|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Shipmate
# 15431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As an American, might I ask my British shipmates a question about election politics? If I understand correctly, one of Labor/Labour's policy points is a fully elected House of Lords. But wouldn't that end the idea of parliamentary supremacy?
The strict answer to your question is "no". Parliament is composed of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Crown. These three bodies together form the country's law-making body. As I understand it, "parliamentary supremacy" refers to the fact that Parliament can enact any law it pleases, with few consitutional restraints.
But I'm guessing that you are asking about how Labour's proposed reforms would affect the power of the House of Commons? I would be interested to see how the proposed changes affect the powers the House of Commons gained under the 1911 Parliament Act. With broad brush strokes, if a Bill is introduced to, and approved by, the House of Commons then the House of Lords can only delay its becoming law, rather than prevent it becoming law. I have not heard about Labour's plans in great detail, and it could be that their current plans aren't very detailed. From what I understand, Labour are proposing that we adopt something akin to the Senate/House of Representatives system in the US. Am I correct in understanding that a Bill must get Senate approval to become law?
--------------------
was phil2357
Posts: 76 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Only the way people enter the House of Lords would change, ie, they would be elected as opposed to appointed (as is the case now) or entitled by birth (as was the case with the hereditary peers). Parliamentary supremacy (ie, supreme lawmaking power) would not be affected.
Tangent: it's worth noting that until recently the UK's highest appellate court was also the House of Lords. Law lords did not involve themselves in the legislative process purely by convention, and the Lord Chancellor had a foot in Britain's executive, legislative and judicial branches insofar that they are separate.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benny Diction 2
Shipmate
# 14159
|
Posted
I've just been listening to David "Call me Dave" Cameron on Radio 4's Today programme.
As smooth as a snake oil salesman. And people said Blair was slick!
And this morning the Tories have said "more" about how they will fund not putting National Insurance up. By efficiency savings in local and central government. 40,000 jobs will go. But not through redundancy but through not replacing people who leave. Fair enough you may say. But when pressed on this being only the start he ducked and dived.
Which jobs Dave? Social Workers dealing with child protection?
No doubt the Tories' grand idea is to bring in the private sector to deliver cost savings through managing back office functions for example. I saw this in operation at South Glos Council when I worked there and it happens here in Magic Roundaboutland. It is not all it is cracked up to be.
There needs to be a change in government. I don't think it is good for one party to be in government too long. But why should that mean Labour or Tory take it in turns. A hung Parliament would be an interesting change.
--------------------
Benny Diction
"The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it - a bit like Christians in the Church of England." Tony Benn
Posts: 859 | From: Home of the magic roundabout | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
I agree with the desirability of a hung parliament, but there is no way to vote for it. If too many people vote "strategically", they may end up by FPTP with a party they wanted to curtail, or even a party they don't like. That's why we need STV.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:
I've just been listening to David "Call me Dave" Cameron on Radio 4's Today programme.
As smooth as a snake oil salesman. And people said Blair was slick!
And this morning the Tories have said "more" about how they will fund not putting National Insurance up. By efficiency savings in local and central government. 40,000 jobs will go. But not through redundancy but through not replacing people who leave. Fair enough you may say. But when pressed on this being only the start he ducked and dived.
Which jobs Dave? Social Workers dealing with child protection?
No doubt the Tories' grand idea is to bring in the private sector to deliver cost savings through managing back office functions for example. I saw this in operation at South Glos Council when I worked there and it happens here in Magic Roundaboutland. It is not all it is cracked up to be.
There needs to be a change in government. I don't think it is good for one party to be in government too long. But why should that mean Labour or Tory take it in turns. A hung Parliament would be an interesting change.
The general view is that a hung parliament would mean that a coalition government would be unwilling to make the necessary cuts to reduce the £trillion or so public debt which has balooned under Brown and Labour. Without measures to control this the cost to the government of financing the debt would also baloon (if the markets were indeed willing to continue on that path) and as more and more public expenditure went towards servicing the debt then less and less would be available to support essential services.
