich, well-educated, well-connected - they crave more influence in business and society than the hoi-polloi and historically they have shown they can organise themselves to take power by force. The House of Lords was a brilliant device to relieve that pressure. Thailand needs a similar set-up.

We are where we are with the other place and I'm not saying it didn't need Tony Blair's reform but I like the tradition of the checks & balances house and think further erosion of its powers unnecessary so I'd say it's good news that the plans were dropped.

The principle of the House of Lords I am not against. The fact that there are far to many given titles. People are given the title from birth is what I am also against.

Note to the House of Lords. Can you reform the BBC or get rid of it.

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The principle of the House of Lords I am not against. The fact that there are far to many given titles. People are given the title from birth is what I am also against.

Note to the House of Lords. Can you reform the BBC or get rid of it.

 

There is always a need for a second chamber for checks and balance. And to stop any government passing self favoring laws at the expense of the people and/or reducing democracy and constitutional process.

The make up of that chamber is debatable. Giving large sums of money to the Labor Party always seemed the seediest.

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

There is always a need for a second chamber for checks and balance. And to stop any government passing self favoring laws at the expense of the people and/or reducing democracy and constitutional process.

That is the exact thing I am not against.

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

The elites need to have a voice - they're rich, well-educated, well-connected - they crave more influence in business and society than the hoi-polloi and historically they have shown they can organise themselves to take power by force. The House of Lords was a brilliant device to relieve that pressure. Thailand needs a similar set-up.

 

You should check the current composition of the House of Lords and how members are selected. Not just the aristocracy anymore.

 

Diminishing the power of the chamber that checks and balances the government to stop it enacting self serving laws, following several government defeats, is a little too brash even for this crop of right wing Tories. Thankfully.

6 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You should check the current composition of the House of Lords and how members are selected. Not just the aristocracy anymore.

 

Diminishing the power of the chamber that checks and balances the government to stop it enacting self serving laws, following several government defeats, is a little too brash even for this crop of right wing Tories. Thankfully.

Exactly, each government in power packs the House of Lords with it's cronies, when you thinks of crooks like Mandleson, and others that i can't think of right now, plus the oaf Prescott all ready to back up their particular team,all they need to do is just clock in and pick up £300 a day.

The original idea was sound, but not the way it used these days unfortunately.