I am surprised that Fabricant hasn't come out with a talking head video suggesting that teachers are often to be found having one off the wrist at morning break. Anaesthesiologists have to while away the time while the real doctors are doing the operation.
There must be statistics on what is the peak time for accessing porn sites.
It would be interesting to see the numbers for 9.00 am - 5.00 pm.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
Parliament evolve? You must be joking. What are the Tories going to do, evolve a notochord and a backbone?
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
Parliament evolve? You must be joking. What are the Tories going to do, evolve a notochord and a backbone?
If they evolve a ventral notochord instead of a dorsal one, it will assist them greatly in their careers as getting back-stabbed will not be as bad.
Frankly, I am amazed that a Tory MP resigned. I thought they regarded themselves as being above that sort of thing....
Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL
Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu
Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.
Perfect weather for it! What we drinking
At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.
Guzzling brew named "Beavertown" sounds problematic under current circumstances. Have you no shame?
I am not convinced that the slang usage of 'beaver' in the UK/US is quite the same (see also fanny, fag, rubber).
At least historically (see PG Wodehouse), the slang meaning of 'beaver' in the UK was 'a bearded man'.
FYI (and BTW) when I was a kid (in USA) on road trips we used to play a game called "Beaver" which consisted of shouting out "beaver!" anytime you spotted a Volkswagen Bug. Had not clue at time re: alternate mean in American slang.
Also BTW (and FYI) had a great-uncle by the name of Harry Beaver.
But THAT was a simpler and (perhaps) purer (or less impure) era . . .
The discussion has focused largely on Parish’s stupidity in viewing porn, ie the act itself.
Less focused on is the contempt he showed to fellow female MPs especially, and I guess this is what got him.
A key issue - which I agree was missed by some on here, not all Tories. But one feels [edit] that what got him the dump was not so much the female MPs he upset but his upsetting male (mostly, by the nature of things) Tory MPs as the Sky News tweet has it. Too many of them (on statistical grounds) have been caught with their trousers at half mast, to mix the metaphors even more, to be glad of the extra spotlight shone on their activities.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL
Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu
Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.
Perfect weather for it! What we drinking
At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.
Not an IPA fan me
Get yourself some nice lager
Arguably no such thing in these islands. Colchester Brewery do a very nice bitter, though. Probably only available within 20 miles or so of the brewery of course.
Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL
Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu
Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.
Perfect weather for it! What we drinking
At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.
Not an IPA fan me
Get yourself some nice lager
Arguably no such thing in these islands. Colchester Brewery do a very nice bitter, though. Probably only available within 20 miles or so of the brewery of course.
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.
The discussion has focused largely on Parish’s stupidity in viewing porn, ie the act itself.
Less focused on is the contempt he showed to fellow female MPs especially, and I guess this is what got him.
He has also disrespected his constituents who didn't put him in the Commons, presumably, to amuse himself but to work in the interests of his constituents and constituency.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Increasingly the Commons is just a rubber stamp for decisions announced by the Executive, and often implemented by executive order rather than legislation.
Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL
Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu
Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.
Perfect weather for it! What we drinking
At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.
Not an IPA fan me
Get yourself some nice lager
Arguably no such thing in these islands. Colchester Brewery do a very nice bitter, though. Probably only available within 20 miles or so of the brewery of course.
Glasgow has it’s own ‘German’ brewery that does various lagers adhering to the Reinheitsgebot. They even do a German Pale Ale..
Let’s assume (big assumption) that the LDs can take T&H.
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
What key Lib Dem target seats is North Shropshire really going to be diverting attention from?
To be honest, there's no serious downside to winning by-elections as it adds to credibility and there is some chance of defending. The one exception may be Eastleigh when Huhne resigned - it wrongly convinced the Lib Dems they had more hope of defending marginals in 2015 than they did - they should have been abandoning defences they continued long after it was realistic.
They only have a dozen seats (give or take). They could legitimately aspire to a dozen, maybe 20 more. Brutal focus is critical.
Sorry, this is nonsense. Lib Dems can't target 300 seats, but they aren't going to move large numbers of local activists 100 miles to their nearest target. They need to widen the game a bit - give themselves options, interest in all regions, development seats for decent second places and so on. This idea of a by-election in 30 seats and sod all elsewhere just isn't realistic.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL
Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu
Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.
