We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!

Tax Credits

1…4243454748…104

Comments

  • markharding557
    markharding557 Posts: 3,116 Forumite
    Clapton wrote:
    actually the case for two elected houses is very debatable and in by no means is 'case closed'.

    a form of PR may or may not improve matters but what is undoubtedly true is that if we had only one house then it couldn't be over-ruled

    I vociferously disagree with much of the above, having a second house is an essential tool in holding our rulers to account and in the scrutiny of legislation.

    Having the second house fully elected would strengthen its remit.

    If the second house was an elected one then this could only be strengthened.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    markharding557 wrote: »
    Clapton wrote:

    I vociferously disagree with much of the above, having a second house is an essential tool in holding our rulers to account and in the scrutiny of legislation.

    Having the second house fully elected would strengthen its remit.

    If the second house was an elected one then this could only be strengthened.

    is it not likely that a second elected house would simply reproduce the political make up of the first house

    if they were both elected which would have precedence?
  • Moto2
    Moto2 Posts: 2,206 Forumite
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    is it not likely that a second elected house would simply reproduce the political make up of the first house

    I dunno,
    Perhaps we should elect a second house mid-term?
    That would really tell the main house how the electorate were rating their performance.
    Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
  • markharding557
    markharding557 Posts: 3,116 Forumite
    if they were both elected which would have precedence?
    If the second is to hold the first to account absolutely then the answer is neither.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    markharding557 wrote: »
    If the second is to hold the first to account absolutely then the answer is neither.

    so we could have a situation where no laws were ever passed or amended, or tax rates agreed, or benefits changed, or emergency reliefs given or rivers dredged
    seems to have some practical problems but maybe less government would be a good things
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,651 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    markharding557 wrote: »
    Ironically the HOL is closer to to what the HOC would be under PR and so is more representative of the votes cast in the GE.
    Really? How many UKIP peers are there? I don't think it's 12.6% or really anywhere close.
  • markharding557
    markharding557 Posts: 3,116 Forumite
    More cross party co-operation would be needed and this would reduce idealogical decisions from who ever maybe in office, no bad thing in my view.

    Thatcher had too much power in the 80's and Blair had too much in his time, both situations led to things which would not have happened if there had been more balance, a second house with the unquestioned power to say no!
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,651 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    so we could have a situation where no laws were ever passed or amended, or tax rates agreed, or benefits changed, or emergency reliefs given or rivers dredged
    seems to have some practical problems but maybe less government would be a good things
    You'd end up with a "lame duck" PM like often happens in the US, and brinkmanship over the budget etc like when the US govt nearly shutdown...
  • markharding557
    markharding557 Posts: 3,116 Forumite
    zagfles wrote: »
    Really? How many UKIP peers are there? I don't think it's 12.6% or really anywhere close.

    Fair enough! forgot about them but I think it applies for rest roughly though.
  • markharding557
    markharding557 Posts: 3,116 Forumite
    zagfles wrote: »
    You'd end up with a "lame duck" PM like often happens in the US, and brinkmanship over the budget etc like when the US govt nearly shutdown...
    It's called "being held to account"
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 246K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.8K Life & Family
  • 259.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture