"Rooney" wrote in message
news:v39aq0df1nqej5kgohnqjthn0ft06apgfr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:07:31 -0000, "Old Codger"
> wrote:
>

>
> In this particular case, the important thing was to put the unelected
> chamber firmly in its place.
>

Let us not forget that the only reason reform of the upper house looks
unlikely to embrace election is the reluctance of the government to allow
it, since that would prevent them playing the 'unelected' card when deciding
to ignore the upper chamber's views.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:21:15 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:47:00 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>
>"Rooney" wrote in message
>news:v39aq0df1nqej5kgohnqjthn0ft06apgfr@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:07:31 -0000, "Old Codger"
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> In this particular case, the important thing was to put the unelected
>> chamber firmly in its place.
>>
>
>Let us not forget that the only reason reform of the upper house looks
>unlikely to embrace election is the reluctance of the government to allow
>it, since that would prevent them playing the 'unelected' card when deciding
>to ignore the upper chamber's views.
>

I've lost track of the Lords reform process, but not much seems to
have changed so far.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:32:24 -0000

"Rooney" wrote in message
news:lvfbq0tf7eg48thntjusku0ostkj7ifbj6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:47:00 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rooney" wrote in message
> >news:v39aq0df1nqej5kgohnqjthn0ft06apgfr@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:07:31 -0000, "Old Codger"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> In this particular case, the important thing was to put the unelected
> >> chamber firmly in its place.
> >>
> >
> >Let us not forget that the only reason reform of the upper house looks
> >unlikely to embrace election is the reluctance of the government to allow
> >it, since that would prevent them playing the 'unelected' card when
deciding
> >to ignore the upper chamber's views.
> >
>
>
> I've lost track of the Lords reform process, but not much seems to
> have changed so far.
>

The old Tory hereditary majority has been quietly dispensed with, the place
being more of a 'meritocracy' of those appointed for their wisdom and
judgement by our elected leaders. Ironic, really, isn't it?

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:04:02 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:32:24 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>
>"Rooney" wrote in message
>news:lvfbq0tf7eg48thntjusku0ostkj7ifbj6@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:47:00 -0000, "BAC"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Rooney" wrote in message
>> >news:v39aq0df1nqej5kgohnqjthn0ft06apgfr@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:07:31 -0000, "Old Codger"
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> In this particular case, the important thing was to put the unelected
>> >> chamber firmly in its place.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Let us not forget that the only reason reform of the upper house looks
>> >unlikely to embrace election is the reluctance of the government to allow
>> >it, since that would prevent them playing the 'unelected' card when
>deciding
>> >to ignore the upper chamber's views.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I've lost track of the Lords reform process, but not much seems to
>> have changed so far.
>>
>
>The old Tory hereditary majority has been quietly dispensed with, the place
>being more of a 'meritocracy' of those appointed for their wisdom and
>judgement by our elected leaders. Ironic, really, isn't it?
>

Seems to have backfired!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:15:18 -0000

Rooney wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:32:24 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rooney" wrote in message
>> news:lvfbq0tf7eg48thntjusku0ostkj7ifbj6@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:47:00 -0000, "BAC"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rooney" wrote in message
>>>> news:v39aq0df1nqej5kgohnqjthn0ft06apgfr@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:07:31 -0000, "Old Codger"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this particular case, the important thing was to put the
>>>>> unelected chamber firmly in its place.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let us not forget that the only reason reform of the upper house
>>>> looks unlikely to embrace election is the reluctance of the
>>>> government to allow it, since that would prevent them playing the
>>>> 'unelected' card when deciding to ignore the upper chamber's views.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've lost track of the Lords reform process, but not much seems to
>>> have changed so far.
>>>
>>
>> The old Tory hereditary majority has been quietly dispensed with,
>> the place being more of a 'meritocracy' of those appointed for their
>> wisdom and judgement by our elected leaders. Ironic, really, isn't
>> it?
>>
>
>
> Seems to have backfired!