Perfect weather for it! What we drinking
At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.
Not an IPA fan me
Get yourself some nice lager
Arguably no such thing in these islands. Colchester Brewery do a very nice bitter, though. Probably only available within 20 miles or so of the brewery of course.
Glasgow has it’s own ‘German’ brewery that does various lagers adhering to the Reinheitsgebot. They even do a German Pale Ale..
Looking at the run ins, Everton has a tough one, albeit 2 games in hand, but Leeds looks difficult too. Burnley plays Villa twice in its 4 remaining games.
It does look like Everton were doomed by Burnley today. Sacking Dyche clearly the right decision.
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
My mobile network blocked pb.com until I asked them to enable adult content. Needless to say this necessitated a rather embarrassing phone call with a female operative, and I could detect her glare over the airwaves.
Let’s assume (big assumption) that the LDs can take T&H.
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
What key Lib Dem target seats is North Shropshire really going to be diverting attention from?
To be honest, there's no serious downside to winning by-elections as it adds to credibility and there is some chance of defending. The one exception may be Eastleigh when Huhne resigned - it wrongly convinced the Lib Dems they had more hope of defending marginals in 2015 than they did - they should have been abandoning defences they continued long after it was realistic.
They only have a dozen seats (give or take). They could legitimately aspire to a dozen, maybe 20 more. Brutal focus is critical.
Sorry, this is nonsense. Lib Dems can't target 300 seats, but they aren't going to move large numbers of local activists 100 miles to their nearest target. They need to widen the game a bit - give themselves options, interest in all regions, development seats for decent second places and so on. This idea of a by-election in 30 seats and sod all elsewhere just isn't realistic.
It’s realistic, so long as these by-elections keep coming along, one at a time.
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.
I remember it, because my former council had a blocker that prevented access to a certain renowned political discussion website that also made reference to gambling as part of its rationale, and hence was banned by the proprietary blocker the council employed.
Fortunately, being cabinet member for IT (inter alia) at the time, I was able to get a specific exemption made for that particular site, such that its readers were thereafter able to enjoy reading my pertinent and always on topic comments even when I was working away at the Town Hall.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Nick, re: Parish, his wiki page says he was active as MP in environmental protection and animal welfare.
Let’s assume (big assumption) that the LDs can take T&H.
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
What key Lib Dem target seats is North Shropshire really going to be diverting attention from?
To be honest, there's no serious downside to winning by-elections as it adds to credibility and there is some chance of defending. The one exception may be Eastleigh when Huhne resigned - it wrongly convinced the Lib Dems they had more hope of defending marginals in 2015 than they did - they should have been abandoning defences they continued long after it was realistic.
They only have a dozen seats (give or take). They could legitimately aspire to a dozen, maybe 20 more. Brutal focus is critical.
Sorry, this is nonsense. Lib Dems can't target 300 seats, but they aren't going to move large numbers of local activists 100 miles to their nearest target. They need to widen the game a bit - give themselves options, interest in all regions, development seats for decent second places and so on. This idea of a by-election in 30 seats and sod all elsewhere just isn't realistic.
It's not that they don't do anything anywhere else. But it is common to bus people 20 miles or more. And planning for that around 15-20 seats would take about everything any organization has got.
Have to say I'm impressed with the quality of the social media messaging put out by Ukraine. Here is a new song - Don't F8ck with Ukraine. The initial singing is reminiscent of Fluke's Atom Bomb, and the raising of the flag of Iwo Jima. Wonder if either is coincidental?
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
Admittedly it's a very qualified apology. He doesn't admit he made the whole thing up, and says he never intended to be offensive, both of which are about as convincing as Cummings' eyesight test.
But it's still something to get him to admit a mistake at all.
Nick, re: Parish, his wiki page says he was active as MP in environmental protection and animal welfare.
Can you tell me, what is YOUR take on that?
He's certainly interested - represrenting a farming constituency and chair of the Defra Select Committee, he was bound to be (and conversely it's why he got to chair it). He was certainly open to discussion and to having environment and animal welfare people as witnesses to his committee. I wouldn't say he was a champion of either if it would cause problems for farmers, but he's been a perfectly reasonable chair.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
Let’s assume (big assumption) that the LDs can take T&H.