To the extent that Cameron has given some indication that he would take steps to cut public expenditure he is at least being truthful. Brown on the other hand is in complete denial that there is a debt problem and talks about "investment" when he means spending. The loss of control of public spending during Labour's tenure was well in advance long before the credit crunch hit and commentators have been pointing out the dangers of allowing public debt to rise at the rate it has been for several years now but unfortunately Brown, who is delusional about his own abilities, refused to take heed of these warnings.
If you want to see what happens when national governments avoid making these decisions look at the state of Greece a country which may well shortly become bankrupt and where currently government borrowings costs 4% more than the equivalent rates in Germany. The effects on public services as well as taxes would then be catastrophic.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
UKIP insist that “a significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society”. They oppose multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions”.
So which part of that - if any - do you disagree with?
The idea that anyone is free to become British is an uncontraversial one, surely?
quote:
They want schools to “teach about Britain's contribution to the world, such as British inventions, promoting democracy and the rule of law and the role of Britain in fighting slavery and Nazism”. They do not envisage that there might be anything negative in Britain’s history.
Why shouldn't they teach about the great things this country has done? Are you saying they should instead teach our children to be ashamed of their country and go round with heads hung in shame at their hideous heritage?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
UKIP insist that “a significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society”. They oppose multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions”.
So which part of that - if any - do you disagree with?
The idea that anyone is free to become British is an uncontraversial one, surely?
quote:
They want schools to “teach about Britain's contribution to the world, such as British inventions, promoting democracy and the rule of law and the role of Britain in fighting slavery and Nazism”. They do not envisage that there might be anything negative in Britain’s history.
Why shouldn't they teach about the great things this country has done? Are you saying they should instead teach our children to be ashamed of their country and go round with heads hung in shame at their hideous heritage?
Because this flies in the face of one of the main tenets of multiculturalism: the right of any minority group to have the status of victims.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
[QUOTE]... To the extent that Cameron has given some indication that he would take steps to cut public expenditure he is at least being truthful. ...
Well, to that extent, yes. Where he isn't being truthful (and you can translate that into more basic English if you like) is in pretending that this can be done simply by increased efficiency, without actually hurting public services. I think we all know what happens when "increased efficiency" is achieved by politicians.
We have hard, hard choices to make. Deliberate deceit is not going to help us make the right choices.
Blackbeard is having some difficulty in maintaining any degree of respect for any of the players in the forthcoming election, and he's probably not alone in this.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
I agree with you in that he should frame it as the need to make severe cuts to put right the destabalisation of the public finances caused by Labour's imprudence.
The problem he has is that a significant proportion of the population want to bury their head in the sand about this and are willing to believe Brown's lies about spending our way out of recession so that when Osbourne made such noises the Tories polling figures plunged.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
uncletoby
hobbyhorsical
# 13067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The general view is that a hung parliament would mean that a coalition government would be unwilling to make the necessary cuts to reduce the £trillion or so public debt which has balooned under Brown and Labour. Without measures to control this the cost to the government of financing the debt would also baloon (if the markets were indeed willing to continue on that path) and as more and more public expenditure went towards servicing the debt then less and less would be available to support essential services.
To the extent that Cameron has given some indication that he would take steps to cut public expenditure he is at least being truthful. Brown on the other hand is in complete denial that there is a debt problem and talks about "investment" when he means spending. The loss of control of public spending during Labour's tenure was well in advance long before the credit crunch hit and commentators have been pointing out the dangers of allowing public debt to rise at the rate it has been for several years now but unfortunately Brown, who is delusional about his own abilities, refused to take heed of these warnings.
If you want to see what happens when national governments avoid making these decisions look at the state of Greece a country which may well shortly become bankrupt and where currently government borrowings costs 4% more than the equivalent rates in Germany. The effects on public services as well as taxes would then be catastrophic.
