Disgraceful, underhanded tactics but not exactly surprising. Cameron must be running scared to have to resort to this, e.g. introducing gagging laws to prevent a fair political debate. Not a sign of strength but revealing signs of fear that he might stand to be toppled. Perhaps he suffered a severe, humiliating set back when the public learnt of his sexual intimacy with a dead pig's head!

Disgraceful, underhanded tactics but not exactly surprising. Cameron must be running scared to have to resort to this, e.g. introducing gagging laws to prevent a fair political debate. Not a sign of strength but revealing signs of fear that he might stand to be toppled. Perhaps he suffered a severe, humiliating set back when the public learnt of his sexual intimacy with a dead pig's head!

That story was so obviously not true.....I am sure he ignored it as well he should. A written constitution per se is not a bad idea......but I will wait to see what is in it before I condemn it.

That story was so obviously not true.....I am sure he ignored it as well he should. A written constitution per se is not a bad idea......but I will wait to see what is in it before I condemn it.

Are you so sure that the story is not true? Admittedly it sounds far fetched but the context is that it was part of a sordid initiation ceremony after joining Oxford University dining society as a student. Surely if it was false then
Cameron would be gleefully baying for blood and suing the author by now? No such action has yet been taken though....

Not new, exactly, but worrying - [url]The Conservatives are re-writing the constitution[/url]

In the UK we are not citizens and we do not have an enforceable constitution. We are subjects of her majesty.
I personally would welcome a written legally binding constitution to cover basic human rights.
As far as the Lords is concerned. Its job is to add unbiased checks and balances for the incumbent party to prevent biased and unfair legislation.
The last thing we need is politically elected second chamber. This would defeat the purpose of the chamber. Some may have been called "old duffers" but they for the most part were unbiased, which is more than you can say of some of the present representatives.

I showed the link (in the OP) to someone and he says that the New Statesman is an anti Tory magazine (he is not a Tory). He adds that the link is a hypothesis and not a provable strategy...My thoughts are well maybe not everything mentioned in it is a hypothesis, e.g. the gagging law because the Labour party have said they will repeal it!

He misunderstands the word 'hypothesis'.

Are you so sure that the story is not true? Admittedly it sounds far fetched but the context is that it was part of a sordid initiation ceremony after joining Oxford University dining society as a student. Surely if it was false then
Cameron would be gleefully baying for blood and suing the author by now? No such action has yet been taken though....

Yes I am sure. And to sue would have the idea credence it didn't deserve. I am aware of the context and also aware other other members of the so called society have rubbished the idea. I don't believe half the stuff I read on headlines and on the internet.

Yes I am sure. And to sue would have the idea credence it didn't deserve. I am aware of the context and also aware other other members of the so called society have rubbished the idea. I don't believe half the stuff I read on headlines and on the internet.

Those who rubbished the idea are Conservative party sources. However, I do see that Cameron is disputing it and looking into it, i.e. concerning photographic evidence!

In the UK we are not citizens and we do not have an enforceable constitution. We are subjects of her majesty.

We have an 'unwritten constitution' - the laws and principles of the body politic of the U K and N I. Everything is written, but not in one place.The monarch is a constitutional monarch. She is subject to the constitution, not the other way around.

As far as the Lords is concerned. Its job is to add unbiased checks and balances for the incumbent party to prevent biased and unfair legislation.
The last thing we need is politically elected second chamber. This would defeat the purpose of the chamber. Some may have been called "old duffers" but they for the most part were unbiased, which is more than you can say of some of the present representatives.

That's not the Lord's job. It might work like that, sometimes, but nowhere is it written that it should be so. I don't understand your last statement. Who were 'old duffers' and when? In what way is this changed? 'Unbiased', how?

Perhaps he suffered a severe, humiliating set back when the public learnt of his sexual intimacy with a dead pig's head!

Whether this is true or not (and students - particularly ones so rich they don't have to worry about getting a job afterwards - do stupid things) it's a distraction from all the other things he has done that have far more effect on the people of the UK.

I showed the link (in the OP) to someone and he says that the New Statesman is an anti Tory magazine (he is not a Tory). He adds that the link is a hypothesis and not a provable strategy...My thoughts are well maybe not everything mentioned in it is a hypothesis, e.g. the gagging law because the Labour party have said they will repeal it!

It isn't so much anti-tory as pro left-wing. We all have biases and there are few enough magazines and papers that are left-wing.

'hypothesis and not a provable strategy' (a contradiction in terms) - well, there's certainly moves to cut funds to opposition parties via short money (Briefing Paper 01663, 2nd December 2015). And the so-called 'gagging laws' came into force in September. Constituency boundary changes are on the books and the rules for registering to vote have changed.

Whether this is true or not (and students - particularly ones so rich they don't have to worry about getting a job afterwards - do stupid things) it's a distraction from all the other things he has done that have far more effect on the people of the UK.

Of course. The context of my mentioning this was in my first post # 2. I apologise for going off topic subsequently in addressing this matter.

We have an 'unwritten constitution' - the laws and principles of the body politic of the U K and N I. Everything is written, but not in one place.The monarch is a constitutional monarch. She is subject to the constitution, not the other way around.
That's not the Lord's job. It might work like that, sometimes, but nowhere is it written that it should be so. I don't understand your last statement. Who were 'old duffers' and when? In what way is this changed? 'Unbiased', how?

