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?