This analysis greatly exaggerates the scale of Britain's public debt problem. First, Brown had not "lost control" of borrowing before recession struck. In my opinion, he was borrowing too much, and his pro-cyclical fiscal policy was clearly a contributory factor to the economic problems we now face. Nevertheless, Britain's public debt before the start of the recession was 46% of GDP, lower than that of France (58%), Germany (61%), Italy (104%), Japan (88%) and even the USA (48%).
Looking at the 2009 figures, Britain's public debt stood at 62% of GDP, less than Ireland (64%), France (67%), Germany (70%), Italy (113%) and Japan (105%), not to mention Greece (120%).
Far more worrying, in my opinion, is Britain's high level of private debt, which stands at over 100% of GDP. Borrowers in the UK account for about one third of all unsecured debt in Western Europe. I would love to hear from the Tories, or anyone else, whether they think that an economy based primarily on shopping is sustainable, and if not, what they plan to do to build some other sort of economy.
No-one is arguing that Britain's public borrowing is not a problem - all main parties accept this. But it is a problem faced by almost every industrialised country, rather than a problem created by Gordon Brown, as the Tories (and Aumbry) would have it. The Conservative Party's ability to distract the electorate from the bankruptcy of the kinds of economic policies that they have advocated for the last thirty years by making public sector debt the main issue of the election is so astonishing that I suspect black magic must be involved.
--------------------
`` L--d! I cannot look at it ----
Posts: 1150 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
A correspondent on BBC radio made the interesting point that when the Tories began to talk about the need for austerity etc, they went down in the polls. He also noted that whereas the Tories maintain cuts need to be made soon, Labour say 'not yet', and this appears to be playing well too. Honesty is all very well. Unfortunately, it appears that the Tories could kill their election campaign by indulging in it.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The general view is that a hung parliament would mean that a coalition government would be unwilling to make the necessary cuts to reduce the £trillion or so public debt which has balooned under Brown and Labour. Without measures to control this the cost to the government of financing the debt would also baloon (if the markets were indeed willing to continue on that path) and as more and more public expenditure went towards servicing the debt then less and less would be available to support essential services.
To the extent that Cameron has given some indication that he would take steps to cut public expenditure he is at least being truthful. Brown on the other hand is in complete denial that there is a debt problem and talks about "investment" when he means spending. The loss of control of public spending during Labour's tenure was well in advance long before the credit crunch hit and commentators have been pointing out the dangers of allowing public debt to rise at the rate it has been for several years now but unfortunately Brown, who is delusional about his own abilities, refused to take heed of these warnings.
If you want to see what happens when national governments avoid making these decisions look at the state of Greece a country which may well shortly become bankrupt and where currently government borrowings costs 4% more than the equivalent rates in Germany. The effects on public services as well as taxes would then be catastrophic.
This analysis greatly exaggerates the scale of Britain's public debt problem. First, Brown had not "lost control" of borrowing before recession struck. In my opinion, he was borrowing too much, and his pro-cyclical fiscal policy was clearly a contributory factor to the economic problems we now face. Nevertheless, Britain's public debt before the start of the recession was 46% of GDP, lower than that of France (58%), Germany (61%), Italy (104%), Japan (88%) and even the USA (48%).
Looking at the 2009 figures, Britain's public debt stood at 62% of GDP, less than Ireland (64%), France (67%), Germany (70%), Italy (113%) and Japan (105%), not to mention Greece (120%).
Far more worrying, in my opinion, is Britain's high level of private debt, which stands at over 100% of GDP. Borrowers in the UK account for about one third of all unsecured debt in Western Europe. I would love to hear from the Tories, or anyone else, whether they think that an economy based primarily on shopping is sustainable, and if not, what they plan to do to build some other sort of economy.
No-one is arguing that Britain's public borrowing is not a problem - all main parties accept this. But it is a problem faced by almost every industrialised country, rather than a problem created by Gordon Brown, as the Tories (and Aumbry) would have it. The Conservative Party's ability to distract the electorate from the bankruptcy of the kinds of economic policies that they have advocated for the last thirty years by making public sector debt the main issue of the election is so astonishing that I suspect black magic must be involved.