Indeed! Just as it did when Harold Wilson tried flooding the Lords with
Labour peers.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	Robert Seago
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:25:43 +0000 (GMT)

In article <1101384134.26558.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net>,
BAC wrote:

> >

> The old Tory hereditary majority has been quietly dispensed with, the
> place being more of a 'meritocracy' of those appointed for their wisdom
> and judgement by our elected leaders. Ironic, really, isn't it?

Quietly LOL

But they didn't actually finish as they left a majority of the old order
there, including a large residue of hereditaries for their life time.

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:39:31 -0000

"Robert Seago" wrote in message
news:4d137f5680rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article <1101384134.26558.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net>,
> BAC wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > The old Tory hereditary majority has been quietly dispensed with, the
> > place being more of a 'meritocracy' of those appointed for their wisdom
> > and judgement by our elected leaders. Ironic, really, isn't it?
>
> Quietly LOL
>
> But they didn't actually finish as they left a majority of the old order
> there, including a large residue of hereditaries for their life time.
>

As at the end of October, there were 579 life peers, only 90 hereditary and
26 bishops. The 90 hereditaries chosen to remain under s2 of the 1999 Act
are there for life or until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary.
Of the 90, 47 are Tory, 4 are labour, 4 are lib/dem and 33 are crossbench.
The overall constitution of the H o L is 203 Tory, 201 Labour, 68 Liberal
Democrat, 187 Crossbench and 10 'other', including 1 green and
non-affiliates such as Lord Archer. Plus the Bishops, of course. Only 126 of
the peers are female.

Leaving the 90 hereditaries was a compromise pending further promised
reforms, including the possibility of direct elections for some or all
future appointments (an option the government doesn't seem to like any more)
and it also recognised the fact that some of the old hereditary peers had
proved themselves to be useful members anyway, who would possibly have been
elevated to the peerage if not already there by accident of birth.

The problem with the Lords, as presently constituted, is not so much the
presence of the 90 hereditaries, as the stubborn independence of mind of
peers, regardless of their nominal party allegiance. For example, the
'leader' of the opposition to the hunting with hounds bill in the Lords was
a 'labour' life peer.

In fact, the Lords were more in tune with Government thinking over the Bill
than the Commons, since both the Lords and the Government had favoured the
licensing 'middle way' but were thwarted by the wishes of the majority in
the Commons.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:49:16 +0000

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:39:31 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>In fact, the Lords were more in tune with Government thinking over the Bill
>than the Commons, since both the Lords and the Government had favoured the
>licensing 'middle way' but were thwarted by the wishes of the majority in
>the Commons.

Which in itself reflects rather well on our system. Imagine if the
opposite were true, and the Lords and government had prevailed against
the majority in the Commons!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:23:45 -0000

Rooney wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:39:31 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
>> In fact, the Lords were more in tune with Government thinking over
>> the Bill than the Commons, since both the Lords and the Government
>> had favoured the licensing 'middle way' but were thwarted by the
>> wishes of the majority in the Commons.
>
>
> Which in itself reflects rather well on our system. Imagine if the
> opposite were true, and the Lords and government had prevailed against
> the majority in the Commons!

Perhaps the result might then have better reflected the opinion of the
majority of the public.

Before you leap in, I do not know what the majority of the public considers
in respect of hunting but it does seem that priorities are somewhat out of
balance when there have been some hundreds of hours of parliamentary time
devoted to hunting compared to some tens of hours devoted to Iraq. Hunting
was not, imo, an appropriate subject on which to deploy the parliament act.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:01:51 +0000

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:23:45 -0000, "Old Codger"
wrote:

>Hunting
>was not, imo, an appropriate subject on which to deploy the parliament act.
>
>--

Surely the act is appropriate *any* time the Lords twice reject what
the Commons decide?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:14:22 -0000

Rooney wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:23:45 -0000, "Old Codger"
> wrote:
>
>> Hunting
>> was not, imo, an appropriate subject on which to deploy the
>> parliament act.
>>
>> --
>
> Surely the act is appropriate *any* time the Lords twice reject what
> the Commons decide?

IMO no. The purpose of the second chamber is to provide some balance
against a government getting too extreme or out of line. The main idea is
to make a government think again. If the second chamber cannot seriously
check the commons and, except in very exceptional circumstances, prevent
excesses there is no point in having it. Overriding the second chamber
should be very much the exception and only when absolutely essential. IMO
the hunting bill was a long way from being an essential piece of
legislation. The previous use of the parliament act was to get a bill
passed allowing alleged war criminals to be prosecuted in this country, John
Major's government I think. Whilst that looks a more valid use, I doubt if
that was really an essential piece of legislation at that time.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:36:29 +0000

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:14:22 -0000, "Old Codger"
wrote:

>IMO no. The purpose of the second chamber is to provide some balance
>against a government getting too extreme or out of line. The main idea is
>to make a government think again.

They made the Commons think again - and the Commons remained of the
same opinion.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:27:57 -0000

"Rooney" wrote in message
news:ud2eq01qkokdnqbtg7pbi8muaco7jfc6ds@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:39:31 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
> >In fact, the Lords were more in tune with Government thinking over the
Bill
> >than the Commons, since both the Lords and the Government had favoured
the
> >licensing 'middle way' but were thwarted by the wishes of the majority in
> >the Commons.
>
>
> Which in itself reflects rather well on our system. Imagine if the
> opposite were true, and the Lords and government had prevailed against
> the majority in the Commons!
>

I didn't say it was a bad thing, I was defending the Lords from implications
that they had been out of touch and perverse in reaching their decision. How
could they be such, when they were of similar mind to our glorious leader?

What usually happens in the circumstances you mention is that the Government
'whips in' its MPs, or somehow fails to find the time or will to allow such
matters to reach a conclusion.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:14:39 +0000

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:27:57 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>
>What usually happens in the circumstances you mention is that the Government
>'whips in' its MPs, or somehow fails to find the time or will to allow such
>matters to reach a conclusion.
>

...but presumably knew it couldn't force the issue in this case.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:21:54 -0000

"Rooney" wrote in message
news:dileq0lgnes1iv21q9b89i8rtrrrcuj1os@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:27:57 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >What usually happens in the circumstances you mention is that the
Government
> >'whips in' its MPs, or somehow fails to find the time or will to allow
such
> >matters to reach a conclusion.
> >
>
>
> ..but presumably knew it couldn't force the issue in this case.
>

The Manifesto commitment was to allow a free vote (so no whipping allowed)
and to allow the matter to be taken to a conclusion (so no talking out, no
ducking the parliament act).

Plus it was quite useful, I'd guess, giving the cannon fodder their head in
return for support over Iraq, tuition fees, foundation hospitals and the
many other matters that must have soured the milk on every good socialist's
cornflakes - and nobody noticed the Civil Contingencies Act sneaking through
in all the fuss ...

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:33:31 +0000

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:21:54 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>
>"Rooney" wrote in message
>news:dileq0lgnes1iv21q9b89i8rtrrrcuj1os@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:27:57 -0000, "BAC"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >What usually happens in the circumstances you mention is that the
>Government
>> >'whips in' its MPs, or somehow fails to find the time or will to allow
>such
>> >matters to reach a conclusion.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ..but presumably knew it couldn't force the issue in this case.
>>
>
>The Manifesto commitment was to allow a free vote (so no whipping allowed)
>and to allow the matter to be taken to a conclusion (so no talking out, no
>ducking the parliament act).
>
>Plus it was quite useful, I'd guess, giving the cannon fodder their head in
>return for support over Iraq, tuition fees, foundation hospitals and the
>many other matters that must have soured the milk on every good socialist's
>cornflakes - and nobody noticed the Civil Contingencies Act sneaking through
>in all the fuss ...
>

Very true. Socialists have discovered the real world!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:29:35 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:25:43 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
wrote:

>In article <1101384134.26558.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net>,
> BAC wrote:
>
>> >
>
>> The old Tory hereditary majority has been quietly dispensed with, the
>> place being more of a 'meritocracy' of those appointed for their wisdom
>> and judgement by our elected leaders. Ironic, really, isn't it?
>
>Quietly LOL
>
>But they didn't actually finish as they left a majority of the old order
>there, including a large residue of hereditaries for their life time.

Ah, that explains a lot!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y