Vote Labour at your peril at the next election

[IainBusby]

There is your answer.

If you remeber, it kept going back and forth to the Lords, until it was passed by act of Parliament, thus bypassing any more shenanigans from the Lords, which, even including labour stooges, wanted it amended.

It was not voted on, in its present form.

That's because the Lords always has had an inbuilt conservative majority with most of the hereditary peers who continually tried to thwart the bill belonging to the landed gentry (the fox hunting brigade) wheareas the government that we the people elected has a labour majority and the parliament act was put in place so that the unelected house of lords could not continually thwart the will of the elected government of the day, which ever party it may be, in the house of commons.

[aromulus]

That's because the Lords always has had an inbuilt conservative majority with most of the hereditary peers who continually tried to thwart the bill belonging to the landed gentry (the fox hunting brigade) wheareas the government that we the people elected has a labour majority and the parliament act was put in place so that the unelected house of lords could not continually thwart the will of the elected government of the day, which ever party it may be, in the house of commons.

Excuse me, but by then the Hereditary lot was well gone, and the place was 3/4 full of labour hired, by headhunters, stooges.
And they still saw flaws in that bill, so much, so that they sent it back to the commons a few times.

[IainBusby]

Excuse me, but by then the Hereditary lot was well gone, and the place was 3/4 full of labour hired, by headhunters, stooges.
And they still saw flaws in that bill, so much, so that they sent it back to the commons a few times.

There are still a number of hereditary peers in the house of lords to this day, 92 of them in fact, because the labour government decided not remove them all until it there was cross party agreement with regard to how their relacements would be selected and as far as the place being 3/4 full of labour stooges that is just totally untrue. Historically the lords has always had an inbuilt tory majority and as far as I am aware they still have today.


Reform of the House of Lords

There has been a movement in Britain towards reforming the second chamber because of its undemocratic nature. This has been advanced by the New Labour party who started the reform by abolishing most of the Hereditary Peers. They left only 92 of these Hereditary peers which was part of a deal made with the Conservative party to get the measure through Parliament. The Conservatives agreed to let the bill through if there would remain 92 Hereditary Peers (most peers are Conservative and the Conservatives have a strong strangle hold on the House of Lords which is useful when it isn't in power in the House of Commons).
However, when this agreement was reached, the Conservatives didn't realise that New Labour would do anything else that could annoy them. They were wrong! Tony made the Hereditary Peers vote for their survival. 75 peers where to be elected to stay in the House of Lords (the other 17 had a special reason for remaining, holding certain posts) by the Hereditary Peers themselves. Any of the Hereditary Peers could stand for election but when they did they had to write, in no more than 75 words (sic), why they should remain an Hereditary Peer. This most annoyed the Leader of the Conservative party in the Lords who was outraged (partly because he had to stand for election himself and was having difficulty cutting down his locution). The reason for this word limit was apparently to stop the Lords from writing colossal election manifestos.



Just one article I googled very quickly though I'm sure I could find many more to prove my point if I looked hard enough.

[walesrob]

Not that it matters much now, as Labour don't have long to go...I'm sure Gordons £££'s of cleaning bills claimed on his expenses will really endear him to the public, along with Jacqui Porn and her house. This Labour government has lost all credibility.

By the way Iain, that article seems a bit childish (must have been written by a 10 year old Ed Ballsup) - its the Labour Party, not the "NEW" Labour Party. Words like "They were wrong!" and "Tony" (Tony who?) hardly makes it a balanced and credible.