All very well but you fail to take into account the rapid rate of deterioration of the public finances which following trend will push Britain way above even Italy in terms of public borrowing.
You have been trotting out these complacent views for some time now.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
uncletoby
hobbyhorsical
# 13067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
All very well but you fail to take into account the rapid rate of deterioration of the public finances which following trend will push Britain way above even Italy in terms of public borrowing.
You have been trotting out these complacent views for some time now.
I'm not complacent at all - in fact I'm deeply pessimistic about Britain's political and economic future. But I'm also suspicious of tribal political narratives that float free from facts.
The idea that the Tories can solve Britain's economic problems just by cutting public sector borrowing slightly more and slightly sooner than Labour plan to is nonsense, and all the attention that is being given to the public debt issue is crowding out other important economic issues such as: how do we create the right regulatory environment to avoid further banking crises? how do we try to wean the British public off credit cards? how can we deflate the housing bubble, and increase the supply of homes, without causing another economic crisis? how can we reduce our reliance on the financial services sector? how can we end the absurd situation of relying on the immigration of large numbers of foreign workers whilst millions of British citizens languish on state benefits?
--------------------
`` L--d! I cannot look at it ----
Posts: 1150 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phil2357:
Am I correct in understanding that a Bill must get Senate approval to become law?
Yes. The Senate and the House are equal. The Senate must approve appointments to certain offices and must ratify treaties. Money bills must start in the House. Other than those minor differences both Houses must approve a bill for it to become a law. (And the president must sign it or, if he vetos it, the House and Senate must override his veto.)
I don't think the British would want a US style House & Senate. I may be wrong of course.
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative or UKIP?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by phil2357:
Am I correct in understanding that a Bill must get Senate approval to become law?
Yes. The Senate and the House are equal. The Senate must approve appointments to certain offices and must ratify treaties. Money bills must start in the House. Other than those minor differences both Houses must approve a bill for it to become a law. (And the president must sign it or, if he vetos it, the House and Senate must override his veto.)
I don't think the British would want a US style House & Senate. I may be wrong of course.
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative or UKIP?
or BNP? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
BTW, I notice Cameron is reaching out to social conservatives with his call for lowering the abortion time limit and opposing assisted suicide.
I've said that if I were UK, I would vote UKIP. I may have to revise that if Cameron continues to sound like he won't just be Labour Lite.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative
Yo.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I agree with you in that he should frame it as the need to make severe cuts to put right the destabalisation of the public finances caused by Labour's imprudence.
The problem he has is that a significant proportion of the population want to bury their head in the sand about this and are willing to believe Brown's lies about spending our way out of recession so that when Osbourne made such noises the Tories polling figures plunged.
Ah, so we agree that parties should frame their policies honestly.
Yes, of course a significant proportion of the population want to bury their heads in the sand. Deeply regrettable. And of course it's a problem for politicians. However I don't think that our policies should be framed or driven by ostriches although I do have doubts about MPs sometimes.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative?
Yup.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by uncletoby:
I would love to hear from the Tories, or anyone else, whether they think that an economy based primarily on shopping is sustainable, and if not, what they plan to do to build some other sort of economy.
The Lib-Dems have argued that if the Tories scrap the NI rise they'll have to make up for it by raising VAT.
If the Lib-Dems are correct, the Tories would in effect be replacing a tax on jobs with a tax on shopping, which might indeed have the effect you suggest.
(Though some economist will be along shortly to explain why I'm wrong.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Shipmate
# 15431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Yes. The Senate and the House are equal. The Senate must approve appointments to certain offices and must ratify treaties. Money bills must start in the House. Other than those minor differences both Houses must approve a bill for it to become a law. (And the president must sign it or, if he vetos it, the House and Senate must override his veto.)
Thank you!
quote:
I don't think the British would want a US style House & Senate. I may be wrong of course.
To be honest, there hasn't been much of a public debate about the issue. As you've probably guessed from this thread, the public purse seems to be the issue of the day.
quote:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative or UKIP?
Probably Conservative.
--------------------
was phil2357
Posts: 76 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically.
Yes. Thankfully, the board isn't representative of the people of Britain. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative
Yes.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As an American, might I ask my British shipmates a question about election politics? If I understand correctly, one of Labor/Labour's policy points is a fully elected House of Lords. But wouldn't that end the idea of parliamentary supremacy?
As phil2357 said, I think your question is about the power of the House of Commons. It seems to me that there is a potential for an almighty constitutional bust-up if Labour's plans are enacted. The House of Lords is a revising chamber but, because it lacks democratic legitimacy, it does its muscles infrequently. It is clear that the House of Commons is the voice of the people and has the sole democratic mandate in Parliament.
If the Lords is elected, who speaks for the people of Britain? If the Commons and Lords take a different view on the same matter, they will be on a collision course.
I suppose those in favour of 'reform' will say that this happens all the time in the United States and in other places, but it will be unusual for Britain and in my view a wholly unnecessary distraction.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Anglican't, I think you understate the traditional importance of the House of Lords. It has always had the legal power to reject bills, not merely revise them, and it has used this power on many occasions up to the present.
Shipmates might be interested to know that New Zealand has a unicameral Parliament. This has, in the view of many, allowed poorly drafted, and conceptually weak legislation onto the statute books. It seems to me that a chamber with merely the power to revise would not avoid this problem: the mechanic who has to repair a badly-made machine cannot right all its wrongs. A second chamber should have power to rip up a bill and start again.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Anglican't, I think you understate the traditional importance of the House of Lords. It has always had the legal power to reject bills, not merely revise them, and it has used this power on many occasions up to the present. ....
But, as I understand it, the Commons can always, eventually, over-ride the Lords.
I agree there should be a second Chamber, if possible one not unduly influenced by party politics and having, as its members, men and women who have made a substantial and positive contribution to the life and well-being of the nation. But I despair of the House of Lords; attempts to reform it have always been flawed.
I'm not convinced that an elected second chamber is going to be helpful; if its members are elected in the same way as the members of the Commons then it's just going to be a pale shadow of the Commons. I don't see the point.
If members are to be appointed then there has to be an agreed criterion and procedure for appointment. Should be possible in principle, but could be beyond the capabilities of party politicians.
Since this thread is supposed to be a rant, here goes:
It scarcely seems possible, but is attested by reliable witnesses, that from time to time appointments to the House of Lords have been somewhat influenced by funds donated to political parties. How this might be possible with politicians who are all - aren't they? - men and women of integrity devoted to serving their country, isn't immediately clear. What is clear is that if this rot is not stopped, then the House of Lords cannot command respect and has, therefore, no reason for its continued existence. Obviously, if any current members of the House of Lords can be shown to have entered by this route then they should return to the ranks, so to speak; and any politicians who can be shown to have betrayed the democratic institutions of their country should be immediately, totally and permanently barred from holding any public office. Nothing less will do. If we can't ensure even that much then the House of Lords has nothing to contribute to the country, unless of course we go to the entirely elected second chamber which would at least be a relatively honest and open method of appointment. But see above.
It could be worse. For much of English history, earls and barons were heavily armed gang leaders whose might meant right. At least we have come on a little from there.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Blackbeard,
You are correct in that the House of Commons can use the Parliament Acts to override the Lords in limited circumstances. The fact remains that the Lords have the power to throw out a bill - indeed, that must happen before the Parliament Acts can be invoked.
I agree that a pale shadow of the Commons would not be very useful (but still better than nothing). Given, however, your comments about appointments without donations (a horrific scandal, I agree, and far worse than the corruption demonstrated by MPs through their expense claims) I wonder if there is a better alternative electing the second chamber.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
For me, I see a certain value in the current system because you get voices of experience in the Lords who can play minor roles in the legislative process, and can on occasion serve in the Cabinet. I would like to see that maintained in any new system, if possible.
