Tax Credits

markharding557

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

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

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.

markharding557

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"