You state that we have an unwritten constitution an then state that everything is written down but not in one place. We do not have a legal written constitution. We have laws that we are subject to. The closest we have to a constitution is the Human Rights act, which at present is enforceable through the UK law courts.
The term "old duffer" has been sometimes used to describe a hereditary peer, one who is getting on in years and who sometimes gives the impression that he out of touch with modern life.
The second chamber does exist to provide checks and balances for government actions. It acts as a safety net and as such should be politically unbiased in its duties. Political parties have expanded through their own ranks the number of peers. There is no way that I can see this as anything but a political attempt to influence the role of the second chamber.

Of course. The context of my mentioning this was in my first post # 2. I apologise for going off topic subsequently in addressing this matter.

I wasn't meaning you were distracting, rather that the media were since it's a racier story than austerity, fracking and all the other serious stuff.

You state that we have an unwritten constitution an then state that everything is written down but not in one place. We do not have a legal written constitution. We have laws that we are subject to. The closest we have to a constitution is the Human Rights act, which at present is enforceable through the UK law courts.
The term "old duffer" has been sometimes used to describe a hereditary peer, one who is getting on in years and who sometimes gives the impression that he out of touch with modern life.
The second chamber does exist to provide checks and balances for government actions. It acts as a safety net and as such should be politically unbiased in its duties. Political parties have expanded through their own ranks the number of peers. There is no way that I can see this as anything but a political attempt to influence the role of the second chamber.

I didn't say we had an unwritten constitution, I said we had an 'unwritten constitution' - i.e. that is what it is called. [url]This explains it fairly simply.[/url]
I know what 'old duffer' generally means. You wrote:

Some may have been called "old duffers" but they for the most part were unbiased, which is more than you can say of some of the present representatives.

This is past tense and gave me the impression that you were saying the situation has changed. Most of the Lords Temporal are indeed life peers, although many are still hereditary peers. Do you think this is a better state of affairs? Or the Lords Spiritual?

As far as the Lords is concerned. Its job is to add unbiased checks and balances for the incumbent party to prevent biased and unfair legislation.

is not its stated job. How can the Lords be 'unbiased'? They have vested interests.

The last thing we need is politically elected second chamber.

Why would this be a bad thing?

.
Why would this be a bad thing?

It would be a bad thing because we already have a politically elected chamber, the commons. It is their job to make legislation.
However there is no guarantee that whosoever has political power will not become biased or be unduly influenced by forces not necessarily representative of the people of that country. An unbiased monitoring system is therefore required. That is the job of the Lords. In my opinion they can be elected, but not by a system based on party preferences.

How can people be politically unbiased?

The Lords are unelected, but still on a party basis. In what way is that unbiased?

How can people be politically unbiased?

The Lords are unelected, but still on a party basis. In what way is that unbiased?

It isn't, The Lords have the potential for a biasing influence on legislation Why would anyone want the lords to be chosen on their political affiliations if not to find favour in them, or sabotage the opposition.
Would any elected government want the lords to be chosen solely from the opposition's ranks. Far safer to have candidate chosen for their statesmanship and civic accomplishments. It is true we can't dismiss politics from our thoughts but to allow politics to be used as a condition of membership is in my view courting disaster.

It isn't, The Lords have the potential for a biasing influence on legislation Why would anyone want the lords to be chosen on their political affiliations if not to find favour in them, or sabotage the opposition.
Would any elected government want the lords to be chosen solely from the opposition's ranks. Far safer to have candidate chosen for their statesmanship and civic accomplishments. It is true we can't dismiss politics from our thoughts but to allow politics to be used as a condition of membership is in my view courting disaster.

Which is how it is. So ... what are you arguing? You said

.
As far as the Lords is concerned. Its job is to add unbiased checks and balances for the incumbent party to prevent biased and unfair legislation.

Now you say they are biased. I'm confused about what you mean.

Which is how it is. So ... what are you arguing? You said
Now you say they are biased. I'm confused about what you mean.

The incumbent government is represented by the first chamber, the house of commons. They have been politically elected, and it is they who make legislation. They may have included a political bias or a legal omission in that legislation.
The second chamber, that is the house of lords have a duty of care to highlight any sort comings to the commons to ensure that the legislation is fair, unbiased and workable. (I think that because they were originally unelected they were not allowed to stop the legislation, just advise. This seems to be the case today.)

There are 822 members of the House of Lords (it's not fixed, but that's what it is now), excluding those who are Lords but disqualified from sitting (!). 26 are Lords Spiritual (C of E bishops). Everyone else is affiliated to a party - mostly Conservative, next largest Labour, then the other parties. Only 30 are unaffiliated.
In what way is this 'unbiased'?

'Unbiased' and 'fair' are value judgements anyway, and no one is without biases. Whether or not a law is workable is also a value judgement to begin with, although this can later be worked out in the law courts.

There are many laws that in my opinion are biased, unfair and unworkable. They all got through the Lords.

[url]And here's why they do it.[/url]

[url]And here's why they do it.[/url]

Next instalment - [url]Ministers are being accused of “waging war” on Parliament by using a little-known device to push through profound and controversial changes to Britain’s laws without proper debate or scrutiny.[/url]

Next instalment - [url]Ministers are being accused of “waging war” on Parliament by using a little-known device to push through profound and controversial changes to Britain’s laws without proper debate or scrutiny.[/url]

Well thankfully Labour are on the case.

[url]The Tories are creating a one-party state.[/url]

[url]The Tories are creating a one-party state.[/url]

...you mean TRYING to?

Every politician wants to achieve power and then retain power. It's their purpose in life. Why the surprise when they pursue their aims?

Every politician wants to achieve power and then retain power. It's their purpose in life. Why the surprise when they pursue their aims?

It's a question of degree.....a one party state doesn't ring alarm bells with you then?