They are starting to build up seats which will require defending, but will likely be lost in any subsequent election. I think they will lose North Salop, and while I think they can keep A&C, it will be expensive to hold.
Good tactics, but some loss of strategic position.
What key Lib Dem target seats is North Shropshire really going to be diverting attention from?
To be honest, there's no serious downside to winning by-elections as it adds to credibility and there is some chance of defending. The one exception may be Eastleigh when Huhne resigned - it wrongly convinced the Lib Dems they had more hope of defending marginals in 2015 than they did - they should have been abandoning defences they continued long after it was realistic.
They only have a dozen seats (give or take). They could legitimately aspire to a dozen, maybe 20 more. Brutal focus is critical.
Sorry, this is nonsense. Lib Dems can't target 300 seats, but they aren't going to move large numbers of local activists 100 miles to their nearest target. They need to widen the game a bit - give themselves options, interest in all regions, development seats for decent second places and so on. This idea of a by-election in 30 seats and sod all elsewhere just isn't realistic.
It's not that they don't do anything anywhere else. But it is common to bus people 20 miles or more. And planning for that around 15-20 seats would take about everything any organization has got.
Vast majority of their targets are in the South of England with hardly any in the North or Midlands so it should be pretty easy for the Lib Dems to flood multiple seats in Surrey etc at the next GE.
Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL
Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu
Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.
Perfect weather for it! What we drinking
At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.
Not an IPA fan me
Get yourself some nice lager
Arguably no such thing in these islands. Colchester Brewery do a very nice bitter, though. Probably only available within 20 miles or so of the brewery of course.
Glasgow has it’s own ‘German’ brewery that does various lagers adhering to the Reinheitsgebot. They even do a German Pale Ale..
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.
Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.
If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.
Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.
Even if most Americans do not report engaging in this activity regularly, exposure to pornography is much more common today than it was in the past, particularly among women. More than eight in 10 (81 percent) women age 65 or older say they have never watched pornography, while less than half (44 percent) of young women say the same.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.
Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.
If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.
Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.
I'm in favour of electing them, but for life. So not much change. The parties get a share of Lords appointments according to their vote share at GE. Lords encouraged to retire sooner. It wouldn't eliminate the patronage, but would be fairer.
Looking at the run ins, Everton has a tough one, albeit 2 games in hand, but Leeds looks difficult too. Burnley plays Villa twice in its 4 remaining games.
It does look like Everton were doomed by Burnley today. Sacking Dyche clearly the right decision.
Funny that. Despite having virtually no interest in football, despite being from, working in and living in Liverpool I always remember how Everton have somehow managed to avoid the drop for decades since I've been vaguely following the three main Merseyside teams (after Marine AFC, of course).
I do wonder if there time is up this time. Tis a shame Tranmere are so far down the league now. In the 1990s when Everton kept threatening to go down, Tranmere at least threatened to replace them.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.
Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.
If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.
Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.
I'm in favour of electing them, but for life. So not much change. The parties get a share of Lords appointments according to their vote share at GE. Lords encouraged to retire sooner. It wouldn't eliminate the patronage, but would be fairer.
If there was a change to that model it'd almost certainly finish up far worse in my view. You'd finish up with a far more politicised chamber with some complete nutters. It would entirely cease to function.
I don't really like the way things work at the moment, but it does seem the most likely system to maintain some sort of worthwhile function.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
Say what you like about our PM, he sure knows how to make a lady mone.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
Letwin tried to make Precious Brexit into something sane, consensual and less Precious.
No way he's getting into the Lords under this government.
(He was right- the Papal Conclave model was the way to solve it. The only trouble was that it takes more than two cycles to work, and Parliament didn't have the patience or nerve to give it enough time.)
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
Say what you like about our PM, he sure knows how to make a lady mone.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
Say what you like about our PM, he sure knows how to make a lady mone.
PB pedantry: one must be fair, even to Mr Johnson. That was Mr Cameron.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.
Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.
If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.
Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.
I'm in favour of electing them, but for life. So not much change. The parties get a share of Lords appointments according to their vote share at GE. Lords encouraged to retire sooner. It wouldn't eliminate the patronage, but would be fairer.