But also, the current system of directly appointing people to the Lords is not wholly desirable. So how about a compromise? A cross-party Commons committee makes a list of nominees, and the electorate can then vote from that list. For example, if ten seats are open, the committee could nominate approximately twenty people. Each voter can then vote for (say) five people on the list, and the ten nominees with the most votes are elected. What do you think?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
Does anyone think there should be a 'Election Mailing Preference Service' along the lines of the junk mail one? Today I received my third envelope from CCHQ (Tories) and my first from "The Office of Gordon Brown", to go with a couple from the Labour candidate and one from the Lib Dems.
I really don't want them. Despite being in a 'new' constituency following boundary changes it's going to be a two horse race and I know which of the horses I definitely DON'T want to vote for. So there is no point sending me stuff, people. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Rant over. Thank you for your time.
[ 10. April 2010, 17:14: Message edited by: Mr. Spouse ]
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Re: Lords Reform.
(1) There's a big difference, which folks are forgetting, between the legal sovereignty of Parliament (i.e. an Act of Parliament is supreme law) and the political supremacy of the House of Commons (i.e. the fact that the Government must have a majority in the Commons, and that the Commons has the last word on legislation). Reform of the House of Lords, as currently proposed, would change neither of these.
(2) Any sensible reform would have to think about what the Lords is actually for. Is it a democratic check on the government - a substantial chamber of restraint, review and reflection? Is it a chamber of territorial representation? Is it a powerless (but maybe influential) chamber of experts? Only once this question is answered can an appropriate composition be decided, and the right form of election and/or appointment found.
(3) Only when you've worked out what it's for can you decide what powers it should have. Personally, I think that as part of the role of the upper house is to act as a check against the government of the day, the powers of the Lords (or Senate, or whatever we call it) should be increased, so as to provide a genuine check on the Government's majority in the Commons. For example, a bill defeated in the Lords should be capable of being overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote of the Commons (i.e. Govt and Opposition agreeing), or by a referendum. That would provide a fair balance of power.
(4) There are other subsidiary matters to consider. Should members of the upper house be capable of being Ministers? (I'd say no). Should the upper house have any particular role in, say, the appointment of judges and ombudsmen, and the ratification of treaties (I'd say yes).
(5) Reform of the Lords needs to be put into its wider constitutional setting. For example, the responsibility of the Government to the Commons is only a matter of convention. With an elected upper chamber, it would be necessary to state, legally and constitutionally, that the Government is not drawn from, nor responsible to, the upper house.
(6) There are plenty of examples of how this could be done. The Spanish Senate is an example of a relatively weak, territorial second chamber, which nevertheless has important balancing functions. The German Bundesrat is an example of a strong and indirectly-chosen second chamber. Unfortunately, we in Britain tend not to bother learning from foreigners who smell of garlic and cabbage.
Unfortunately, none of the parties seem to have thought it through even this far. It's all being done on the back of a fag packet, with more of an eye to quick electoral fixes than good constitutional design.
[ 10. April 2010, 17:34: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
This site is fun (it's a "who should you vote for" thing).
For what it's worth (not much) it recommends that I should vote Green, followed by LibDem. If I were in England, that's exactly what I'd do (i.e. vote Green in a seat where they had some vague chance of winning, otherwise vote LibDem). However, the most important question, from my point of view, is "Should Scotland become an independent State?" That question is not even on their list. Neither is the SNP included in their list of parties.*
*(Typical! Hello, London, we exist! It's always like this. Can you see now why we are fed up and want our own pool to paddle in?)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
That was interesting - I came out as Lib Dem, closely followed by Green.
A couple of nights ago, all the local candidates squeezed onto a little stage at a local venue so the electorate could quiz them (including Lord Offa of the Dyke for the Monster Raving Loony Party, who was quite sweet really). Our sitting MP is Lib Dem, but I was more impressed by the Green and the Plaid Cymru candidates (Plaid also doesn't seem to exist on the quiz).
