The Coalition of Expensive Chaos

[Aber gas]

Anyone doubting the HoL's usefulness should watch the debate. No heckling from either sides, no jeering, schoolyard antics, questions are asked and answered well, speakers speak incredibly well.

I don't question its usefulness just its validity. I'm pleased the tories have suffered defeat on this issue but I still can't pretend that the House of Lords is democratic. One good deed doesn't stop it being an outdated, undemocratic monument to unchallenged privelige and state corruption.

 

[Jockney]

While it's clear that Christian based charities do a lot of good for those in need, it doesn't have to be religious to do that. It makes me uncomfortable as an atheist that 'doing good' and 'faith' should be so intertwined in anyone's mind. Us Godless heathens can be every bit, and often more, charitable. Good people should be able to do good things without the blanket of religion. I do.

The main reason religious groups have the ability to do that good is infrastructure as much as anything. Secular organisations don't have the buildings available as readily for a start. There's loads of church halls that have been around for centuries. No one's built an atheist hall yet, because 'we're' not actually an organisation!

I donate to a food bank which is run by a church because that's the one that is here locally. Religion shouldn't come into it.

Religious communities are important to charity work because they're more or less an army of ostensibly altruistic volunteers bound together by an unbreakable cultural tradition. They meet regularly, they organise and they have something of a central leadership in whomever leads their faith services (imam, vicar, rabbi, deacon, archbishop or whatever). Outside of certain movements, that's something that atheists or non-religious people can't claim to have and despite good, possibly even better, intentions, it makes them less effective as a support network.

 

[Womble98]

I don't question its usefulness just its validity. I'm pleased the tories have suffered defeat on this issue but I still can't pretend that the House of Lords is democratic. One good deed doesn't stop it being an outdated, undemocratic monument to unchallenged privelige and state corruption.

It is necessary though as a check on the government's power. Make it democratic and it is the same as the HoC. What I would like is it to be comprised solely of experts in their fields. So the institutions like the Royal Academy of Engineering, BMA etc would each have a few representatives, as would experts in education and so on.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I don't question its usefulness just its validity. I'm pleased the tories have suffered defeat on this issue but I still can't pretend that the House of Lords is democratic. One good deed doesn't stop it being an outdated, undemocratic monument to unchallenged privelige and state corruption.

Generally agree. The HoL is not at all democratic. But neither is promising X while standing for election only to break that promise 6 months later once in power. As soon as the executive does that, all arguments about democratic legitimacy go out of the window.

The thing is, the HoL has probably done the government a favour and saved Dave and Gideon from their own arrogant folly. The tax credits system does need to be reformed (and perhaps, one day, done away with completely), but it's become such an entrenched part of millions of people's lives that any reform has to be very slow and incremental. It's frustrating and it sucks, but that's the political reality.

 

[Alty]

Anyone doubting the HoL's usefulness should watch the debate. No heckling from either sides, no jeering, schoolyard antics, questions are asked and answered well, speakers speak incredibly well.

Having seen a lot more of the HoL's work through my job, my opinion of the place has become more favourable. Much more about rational debate and serious consideration of proposed legislation than political point scoring and boorish shouting.

That said, I'd move to a unicameral parliament elected by a form of PR. The need to seek agreement across political lines itself acts as the check on political power that the Lords provides at the moment.

 

[silkyman]

What this has shown is the importance of a second body, independent of the HoC to provide checks and balances. I don't think unelected lords (and bishops etc) is the right answer in the 21st century, but how about a proportional representation chamber?

 

[silkyman]

Religious communities are important to charity work because they're more or less an army of ostensibly altruistic volunteers bound together by an unbreakable cultural tradition. They meet regularly, they organise and they have something of a central leadership in whomever leads their faith services (imam, vicar, rabbi, deacon, archbishop or whatever). Outside of certain movements, that's something that atheists or non-religious people can't claim to have and despite good, possibly even better, intentions, it makes them less effective as a support network.

Which I understand fully. But it boils down to 'centuries old organisations have better organisational capabilities than loose groups of people who share one thing in common, which by definition rules out one of the traditional 'groupings'.

Rather than 'Religious people are better than atheists' which a lot of people try and make it out as.

 

[blade1889]

Was reading a study about how communal groups do more good in general. The power of all coming together, with your friends where as soon as one jumps in the rest typically follow-easier to organise things and how morally people are likely to join in as a 'snowball effect'. The church brings large groups together already thus bringing out the collective responses. People are now trying to set-up atheist 'churches' to try and get a similar outcome but obviously people are less likely to go to some random meeting singing songs about Charles Darwin and random genetic mutations.

Regardless of the causes it cant be argued the church dont do a lot of good...and bad.

 

[Alty]

What this has shown is the importance of a second body, independent of the HoC to provide checks and balances. I don't think unelected lords (and bishops etc) is the right answer in the 21st century, but how about a proportional representation chamber?

Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland are all unicameral legislatures and all enjoy high international democracy ratings and standards of living. No need for a second chamber just for the hell of it.

 

[silkyman]

Scandinavian countries tend to be less right wing so perhaps less need for someone to step in (even if it is very rich people doing it) to say 'Oi... Other rich people... No!' Over something like this?

It's quite interesting mind, that people are calling the Lords' veto on this undemocratic. This wasn't democratic in the first place as they denied they were going to do it before the election. There are probably thousands of people who might have voted differently. You can't outright lie about a policy before an election and go ahead with it mere months afterwards and call other people undemocratic for calling you out on it.

