THE RESULTS !!!

[Zoli 12 guage]

1 minute ago, ditchman said:

and make us 2nd class citizens in our own country...

2nd it you're lucky 👍

[Penelope]

On 05/07/2024 at 08:22, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, Now who will be in Keir Starmers Cabinet ?????

A woman, who can't say what a woman is, as Minister for Women, for starters. Utter madness!!

[oldypigeonpopper]

9 minutes ago, Penelope said:

A woman, who can't say what a woman is, as Minister for Women, for starters. Utter madness!!

Hello, OH have i missed something 🤔

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, OH have i missed something 🤔

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anneliese-dodds-jk-rowling-women-trans-rights-b2576386.html

'They' were elected 😆

[oldypigeonpopper]

26 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anneliese-dodds-jk-rowling-women-trans-rights-b2576386.html

'They' were elected 😆

Hello, Ah should have noted that being near Oxford

[oowee]

Good move by Starmer to have an upper age limit for the Lords. At age 80 that should get rid of around 150. It's a good start but he should go further and chop them at 70. 

Edited July 10 by oowee

[PeterHenry]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

Good move by Starmer to have an upper age limit for the Lords. At age 80 that should get rid of around 150. It's a good start but he should go further and chop them at 70. 

Why?

The whole point of the Lords is as a revising chamber that (a) isn't shackled by the worst kneejerk tendencies of elected politicians, and (b) draws its strength in part from the fact its members have vast amounts of experience (often after having retired).

I personally think its a great benifit to the country to have pepole in the legislature who have been around long enough to be able to take the long veiw on things, and not worry about the popularity of their decisions to boot. As long as they are tempered by the Commons being the primary house - which is the case.

I think it's fairly concerning that an incoming government wants to get rid of that experience, and the cynic in me thinks it's likely a convenient excuse to play a game of number's at the expense of a system that works very well in practice.

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, oowee said:

Good move by Starmer to have an upper age limit for the Lords. At age 80 that should get rid of around 150. It's a good start but he should go further and chop them at 70. 

If it ever happens ?
The original plan was to abolish the lords, and bring in an upper house of regional reps, this has been watered down with the age limit, expect this to be watered down again with cries of ageism ect.
It would conveniently make space for some favourable to labour peers to step into the empty seats... If it happens.

3 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I think it's fairly concerning that an incoming government wants to get rid of that experience, and the cynic in me thinks it's likely a convenient excuse to play a game of number's at the expense of a system that works very well in practice.

The cynic in me thinks its stacking the deck, plain and simple.
But again, I expect the plan to go through some fettling.

[PeterHenry]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The cynic in me thinks its stacking the deck, plain and simple.

👍

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Good move by Starmer to have an upper age limit for the Lords. At age 80 that should get rid of around 150. It's a good start but he should go further and chop them at 70. 

Hopefully hell get rid of them in their current form entirely. If they are to remain, they should be elected. 

[oowee]

3 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

Why?

The whole point of the Lords is as a revising chamber that (a) isn't shackled by the worst kneejerk tendencies of elected politicians, and (b) draws its strength in part from the fact its members have vast amounts of experience (often after having retired).

I personally think its a great benifit to the country to have pepole in the legislature who have been around long enough to be able to take the long veiw on things, and not worry about the popularity of their decisions to boot. As long as they are tempered by the Commons being the primary house - which is the case.

I think it's fairly concerning that an incoming government wants to get rid of that experience, and the cynic in me thinks it's likely a convenient excuse to play a game of number's at the expense of a system that works very well in practice.

I agree the question is how big do we want it. Only the Chinese have a larger second chamber. 

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

If it ever happens ?
The original plan was to abolish the lords, and bring in an upper house of regional reps, this has been watered down with the age limit, expect this to be watered down again with cries of ageism ect.
It would conveniently make space for some favourable to labour peers to step into the empty seats... If it happens.

The cynic in me thinks its stacking the deck, plain and simple.
But again, I expect the plan to go through some fettling.

If ot happens I agree. The Lords has been able to resist change to date. This looks to be an easier start. Good that they are making an effort where others fear to tred. If starmer inputted 200 centre ground politicians I doubt it would change the current balance. He needs to clear out the religious contingent. 

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Hopefully hell get rid of them in their current form entirely. If they are to remain, they should be elected. 

It would be a dram come true. Get rid of them, the monarchy, the church connections and draw up a constitution. For now we will have to settle for a small step change.

🤞

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

I agree the question is how big do we want it. Only the Chinese have a larger second chamber. 

If ot happens I agree. The Lords has been able to resist change to date. This looks to be an easier start. Good that they are making an effort where others fear to tred. If starmer inputted 200 centre ground politicians I doubt it would change the current balance. He needs to clear out the religious contingent. 

It would be a dram come true. Get rid of them, the monarchy, the church connections and draw up a constitution. For now we will have to settle for a small step change.

🤞

👌

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

I agree the question is how big do we want it. Only the Chinese have a larger second chamber. 

Can you point out to me why size is a problem in regards to an unpaid revising chamber, a key strength of which is experience?

 

1 hour ago, oowee said:

It would be a dram come true. Get rid of them, the monarchy, the church connections and draw up a constitution. For now we will have to settle for a small step change.

🤞

Putting aside your other points, which seem to exist largely to wind more conservitive forum members up - why are you so keen on a written constitution? 

Edited July 10 by PeterHenry

[udderlyoffroad]

 Copy & paste most of Switzerlands written constitution, including regular referenda, job jobbed. I’d keep the monarchy however, the tourism sector would suffer, despite what republicans tell you about the palace of Versailles 

[oowee]

38 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Can you point out to me why size is a problem in regards to an unpaid revising chamber, a key strength of which is experience?

 

Putting aside your other points, which seem to exist largely to wind more conservitive forum members up - why are you so keen on a written constitution? 

Size. It currently costs £104m and continually growing. Its a saving that could be made. It is also an unelected  institution that promotes unfair patronage, privilege and influence. It's experience is biased and unrepresentative.

A written constitution would set out the basic rules by which government governs. It would increase the checks and balances of power. 

 

[12gauge82]

33 minutes ago, oowee said:

Size. It currently costs £104m and continually growing. Its a saving that could be made. It is also an unelected  institution that promotes unfair patronage, privilege and influence. It's experience is biased and unrepresentative.

A written constitution would set out the basic rules by which government governs. It would increase the checks and balances of power. 

 

+1

[PeterHenry]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Size. It currently costs £104m and continually growing. Its a saving that could be made. It is also an unelected  institution that promotes unfair patronage, privilege and influence. It's experience is biased and unrepresentative.

A written constitution would set out the basic rules by which government governs. It would increase the checks and balances of power. 

 

Yes - sometimes biased to Labour, sometimes to the Conservatives. But as previously a member was a member for life, it ensured many and varied voices. You can say what you like about it, but it's largely recognised as a system that works.

I've read that number as well - it's the official number and I've no reason to doubt it.

However, as the Lords are only allowed to draw voluntary daily expenses allowance if £332 for the days they attend - and presuming that all 774 members attended every working day for a whole year (which they don’t by a long way) without holiday's, that would bring the bill up to £64,242,000 by my estimation. I presume the rest is made up of costs that would still be incured by any replacement chamber. To put that into context - each member are paid (when they attend) the equivalent of less then a few hours work by a very middling solicitor. I would say that's something of a bargin given the experience in there.

As an aside, I'd be intrested to know what price would be acceptable?

You can talk about the unelected aspect - that's fine. But revising chambers are meant to act as a break on the worse aspects of democracy. Its not a valid argument to shout 'democracy' in answer to one part of an overall democracy not being 100% democratic. Take things at their own value. Do you have a similar problem with the non democratic elected aspects of the EU?

Regarding written constitutions - we already have those things in the form of various laws, conventions, parlimentry guidence and so forth - a far more nuanced, subtle way of organising things - and one that has existed far longer than any written constitution - certiantly as far as Europe and the West is concerned. All written constitutions do is freeze in time the standards of the day - and then allow for merry hell to play when something needs to change - and the longer they stand, the worse it gets.

 

Edited July 10 by PeterHenry

[oowee]

23 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Yes - sometimes biased to Labour, sometimes to the Conservatives. But as previously a member was a member for life, it ensured many and varied voices. You can say what you like about it, but it's largely recognised as a system that works.

I've read that number as well - it's the official number and I've no reason to doubt it.

However, as the Lords are only allowed to draw voluntary daily expenses allowance if £332 for the days they attend - and presuming that all 774 members attended every working day for a whole year (which they don’t by a long way) without holiday's, that would bring the bill up to £64,242,000 by my estimation. I presume the rest is made up of costs that would still be incured by any replacement chamber. To put that into context - each member are paid (when they attend) the equivalent of less then a few hours work by a very middling solicitor. I would say that's something of a bargin given the experience in there.

As an aside, I'd be intrested to know what price would be acceptable?

You can talk about the unelected aspect - that's fine. But revising chambers are meant to act as a break on the worse aspects of democracy. Its not a valid argument to shout 'democracy' in answer to one part of an overall democracy not being 100% democratic. Take things at their own value. Do you have a similar problem with the non democratic elected aspects of the EU?

Regarding written constitutions - we already have those things in the form of various laws, conventions, parlimentry guidence and so forth - a far more nuanced, subtle way of organising things - and one that has existed far longer than any written constitution - certiantly as far as Europe and the West is concerned. All written constitutions do is freeze in time the standards of the day - and then allow for merry hell to play when something needs to change - and the longer they stand, the worse it gets.

 

Don't get me wrong I think the whole system should be ripped up and started again.

It's simply not right that we pay for someone to be given a position of privilege. Pay for them to interfere in our democracy with no appointment process, no moderation, no evaluation. 

The constitution could set out economic parameters. All policy with economic assessment. 

The Lords is a starting point with hundreds of tory placements (could have been labour) is just wrong.

We have to look at devoloution too. It should not just be for the three nations. The balance of MP's the distribution of resources. The lack of a UK strategy for growth, for energy. The involvement of the church. 

Labour are proposing some significant changes but in the grand scheme of things its small. 

[12gauge82]

40 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Yes - sometimes biased to Labour, sometimes to the Conservatives. But as previously a member was a member for life, it ensured many and varied voices. You can say what you like about it, but it's largely recognised as a system that works.

I've read that number as well - it's the official number and I've no reason to doubt it.

However, as the Lords are only allowed to draw voluntary daily expenses allowance if £332 for the days they attend - and presuming that all 774 members attended every working day for a whole year (which they don’t by a long way) without holiday's, that would bring the bill up to £64,242,000 by my estimation. I presume the rest is made up of costs that would still be incured by any replacement chamber. To put that into context - each member are paid (when they attend) the equivalent of less then a few hours work by a very middling solicitor. I would say that's something of a bargin given the experience in there.

As an aside, I'd be intrested to know what price would be acceptable?

You can talk about the unelected aspect - that's fine. But revising chambers are meant to act as a break on the worse aspects of democracy. Its not a valid argument to shout 'democracy' in answer to one part of an overall democracy not being 100% democratic. Take things at their own value. Do you have a similar problem with the non democratic elected aspects of the EU?

Regarding written constitutions - we already have those things in the form of various laws, conventions, parlimentry guidence and so forth - a far more nuanced, subtle way of organising things - and one that has existed far longer than any written constitution - certiantly as far as Europe and the West is concerned. All written constitutions do is freeze in time the standards of the day - and then allow for merry hell to play when something needs to change - and the longer they stand, the worse it gets.

 

The Lords is an ancient undemocratic institution, open to abuse that should be replaced by elected members. In fact I would think a proportional representation vote would work very well to push back legislation the people of the UK don't want. 

I'm against EU membership for the very same reasons. 

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

Don't get me wrong I think the whole system should be ripped up and started again.

It's simply not right that we pay for someone to be given a position of privilege. Pay for them to interfere in our democracy with no appointment process, no moderation, no evaluation. 

The constitution could set out economic parameters. All policy with economic assessment. 

The Lords is a starting point with hundreds of tory placements (could have been labour) is just wrong.