If there was a change to that model it'd almost certainly finish up far worse in my view. You'd finish up with a far more politicised chamber with some complete nutters. It would entirely cease to function.
I don't really like the way things work at the moment, but it does seem the most likely system to maintain some sort of worthwhile function.
I don't see that it would be far more politicised. As for nutters, the low number of places on offer over all would mean fringe parties would get very little actual look in, but yes, there would be slightly fewer Tories, and more places offered to the likes of the SNP. I think that would be a good thing.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
Say what you like about our PM, he sure knows how to make a lady mone.
And gentlemen too, if they're talking about taxes and prices.
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.
Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.
If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.
Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.
I'm in favour of electing them, but for life. So not much change. The parties get a share of Lords appointments according to their vote share at GE. Lords encouraged to retire sooner. It wouldn't eliminate the patronage, but would be fairer.
If there was a change to that model it'd almost certainly finish up far worse in my view. You'd finish up with a far more politicised chamber with some complete nutters. It would entirely cease to function.
I don't really like the way things work at the moment, but it does seem the most likely system to maintain some sort of worthwhile function.
I don't see that it would be far more politicised. As for nutters, the low number of places on offer over all would mean fringe parties would get very little actual look in, but yes, there would be slightly fewer Tories, and more places offered to the likes of the SNP. I think that would be a good thing.
Well it depends a lot on the election mechanism of course, but clearly you'd have to have some sort of electioneering and that'd undoubtedly be on a party basis. You'd also certainly have all the odd people trying to get in - Brian Rose, Count Binface, George Galloway etc. Now that's not all bad as we can see from Binface being in the list (!), but you get the idea.
We'd also not have the resource of the various academic types.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Increasingly the Commons is just a rubber stamp for decisions announced by the Executive, and often implemented by executive order rather than legislation.
I think 'Why we get the wrong politicians' is a very helpful book for laying out some of the reasons MPs seem to be pretty bad at traditional MP roles like debating and scrutinising legislation, largely if I recall because there is no training for it, no political benefit for bothering to do it, and no reward if you do attempt it.
Away from Parliamentary Onanism, it has been an exceptionally savage day in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Russians just lost another general and according to the Ukrainians the Russian losses are "colossal". Nevertheless there have also been very heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side. The battle is extremely intense and it may be that we are reaching another tipping point. The general assessment here is that the Russian advance is stalling.
It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.
I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.
One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.
Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.
The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.
To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
If one chamber is to be subordinate, focused on reviewing legislation etc, then there are benefits to engaging people and experts who might not otherwise be involved in political activity. But it would need a lot of work.
In addition to my previous ideas that no former MP should be able to be appointed to the Lords within 10 years of holding elected office (or having worked directly for a political party in the last five years), that anyone appointed must attend a minimum number of days/votes etc, I would add that no one who has donated more than, say, £500 to a political party in the last five years should be able to be appointed (though in any case I don't think anyone should be able to give very much) - to avoid any potential appearance of having bought the seat, as many self evidently do at present.
The exact details could be worked out, but I think it would be pretty easy to make even an appointed chamber work. And whilt some of my ideas would not be without objection, I think many objections would pretty weak, since what harm innot appointing people who have given thousands or just been MPs/cronies?
Away from Parliamentary Onanism, it has been an exceptionally savage day in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Russians just lost another general and according to the Ukrainians the Russian losses are "colossal". Nevertheless there have also been very heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side. The battle is extremely intense and it may be that we are reaching another tipping point. The general assessment here is that the Russian advance is stalling.
I pray (in an atheistic way) that it stalls, and reverses. But clearly a very bloody road still to go whatever the outcome.
Away from Parliamentary Onanism, it has been an exceptionally savage day in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Russians just lost another general and according to the Ukrainians the Russian losses are "colossal". Nevertheless there have also been very heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side. The battle is extremely intense and it may be that we are reaching another tipping point. The general assessment here is that the Russian advance is stalling.
I pray (in an atheistic way) that it stalls, and reverses. But clearly a very bloody road still to go whatever the outcome.
The worry for Ukr I think at moment is fuel. Seems RU have been focussing on damaging supply chains for fuel in last few days.