Just like you can't use a year+ old picture of a bacon sandwich as a key point of an election campaign and then demand everyone shuts up about accusations of fucking a pig within a day.

 

[Alty]

Didn't feel Corbyn really nailed it in PMQs today despite having the stronger hand. It actually would have been a better plan to use more of his 'ordinary people' questions.

 

[Techno Natch]

Felt Corbyn did okay from the bit I saw, he didn't let Cameron dodge the question on tax credits and after Cameron failed to answer properly 6 times he looks a bit silly.

I have no idea why Cameron felt the need to make a joke about the Lib Dems just after Tim Farron asked about child refugees. Not really the right time to make a point scoring joke in my opinion.

That being said Cameron still did pretty well himself, he has all the figures but I never feel like he's answering a question properly.

 

[mowgli]

I've yet to see Cameron answer a question properly he just comes out with spin and distorts facts for his own ends,christ for spin he makes blair look like an honest PM.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Will watch PMQ's later. Does Cameron do the 'whole package' spin AGAIN? I bet he does.

Any change to tax credits is now going to be scrutinised to the finest detail and no amount of sugar coating will make people swallow it any easier.

If it wasn't stopped in its tracks there would have been chaos. People don't want tax credits, they want a living wage.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

If it wasn't stopped in its tracks there would have been chaos. People don't want tax credits, they want a living wage.

Ironically that is kinda what they're going for, all be it in a very ham-fisted and poorly constructed way! Complete cock up really.

 

[Gashead]

Ironically that is kinda what they're going for, all be it in a very ham-fisted and poorly constructed way! Complete cock up really.

Indeed, but in a way which fucks people over.

Increase in wages = natural decrease in use of tax credits. The idea of removing the tax credits before bringing in the wage changes is a move to appease businesses who won't pay the wages if they're put up to the rate needed to remove reliance on tax credits. Thus saving the government money, businesses money but not the workers.

Tories say all welfare bad, except corporate welfare it seems.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Greedy corporate welfare and greedy landlord welfare are the only things on the up.

The housing benefit bill could be slashed massively if there were stricter rules in place for the extortionate rents landlords are allowed to charge. This and the fact that there is an immense need for more affordable social housing in the UK.

 

[Alty]

Greedy corporate welfare and greedy landlord welfare are the only things on the up.

The housing benefit bill could be slashed massively if there were stricter rules in place for the extortionate rents landlords are allowed to charge. This and the fact that there is an immense need for more affordable social housing in the UK.

TBH I suspect a lot of landlords would refuse to let to tenants on housing benefit if they weren't allowed to charge the rents they are currently.

I think your second point is the key one. We just need more houses. And preferably an immigration system that allows us to actually control how many people come in too.

 

[Gladders]

Since when does any politician answer a question properly?

 

[Dave-Vale]

Social/council housing has the potential to not only be a viable housing option for thousands of people (families and single people) but also a profitable one. The savings alone on housing benefits paid to those being forced into renting homes at extortionate prices would be huge.

Cameron is falling apart. The jibe at Farron after he raised a very distressing subject was vile and uneccesary.

https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentOnline/videos/10153201489416636/

This is actually unbelievable. Why didn't he just be honest and answer the question? "Yes, there will be people worse off".

I think Corbyn played a blinder here and I think his main aim is to show the public the real side of Mr Cameron and his nasty party.

 

[Mark kavanagh]

Posh boy osbourne looked very uncomfortable throughout pmq's almost like somebody watching their leadership chances going down the pan.

I feel the tories are hitting their poll tax moment here , why they just cannot say we got it wrong and are having a rethink i dont know!!!

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

obviously people are less likely to go to some random meeting singing songs about Charles Darwin and random genetic mutations.

This sounds pretty epic. Where do I sign up?

 

[blade1889]

This sounds pretty epic. Where do I sign up?

Somewhere in America, cant find the link now

 

[merseyboyred]

Do you think the Tories pressed ahead with this because they think it's literally impossible they'll lose the next election? It's all a bit poll tax. Surely they could have predicted there would be no way low and middle income types would accept this?

I think they've pressed on with it so pigheadedly because there are another 4 and a half years before the election, and they calculated that there was enough time for the anger towards the policy to dissipate so they could try to get their most ideologically distasteful stuff through now.

I'm certain they didn't intend for it to have to become an issue again, obviously why there's so much anger towards the Lords and renewed threats of reform, particularly from Osborne. It sets their plans back, presents a huge PR issue for them and particularly for Osborne whilst he's putting the wheels of his leadership campaign in full motion. The HoL has potentially badly harmed his hopes of being PM.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

be an interesting dichotomy between a democratic commons and a strictly meritocratic lords once we kill off the hereditary peers and lords spiritual. cut down the numbers a great deal and improve the selection processes for lords, and it'd be a pretty funky twist on a second house

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Why not make the House of Lords full of members elected by their parties, but relative to their actual vote share.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i prefer the more technocratic spin of having people who are just really good at their jobs checking our primary house, rather than creating another tribal shit-shower. have it done by committee or remove the process from party politics entirely

 

[SALTIRE]

Doesn't that face chill you to the bone like it does me? :jones:

 

[merseyboyred]

Both? Yes.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Cutting tax credits would've saved £4.4billion, the funding for trident is set to increase by £67billion

It's okay if children are starving as long as we have an absurd weapon of mass destruction in our hands.