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The Times leads the charge to the bottom of the food-chain by using dodgy reporting to manufacture fake stories.
Today they asserted that the Labour Party somehow got hold of personal medical records in order to send electioneering material to people who have had cancer. Their fake "evidence" for this is a handful of people who have cancer and were upset to get the junk mail and so assumed it was targeted at them.
Do the sums. A quarter of a million of these mailings were sent out. One person in fifty in this country has had cancer. Almost all of them are over fifty years old. A mailshot sent to a quarter of a million over-fifty women will be recieved by THOUSANDS of women who have been diagnosed with cancer, just at random.
The Times report is a heap of shit. Send the editors back to school to learn some basic statistics.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
That was interesting - I came out as Lib Dem, closely followed by Green.
A couple of nights ago, all the local candidates squeezed onto a little stage at a local venue so the electorate could quiz them (including Lord Offa of the Dyke for the Monster Raving Loony Party, who was quite sweet really). Our sitting MP is Lib Dem, but I was more impressed by the Green and the Plaid Cymru candidates (Plaid also doesn't seem to exist on the quiz).
Now I'm trying to think which constituency Hay is in and therefore who our candidate is but I'[m not sure where the boundary between the two Powys constituency is.
This isn't the first quiz that's omitted Plaid and the SNP. Vote for Policies does too, but Vote Match gets devolution and has tailored the questions to which country your in, but I'm not sure they've got Plaid policy right on everything, but at least we're there.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Agreed, Ken. As a Tory, I'll take every chance to jump on a passing anti-Labour bandwagon but I agree that this story doesn't really add up, mainly because I received one of those leaflets. I'm in my late twenties, I've never had cancer and I'm not a woman. (Unless the Labour Party knows something that I don't).
[ 11. April 2010, 20:32: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I received this from a friend this morning. Made me smile.
While walking down the street one day a "Member of Parliament" is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.. 'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises....
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the MP. 'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time.. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?'
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were campaigning... ...
Today you voted.'
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
So, Labour published its manifesto today (and a copy can be read here). In the introduction, it says: quote:
As we more than halve the fiscal deficit over the next four years, we will ensure that we do so in a fair way with a combination of a return to economic growth, cuts to lower priority programmes and fair tax rises. Responsibility at the top means people paying their fair share and we believe it is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden of paying down the deficit.
This brings me back to a question that I asked a while ago and never got a decent answer to. It seems to me that Labour are saying that they aren't going to make any effort to reduce the size of Britain's debt, but only reduce the rate at which the debt is increasing. Have I interpreted this paragraph directly? If this is so, what does the final phrase "paying down the deficit" actually mean?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deckhand
Shipmate
# 15545
|
Posted
quote:
[/QB]Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative or UKIP? [/QB]
Me too.
--------------------
Lay Anglicana discussion forum and blog
Posts: 1360 | From: Hampshire | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The Times leads the charge to the bottom of the food-chain by using dodgy reporting to manufacture fake stories.
Well spotted. I'm reminded of a well-known moment in The Simpsons when a spoof news ticker reads 'Do Democrats cause cancer? Find out at foxnews.com'? It must be just a coincidence that Fox News and the London Times have the same owner ...
My guesses for news headlines on election day ...
Daily Mail: "Gordon Brown would use tax-payers' money to provide free 5-bedroom houses in Surrey for asylum seekers who cause cancer in hard-working families"
The Guardian: "If David Cameron wins today, will the last person to leave Britain turn off the solar-powered ciabatta bread machine?"
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I was irked by a small UKIP rating - I would rather swallow my own vomit than vote for them.
I got -32 for UKIP. Should have been lower... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eigon
Shipmate
# 4917
|
Posted
Carys - Hay-on-Wye is in Brecon and Radnor constituency - our MP is Roger Williams - who hasn't had his snout in the trough as much as some of the others, but still....