Away from Parliamentary Onanism, it has been an exceptionally savage day in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Russians just lost another general and according to the Ukrainians the Russian losses are "colossal". Nevertheless there have also been very heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side. The battle is extremely intense and it may be that we are reaching another tipping point. The general assessment here is that the Russian advance is stalling.
I pray (in an atheistic way) that it stalls, and reverses. But clearly a very bloody road still to go whatever the outcome.
The worry for Ukr I think at moment is fuel. Seems RU have been focussing on damaging supply chains for fuel in last few days.
The Ukrainians have done very well with a mobile defence, rather than defending fixed positions, so it would be a big problem for them if they were to run short.
SpAds given marching orders ahead of locals at briefing today. Those working in purdah Whitehall next week asked to head to Barnet and Wandsworth instead as teh yare apparently looking "very bleak" for Conservatives holding.
Away from Parliamentary Onanism, it has been an exceptionally savage day in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Russians just lost another general and according to the Ukrainians the Russian losses are "colossal". Nevertheless there have also been very heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side. The battle is extremely intense and it may be that we are reaching another tipping point. The general assessment here is that the Russian advance is stalling.
I pray (in an atheistic way) that it stalls, and reverses. But clearly a very bloody road still to go whatever the outcome.
The worry for Ukr I think at moment is fuel. Seems RU have been focussing on damaging supply chains for fuel in last few days.
Russian forces this week struck the Kremenchuk oil refinery, Ukraine’s main producer of fuel products, along with several other large refineries.
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.
Did they have phone reception in the HoC?
No way should HoC authorities block what elected members can see on their phones/apple ipads.
A moment's thought will tell you that is the slippery slope...
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.
Did they have phone reception in the HoC?
No way should HoC authorities block what elected members can see on their phones/apple ipads.
A moment's thought will tell you that is the slippery slope...
I wasn't saying anything about it, was only curious if they had a DAS for phone reception as I assume mobile coverage from an outside macro wouldn't work indoors in such an old building
"On May 17, President Sauli Niinisto of Finland is scheduled to arrive in Sweden. He’ll meet with King Carl XVI Gustaf and the Swedish government before leaving the next day. And sometime during his visit, Sweden and Finland are expected to announce they’re both applying for membership of NATO. Finland has—remarkably—taken the lead, and Sweden is likely to follow, simply because if Finland joins there’s really no reason to not to do the same."
To improve the HoL, simply remove the power of PM’s patronage, and leave it to an Appointments Commission.
Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.
Powerful old committee, that. Who gets to appoint it?
If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.
Did they have phone reception in the HoC?
Sure, but mobiles weren't as dominant in 2010 - your usual way of communicating was still email from a laptop.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2h Just one point on tonight's Angela Rayner story. We first approached Labour on Tuesday for a response to the fact four MPs had independently confirmed her comments on the Terrace. We have yet to receive a response.
@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?
More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?
I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.
Did they have phone reception in the HoC?
Sure, but mobiles weren't as dominant in 2010 - your usual way of communicating was still email from a laptop.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2h Just one point on tonight's Angela Rayner story. We first approached Labour on Tuesday for a response to the fact four MPs had independently confirmed her comments on the Terrace. We have yet to receive a response.
To improve the HoL, simply remove the power of PM’s patronage, and leave it to an Appointments Commission.
Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.
Powerful old committee, that. Who gets to appoint it?
If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.
My first choice is abolition and going unicameral, with beefed up select committees to revise legislation before a final vote.
If we stick with a second chamber, I would have local governments do the selection from amongst councillors and send them on non renewable 10 year terms. 1 per 100k population.
It would encourage interest in local government, give broad geographical representation, cover all successful parties, allow independents, be democratic, but indirect so not a direct rival to the Commons. This is how the US Senate was chosen until senators became directly elected.
Comments
Less focused on is the contempt he showed to fellow female MPs especially, and I guess this is what got him.
It would be interesting to see the numbers for 9.00 am - 5.00 pm.
(Although actually, he should have been gone both for misconduct and frankly for being so utterly cretinous.)
Frankly, I am amazed that a Tory MP resigned. I thought they regarded themselves as being above that sort of thing....
Also BTW (and FYI) had a great-uncle by the name of Harry Beaver.
But THAT was a simpler and (perhaps) purer (or less impure) era . . .