We have to look at devoloution too. It should not just be for the three nations. The balance of MP's the distribution of resources. The lack of a UK strategy for growth, for energy. The involvement of the church. 

Labour are proposing some significant changes but in the grand scheme of things its small. 

Very well put Oowee. 

[PeterHenry]

17 hours ago, oowee said:

Don't get me wrong I think the whole system should be ripped up and started again.

It's simply not right that we pay for someone to be given a position of privilege. Pay for them to interfere in our democracy with no appointment process, no moderation, no evaluation. 

The constitution could set out economic parameters. All policy with economic assessment. 

The Lords is a starting point with hundreds of tory placements (could have been labour) is just wrong.

We have to look at devoloution too. It should not just be for the three nations. The balance of MP's the distribution of resources. The lack of a UK strategy for growth, for energy. The involvement of the church. 

Labour are proposing some significant changes but in the grand scheme of things its small. 

The Lords are appointed though, aren't they. As are members of Americas executive (baring the President). And there is oversight in the form of the House of Lords Appointments Commision.

From a different angle - Judges are also appointed and play a major role in the creation of law. Thankfully in this country, they are non political appointments - but appointments nevertheless.

Your point about a written constitution spelling out economic parameters rarther proves my point. Would you be happy to apply the financial thinking of 100 years ago? What about 300 years ago? What about 45 years ago? Circumstances change, and its better to be able to change with them. The fact that we have a constitution that allows this, is of great benifit. The fact that it's worked - successfully - for so long and under great strain at times proves its worth. I very much subscribe to Burkes thinking - that if something is to be replaced, it has not not only be better, but so much better as to account for the disruption caused. I don't see that test fulfilled by a written constitution, especially one that builds in economic thinking and keeps it in aspic. The reason the rest of the world is littered with the damm things is because the states that adopt them have had to remake themselves after some great trauma, or as starting from fresh - and in the case of the latter, do exactly as you sugest. In the case of the former, its largely to prevent whatever problems they have just got through on top of that.

Devolution is another wonderful constitutional mess created by clever men who were oblivious to their own limitations. One parliament was quite enough - that said, I'm perfectly happy to have more, and more powerful mayors, so a sort of macro devolution. That aside, all the devolved administrations have achived is to weaken the bonds of the United Kingdom - with what at the time seemed like a smart way of ensuring certian party political goals... (Northern Ireland aside)

It's the folly of all reasonably intelligent individuals to think 'I know a better way to do this'. We are all guilty of it - and written constitutions are a prime example. Although a simplification, in Court, two groups of intelligent and able individuals argue their points. One of thems always wrong.

We have an adaptable and refined constitution, the edges of which have been honed down over time. It works and it works well. There is absolutely no need from a practical / pragmatic veiw to change it. The only reason you could think to change it, is if you believe you can do a better job of designing something than evolution can.

Edited July 11 by PeterHenry

[PeterHenry]

13 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

The Lords is an ancient undemocratic institution, open to abuse that should be replaced by elected members. In fact I would think a proportional representation vote would work very well to push back legislation the people of the UK don't want. 

I'm against EU membership for the very same reasons. 

I don't see why there is a problem with an undemocratic aspect of an overall democratic system - especially when tbe purpose is to provide a break on runaway aspects of democracy. I agree with the democratic deficit in regards to the EU - because the membership to the commission is not voted on by EU citizens, and the commison alone has the right to propose new legislation. But our system of ping-pong between the two houses of Parliament sees that we don't have that problem.

I also dont see why something being ancient is a bad thing - that's fine if it doesn't work. But in this case it does. No one says 'get rid of common law because its ancient'. Yes it's ancient - but also yes it works.

Edited July 11 by PeterHenry

[Rewulf]

13 hours ago, oowee said:

It's simply not right that we pay for someone to be given a position of privilege. Pay for them to interfere in our democracy with no appointment process, no moderation, no evaluation. 

You mean like Campbell and Mandelson 

 

13 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

The Lords is an ancient undemocratic institution, open to abuse that should be replaced by elected members. In fact I would think a proportional representation vote would work very well to push back legislation the people of the UK don't want. 

I'm against EU membership for the very same reasons. 

Whilst Im generally anti PR for the indecisive chaos it produces, having an upper house with a version of PR is an excellent idea, and would hold government to account far more effectively.

 

9 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I don't see why there is a problem with an undemocratic aspect of an overall democratic system - especially when tbe purpose is to provide a break on runaway aspects of democracy.

I sort of know what you mean, but if a democratic system has undemocratic aspects (like the EU) can we really say we have a democratic system (we dont , but thats a separate argument) ?
That said , the lords dont really have any power to stop a 'runaway' aspect, they can examine it, ask for it to be amended , but if Parliament wants it to go through, it goes through.
If you think about the times the Lords stopped something, its because it was designed to be stopped, with Parliament/Government just going through the motions of passing a new statute, turning to the populace and saying 'Ah well , the Lords blocked it' 

Thats why in essence, I would like to see it in its present form abolished, replaced with the PR system I mentioned above.
That way, we get a real counter to Parliament, using the popular vote of the electorate, rather than the FPTP MPs.

[PeterHenry]

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I sort of know what you mean, but if a democratic system has undemocratic aspects (like the EU) can we really say we have a democratic system (we dont , but thats a separate argument) ?

That said , the lords dont really have any power to stop a 'runaway' aspect, they can examine it, ask for it to be amended , but if Parliament wants it to go through, it goes through.
If you think about the times the Lords stopped something, its because it was designed to be stopped, with Parliament/Government just going through the motions of passing a new statute, turning to the populace and saying 'Ah well , the Lords blocked it' 

Thats why in essence, I would like to see it in its present form abolished, replaced with the PR system I mentioned above.
That way, we get a real counter to Parliament, using the popular vote of the electorate, rather than the FPTP MPs.

It's a bit like saying is an 18ct gold ring 'gold' - its got things other than gold in the mix. Insisting on absolute democracy often looks to me like a form of dogma - I don't think its particularly helpful to a working democratic system, which is what we have. The democratic deficit in the EU is a different beast entirely - the membership to the commission is not voted on by EU citizens, and the commison alone has the right to propose new legislation. Thats an abomination.

The Lords are a break on democracy, but also due to their unelected nature play second fiddle. The elected commons have to win out ultimately (in most cases) - because we are a democracy. But, the revising chamber has its say (twice). You are right though, the Lords ability to block as opposed to revise is more like a game of chess - its no absolute ability. But still, as I keep saying - our system works in practice, even if its not fashionable in theory.

Edited July 11 by PeterHenry

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Yes, yes, yes to what Rewulf and PeterHenry are saying about the upper house.

BUT, It needs a bit of a revamp, get rid of the pointless religious members. They are truly INSIGNIFICANT.

Trim it down to maybe 400 Members

Get rid of hereditary Peers.

Stop the favour of ex prime ministers making pointless gestures by adding their old friends in to the mx.

Blimey, we might even get rid of all of them and start to elect candidates who are worthy, i.e.have some relevant life experience.

The old one used to be "knowing the price of a pint of milk or a loaf of bread". But I would settle for someone who has done something with their life, not just taken a back seat and followed on behind daddies coattails.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Insisting on absolute democracy often looks to me like a form of dogma - I don't think its particularly helpful to a working democratic system,

I dont think anyone insists on it, 99% of the populace couldnt give a monkeys, but we should at least aspire to it , rather than the illusory form we have now ?

 

6 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

But still, as I keep saying - our system works in practice,

Thats rather debateable isnt it ?
We vote for the MP/government we PREFER ,not the one we WANT, with the system we have, a tiny percentage of people get the desired outcome.
That maybe the fault of apathetic people who dont vote, or vote along traditional lines, but in essence the system is not really working that well is it ?
The problem is , the 'system' is what we have had for the best part of 500 years, and is copied worldwide, its going nowhere fast.
The choice of left and right seems to be overly represented too, far too much emphasis on what you SHOULD vote , due to your demographic/lifestyle choices/ work or social status.
But that is driven primarily by the media, who in turn are owned and driven by vested political entities.

In the US , this is not masked like here, everyone has to declare their interests.