• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NHS Debate in the Lords

Skepticemea

Master Poster
Skepticemea
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
2,771
Time to shine, lords and ladies. Please prove to the country that there really is the need for an "upper house".
 
Skepticemea said:
Time to shine, lords and ladies. Please prove to the country that there really is the need for an "upper house".
Click to expand...

I'm pleased to hear that one of the points they want to get changed or at least properly reviewed is the removal of the "duty to provide" from the health secretary. I've been strongly against that from the first time I read it.
 
Skepticemea said:
Time to shine, lords and ladies. Please prove to the country that there really is the need for an "upper house".
Click to expand...

For all the people on the left (who i normally agree with) who argue that we need a fully elected second house, this case is precisely why a fully elected second house would be a dreadful idea.....*

full with party affiliated members and whips there would be no accountability whatsoever. What we have is far from perfect - but it at least gives us the chance of opposing such legislation.

*we should have a Athenian option of either (1) a jury pool system to populate the upper house or (2) an apolitical system of choosing representative members from across society - ie teachers, doctors, businessmen, those with disabilities etc etc....
 
commandlinegamer said:
Except that the Lords cannot block legislation, merely delay it.

But it provides a useful sounding board if nothing else.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that it can, as Baroness Young sucessfully led a campaign in the Lords to defeat the Labour introduced legislation to repeal Section 28.
 
Labour's Rosie Cooper tells Andrew Lansley: "Secretary of state, you've got to be demented if you believe the people in the health service are behind you. Absolutely demented."
Click to expand...
:D Excellent!
 
angrysoba said:
Looking at it now it looks like it was thrown out/delayed and then parliament was dissolved in the run-up to the General Election.
Click to expand...
This is probably too large a segue, but I'm wondering why, if the Lords has no legislative power, this is even being discussed in the Lords.

Lansley has told the Select Committee:

People are often sceptical where change is concerned, the health secretary says, "but that doesn't mean change is wrong". He says he has listened and changed things "in terms of implementation" but people support the overall strategy.
Click to expand...

Lots of lies flying around and no one seems to be challenging them.
 
Skepticemea said:
This is probably too large a segue, but I'm wondering why, if the Lords has no legislative power, this is even being discussed in the Lords.
Click to expand...

I think all legislation passes through both chambers where amendments can be proposed and, in theory, legislation can be rejected by the Queen so I suppose this is just part of the established process. It depends on whether or not anyone wants to challenge legislation. I understand that almost no legislation ever is. In fact, even in the HoC there's little point debating legislation as if there were a chance of having it voted out as the ruling party most often has enough votes to push through anything. The Lords then do act as something of a brake and did so especially during the Thatcher years.
 
Both chambers are legislative, both can create legislation however the Commons is supreme so it can reject any legislation the Lords creates or any amendments they make to Commons' bills. The Lords can amend bills that originate in the Commons but ultimately can't block bills started in the Commons. See Parliament actsWP for more details.
 
Last edited:
Here's a hint: A house that is slower to move and adopt changes is a good thing, as it gets in the way of the blowing winds of political passion as driven by charismatic demagogues.

If something's a good idea, it will still be a good idea 10 years from now, and most people will think so, then and now.
 
Beerina said:
Here's a hint: A house that is slower to move and adopt changes is a good thing, as it gets in the way of the blowing winds of political passion as driven by charismatic demagogues.

If something's a good idea, it will still be a good idea 10 years from now, and most people will think so, then and now.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint: Unelected positions for theocracy and bloodlines are bad things, dood.

The mobs of Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, and Finland must have socialised beer and mandated two hour workdays by now.
 
Sold down the river. I wonder how many have ties to healthcare companies.

Last out, lights off, ta.
 
Nice. So an unmandated government has passed a piece of unmanifesto'd (not a word, Shirley?) legislation through and the only hope we had of it being block was by a crumbling body of... wait for it... unelected individuals?
 
How significant is this? Just wondering if the Lords were ever likely to go for an outright rejection based on an amendment vote. Wouldn't their preferred tactic be to go for death by a thousand cuts at committee stage as a more politically subtle way of damaging the bill?
 
Skepticemea said:
Nice. So an unmandated government has passed a piece of unmanifesto'd (not a word, Shirley?) legislation through and the only hope we had of it being block was by a crumbling body of... wait for it... unelected individuals?
Click to expand...

unless...

The Queen says, "Over my dead body!"

Unlikely, I know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom