The Lords


David Davis

I have a proposal, not necessarily supported by the Libertarian Alliance, but I blog, therefore I think it ought to be discussed. The UK House of Lords ought to be hereditary. If the Zanu-Laborg scum have abolished most of the heredits, that’s their problem, not mine. the remiaining ones will have to do, until they can beget more. Here’s some stuff:- (We’ve got to start winding the clock forwards somewhere, from the cesspit of socialism into which we have allowed ourselves to fall while we were celebrating, shagging, drinking or whatever, to the “end of communism”) so here’s a good place to start.)

The point about “Lords” is that they ought, in the 21st century, to represent property interests. All that can be taxed, in the end, is property. If we are to agree that people ought to be taxed, to pay for whatever nugatory stuff government feels it has to do under a Libertarian Dispensation, then there ought to be a “house” which represents the most major taxees.

If property is to be allowed to be passed down generations, then the concept of a “Lords” is universal: if I have “property”, then my children ought to be allowed to have it after I die. If they cannot, then I and they are state property, to be farmed.

Re: [eurorealist] Fw: The coming police state – Lords to be neutered: the police to be centralised 
Date: 15/07/2008 15:41:22 GMT Daylight Time
From: terry.pendrous@btinternet.com
Reply-to: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
To: eurorealist@yahoogroups.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Looking at the crooks and charlatans that now appear to make up many in the House of Lords, I want the heredity peers back. At least they knew which country they represented, and I do not care how old some of them were.
                         Terry Pendrous
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:13 AM
Subject: [eurorealist] Fw: The coming police state – Lords to be neutered: the police to be centralised
—– Original Message —–
From: “Robert Henderson” <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
To: “Robert Henderson” <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:31 PM
Subject: The coming police state – Lords to be neutered: the police to be
centralised

daily telegraph

Number of peers in House of Lords could be nearly halved By Patrick
Hennessy, Political Editor, and Jon Swaine Last Updated: 9:07AM BST
14/07/2008

The number of peers in the House of Lords could be reduced from 735 to
400 under proposals to be unveiled today by Jack Straw, the Justice
Secretary.

Lords could also become full-time parliamentarians, elected for fixed
terms of between 12 and 15 years by large regional constituencies and
paid a salary of about £60,000, under the plans. A range of potential
measures for reforming the Upper House will be detailed today by Mr
Straw in a White Paper. The document will expand on options granted by
votes last year in the House of Commons, in which MPs decided that the
Lords should be either 80 or 100 per cent elected.
No final decision will be made until after the next general election,
which is expected to take place in 2010. The three main parties are all
expected to put their proposals for Lords reform to voters as part of
their manifestos. Parliament will then vote on the exact details of the
reformed chamber’s make-up following the election. Mr Straw’s
preference, thought to be shared by the Prime Minister, is for the Lords
to be 80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed under a similar
method to the present system. Several ministers favour all peers being
elected, while others favour leaving the House of Lords as it is. In
last year’s vote, David Cameron backed an 80 per cent-elected Lords, but
there have been no official Conservative plans for Lords reform since
then. A final decision on the most contentious issue – how to replace
those already in the Lords – is likely to be delayed, potentially for
years. However, Mr Straw’s White Paper will suggest a series of options
such as waiting for peers to die or forcing parties to remove some of
their existing numbers. The remaining hereditary peers – numbering
about 92 after a deal done between Labour and the Tories in 1999 –
would have no place in the new-look Lords and would be phased out.

daily telegraph
Police force mergers back on the agenda
By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 1:16AM BST 14/07/2008

Police force mergers are the only way to preserve frontline jobs,
ministers will disclose this week.

The prospect of combining forces will return to the agenda, when the
Police Green Paper is published on Thursday. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
has included a suggestion to let forces merge voluntarily. Under
controversial plans proposed three years ago, around half of the 43
forces in England and Wales were set to be scrapped, creating as few as
17 “super forces”.
The Green Paper will say that while officials are happy to see forces
merge, there will be no coercion from central Government. Officials
believe that there is a strong economic case for bringing forces
together, not least for the money that can be saved by having fewer
forces ordering IT and police cars. Police sources said there will be a
greater incentive on forces to merge as police budgets are progressively
squeezed over the next three years. Candidates for mergers included
Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, Lancashire and Cumbria and Warwickshire
and Northamptonshire. A major stumbling block could be that the Home
Office is reluctant to pay for mergers. Last time the total bill was
estimated to be £800million. Rather, ministers are understood to have
told some forces that any merger costs should come out of the likely
efficiency savings over the following 10 years. Police force mergers
were raised by Home Office minister Tony McNulty in evidence to the home
affairs select committee two weeks ago.
He said the logic still remained for mergers – but they will not be
“enforced from above”. Rather the Home Office would welcome forces which
came to it with merger plans.
He said: “I still start from the premise that I think, without
re-opening the entire merger debate, 43 constabularies for the best part
of 50-odd million people in England and Wales is too many.”
The Home Office was forced to drop the plans two years ago after an
outcry from some forces and MPs. Part of the problem was that ministers
were forcing mergers on reluctant forces.
Plans to merge forces were first proposed by a report from Her Majesty’s
inspectorate of Constabulary which said most forces were too small to
tackle terrorism and cross-border crime.
But the scheme was dropped amid complaints that there would be a lack of
local accountability and that the plans would be too expensive. The
Green Paper is also set to adopt some of the proposals set out in Sir
Ronnie Flanagan’s report earlier this year on red tape which could free
up frontline officers’ time. It will also suggest that more than half of
the police authorities in England and Wales are made up of directly
elected members of Crime Reduction Partnerships. Ministers will be
hoping that this will increase local people’s involvement in their
police forces.


Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

About these ads

3 responses to “The Lords

  1. Whilst I am sure there are perfectly sound arguments in favour of a hereditary House of Lords, your representing private property is not one of them.

    The simplest and quickest way to start to put the political system back in to balance is to restrict the electoral franchise. Let “No representation without taxation” be our slogan. Start by barring anyone who is in receipt of benefits based on need, but not where receipt is on the basis of NI contributions.

    As a second step bar the bulk of public sector employees from voting on grounds of conflict of interest. Exempt serving and former members of the armed forces from this ban; Anyone, who has shown themselves willing to fight for this country has shown genuine commitment to it.

    The progressives would never win an election again. Progressive politicians and agitators would be relegated to the mental health and crime problem which is all they should be.

  2. It strikes me that this is along the lines of what I have said earlier…..?

    here….?

    http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/more-on-compulsory-voting-who-actually-ought-to-be-entitled-to-vote/

    But I have to agree – a “property” title to the “state”, including one in which one has volunteered to fight for it (insofar as we should have states) would qualify one to be allowed to vote.

  3. Yes, my thoughts on limiting the electoral franchise are along the lines that you suggested, although a bit less severe.

    It is an idea worth putting forward as part of the fight back against the sub-Marxist victim-ophilia of the progressives, regardless of whether it is practical in political terms or not.