Get yourself some nice lager
https://adnams.co.uk/collections/lager/products/24x330ml-dry-hopped-lager-cans4-2-abv
Labour puts the truth a very poor second to its propaganda manoeuvres...especially if an Election is looming
This reeks of, we're fucked and we're going to lose, help us Dacre
https://www.westbeer.com/
Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.
Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.
It does look like Everton were doomed by Burnley today. Sacking Dyche clearly the right decision.
Fortunately, being cabinet member for IT (inter alia) at the time, I was able to get a specific exemption made for that particular site, such that its readers were thereafter able to enjoy reading my pertinent and always on topic comments even when I was working away at the Town Hall.
Can you tell me, what is YOUR take on that?
https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1520289119460630531
MP Michael Fabricant sorry lockdown drinks comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-61283648
Admittedly it's a very qualified apology. He doesn't admit he made the whole thing up, and says he never intended to be offensive, both of which are about as convincing as Cummings' eyesight test.
But it's still something to get him to admit a mistake at all.
It’s a Budvar, and I’m guessing “zàlohované” means recyclable in Czech. Which works for the Russian tanks!
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/apr/28/mino-raiola-tweets-that-he-is-alive-after-reports-of-football-agents-death
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/apr/30/mino-raiola-one-of-footballs-most-powerful-agents-dies-aged-54
PS: found unfiltered Stella Artois in supermarket , first time I have seen it, very pleasant it is too.
The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.
That's where we should be concentrating our fire.
(Now there's a *really* obscure pun.)
If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.
Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.
For example:
I do wonder if there time is up this time.
Tis a shame Tranmere are so far down the league now. In the 1990s when Everton kept threatening to go down, Tranmere at least threatened to replace them.
I don't really like the way things work at the moment, but it does seem the most likely system to maintain some sort of worthwhile function.
No way he's getting into the Lords under this government.
(He was right- the Papal Conclave model was the way to solve it. The only trouble was that it takes more than two cycles to work, and Parliament didn't have the patience or nerve to give it enough time.)
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13631968.business-leaders-hit-mone-peerage/
This is safe for work but may damage your credibility
“She thinks my tractor’s sexy”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uWu4aynBK7E
We'd also not have the resource of the various academic types.
Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.
And will all the proceeds be going to Ukraine as was Abramovich's wish?
In addition to my previous ideas that no former MP should be able to be appointed to the Lords within 10 years of holding elected office (or having worked directly for a political party in the last five years), that anyone appointed must attend a minimum number of days/votes etc, I would add that no one who has donated more than, say, £500 to a political party in the last five years should be able to be appointed (though in any case I don't think anyone should be able to give very much) - to avoid any potential appearance of having bought the seat, as many self evidently do at present.
The exact details could be worked out, but I think it would be pretty easy to make even an appointed chamber work. And whilt some of my ideas would not be without objection, I think many objections would pretty weak, since what harm innot appointing people who have given thousands or just been MPs/cronies?
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1520116959416889344/photo/1
ROFL, Wandsworth is a Labour gain
NY Times blog
A moment's thought will tell you that is the slippery slope...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/29/sweden-finland-nato-ukraine-russia/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editors Picks OC&utm_term=41827&tpcc=Editors Picks OC
Note the date kids, a week after Putin's mega-bollocks of 9th May victory celebrations.
If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.
(Autocorrect made that 'end' which works after a fashion....)
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
2h
Just one point on tonight's Angela Rayner story. We first approached Labour on Tuesday for a response to the fact four MPs had independently confirmed her comments on the Terrace. We have yet to receive a response.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1520452144561803264
"A new dawn" etc etc
A fantastic night for those of us who longed for an end to years of Tory sleaze and bollocks. My wife and I stayed up all night.
eg
20% scientists
10% IT bods
30% from business 15% big and 15% small
20% legal professions
10% charity sector
10% medical
Each has national bodies that could submit suggestions for consideration by the committee
If we stick with a second chamber, I would have local governments do the selection from amongst councillors and send them on non renewable 10 year terms. 1 per 100k population.
It would encourage interest in local government, give broad geographical representation, cover all successful parties, allow independents, be democratic, but indirect so not a direct rival to the Commons. This is how the US Senate was chosen until senators became directly elected.