--------------------
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Posts: 3710 | From: Hay-on-Wye, town of books | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
So, Labour published its manifesto today (and a copy can be read here). In the introduction, it says: quote:
As we more than halve the fiscal deficit over the next four years, we will ensure that we do so in a fair way with a combination of a return to economic growth, cuts to lower priority programmes and fair tax rises. Responsibility at the top means people paying their fair share and we believe it is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden of paying down the deficit.
This brings me back to a question that I asked a while ago and never got a decent answer to. It seems to me that Labour are saying that they aren't going to make any effort to reduce the size of Britain's debt, but only reduce the rate at which the debt is increasing. Have I interpreted this paragraph directly? If this is so, what does the final phrase "paying down the deficit" actually mean?
Nations rarely actually "pay down their debt" in nominal terms. The real comparison is debt to national income, aka GDP. A nation can still be a net borrower, but if economic growth means that it's debt/GDP ratio declines, then its debt load declines too.
If over a period of 5 years an national economy grows 20%, but national debt only grows 10%, it seen as equivalent to paying down 10% of national debt. This is a Good Thing.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
This site is fun (it's a "who should you vote for" thing).
For what it's worth (not much) it recommends that I should vote Green, followed by LibDem. If I were in England, that's exactly what I'd do (i.e. vote Green in a seat where they had some vague chance of winning, otherwise vote LibDem).
Thanks for the link.
I have been leaning towards Liberal Democrats for a while, and thats just helped me realise I should take a closer look at the Greens as well. Greens first Lib Dems seconds according to the results.
As for any kind of tactical vote, I have come to a different conclusion. I'm so disillusioned with politics that I no longer really care if they have any chance of winning, I am just going to vote for who I want to. Probably LibDem.
Nick Clegg was excellent on the Paxman interview last night I thought. Did anyone else here see that?
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
I just watched it on YouTube. Paxman is a tool sometimes, but I thought Clegg handled him relatively well. He has a slightly patronising habit of asking "alright?" half-way through a sentence, which I found rather annoying. Perhaps he has to talk like he's addressing a toddler when Jeremy is being deliberately obtuse.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative
Of course a British Conservative ain't nothing like a US Conservative.
quote:
"We are the party of the National Health Service today because we not only back the values of the NHS, we back its funding and we have a vision for its future."
As Andrew Sullivan notes, it "makes Obamacare look like a Tea Party project."
The center is relative.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
One has to remember that there's quite a bit of nuance to be put on top of that statement. (I assume it was Cameron who made it.) There is no way any politician would get elected in the UK if they didn't say those words. However, when you look at some of the detail, it turns out that the Tories want to move the method of funding to something much closer to a single payer system. That actually represents a pretty major shift in the ethos of the NHS, and would probably be more controversial if more people knew about it.
Of course, he doesn't phrase it like that. He talks about vouchers and "choice" and other nice-sounding words, but the long and short of it is that he wants to take money out of the NHS and use it to subsidise middle class people who want to go to private hospitals for their treatment.
Yet another reason why a Conservative majority would be a very Bad Thing™: The devil is in the detail.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
What's controversial about it? As I understand it, Labour have been using NHS money to send people to private hospitals.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
That may be: I haven't heard. Do you have a link?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I'm afraid I don't, but I seem to recall reading something to that effect a couple of years ago.
There has been a lot of private sector money pouring into the NHS. I imagine that involvement of the private sector is designed to improve efficiency (which I imagine is woefully lacking in the NHS). I can't say that is really a problem, if the service for patients is still free at the point of use.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Well, there's at least two places where private companies have been used: Firstly (obviously) with PPP. But that's about getting hospitals built and not directly about providing care. Also, contractors have been used extensively for cleaning, catering and other non-medical tasks.
But those things are both fundamentally different from directly using NHS money to pay for care in a private hospital.
Now, I take your point about it still being free at the point of use, and I am not opposed to a single payer system on principle. But I think the Tories are being rather underhand in that they are trying to implement this by the back door, and only for those who are rich enough to be able to pay the difference in cost. That is fundamentally unfair, and comes across (to me at least) as pandering to the upper half of middle England, who are a large part of his core vote.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
