Categories
Another poll showing almost no change – politicalbetting.com
Another poll showing almost no change – politicalbetting.com
Tories get 1% nearer with Opinium https://t.co/KIWMfJRYYZ
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Better of two. Best of three.
Starmer would make the BETTER PM.
I think he merely means reform doesn’t he. An end to sacked PMs making toads into leaping Lords, that sort of insane thing that’s still going on.
There’s certainly no money saved from abolishing it, it’s reputation as a gravy train does not stand up to fact checking.
Do we? Saying what you said implies the only way Parliament can consult expertise is to have a quango second chamber for that.
How is what you call “a need” delivered in the US for example?
But since he is looking, just for starters as a reminder.
- Upper limit on size to match the Commons (I've no issue with a large chamber, and frankly the room would look ridiculous if even at full capacity it was nearly empty)
- Current members to be phased out over 2 parliaments to reach that size, in order of first appointed (need to clear away those serving for life under the old system)
- Those who have not attended at least 50% of divisions without a good reason to immediately lose their peerage, and not be eligible for reappointment (It's supposed to be a job, even if not full time - ensuring a minimum attendance permits people of expertise to be appointed, so long as they commit to a proper service as a legislator)
- No more ex-MPs admitted within 10 years (If you no longer wish to be an MP, you don't need to be a Lord - you can earn your way back in with post MP good work)
- No donors to parties admitted within 5 years (avoids even appearance of buying peerages)
- No resignation honours permitted (unnecessary)
- 20 year maximum appointment (Life is too long, but if you want a chamber that can take a long view, fine)
Shame he'll probably go with a boring 100 seat Senate of Nations and Regions, 25 from each nation. It seems to come up the most often.Though of course the monarch would have to agree to sign an Act of Parliament abolishing the House of Lords and the House of Lords could delay any such Act too.
An elected upper house would also be far more willing to vote down Bills given it had its own elected mandate too
Watch out if he starts salivating over AV, and legislating to ban fruit on pizza.
The C of E became the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor to prevent the Pope heading it, indeed we had Roman Catholic Bishops in the Lords before the Reformation
A Home Office spokesperson: "We wish to express our heartfelt condolences to all those affected. Until a postmortem examination takes place, we cannot comment in detail, but there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that this tragic death was caused by an infectious disease. We take the safety and welfare of those in our care extremely seriously."
That must be why the Home Office allowed unaccompanied refugee children to be put into the care of landlord Nicholas van Hoogstraten.
To add to the header on Opinium polling putting Truss Con just five behind Labour - all the year under the misdemeanours of Boris the Opinium gap was rarely larger than 4, in the 33-39 range.
I would disagree Sunak is safe as houses in number 10 - the only thing that could make Sunak safe is Party discipline on basis that despite differences the Party can still support him his chancellor and budget, and the jury has to be out on that. We already see public opposition from those who fundamentally disagree so can’t remain silent or publicly continue support, but are they just a clique or are there great swathes of the party who feel this way?
That's bad enough without exaggeration. (Especially as given his record he shouldn't be allowed to own any commercial property.)
So well under half the number of C of E bishops are in the Lords and indeed not even all the diocesan bishops are in the Lords either.
Before the Reformation yes we had far more Lords Spiritual than we do now, the Lords were basically the Bishops, Abbots and hereditary peers
I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.
That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.
Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).
No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
Appointments is supposed to get at least a few more experts whose views are worthwhile but wouldn't stand for parliament in, but professional blocs wouldn't eliminte politcs.
Other of 7 reported, but no slice of bar for Reform.
Captain HY leading the charge.
C of E is only 47% - and that includes very many purely nominal ones. And that is Enngland, not the UK as a whole.
Might as well go back to the old days of only letting the men, or the property owners, vote.
And by definition the C of E is controlled by politicians such as Johnson - he did step down nominally when he became a RC, but yes, it is part of the state in that sense.
The indicative votes in 2003 seems like it was fun.
Results of parliamentary votes, 4 February 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords#Votes_of_February_2003
Edit: KC3 would be very surprised by you, in more than one way.
Plus, a large chunk of the C of E is practically RC anyway.
That being agreed, I still believe removing the political involvement of the Church will lead to its disestablishment as all that will remain is the Monarch/Head irrelevance
When we have discussed the Opinium method before we assumed the size of don’t know won’t say affects the size of swingback, smaller pool, less swing. Maybe Con % under Boris was inflated by a bigger pool of these, the pool smaller now hence less swing back. It’s only six away after all.
Anglo Catholics are just a small minority within the C of E, there are significantly more liberals and evangelicals within it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England
I don’t believe the current budget rebels are just a clique, or even just an ERG or right wing clique, I think they speak for the more silent majority of the Conservative party - however, that doesn’t even matter today. Imagine the Truss argument against what Sunak and Hunt have done but in the hands of better, more able communicators, arguing for growth instead of austerity, arguing there were other options and this budget was a political choice not a necessity, arguing this against a backdrop of Hunt and Sunak’s plan apparently failing, and, not argued by just one person, but from a whole range voices across the party. In that scenario even if it’s just a niche view now, it can certainly gain support into majority view. This is why I wouldn’t have Sunak safe as houses at any point in his brief turn as PM.
What comes after is of course much more complex
FFS mate he has gone along with the £54bn black hole and austerity 2 this week and said we employ too many foreigners in the NHS this week and ruled out inflation matching pay offers. He has said he is happy to kiss a Tory and has many Tory friends.
I see Mrs SKS can clearly say she has done the same this very week
How can you give a stuff about the 2nd chamber with all this shit going on?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fc90146c-6813-11ed-bcd8-599592d95f22?shareToken=ce5a93cacf684cb8af27de9a2cc11565
Protestants might be more counting Pentecostal evangelicals etc but being the largest Christian denomination again in England would be a huge coup for the Vatican
New Zealand functions perfectly well with unicameralism, as do many other countries.
We could then use the Lords chamber as a bingo hall or strip club.
However many RCs there are the Pope is their head regardless of the State religion.
Techne poll earlier this year:
19% support Bishops in House of Lords
62% do not support Bishops in House of Lords
If it is such a good idea, why is Iran the only other country to have places in its Parliament reserved for representatives of religions?
It's beyond comical and there is overwhelming support for ending this total nonsense.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1599924/Justin-Welby-poll-bishops-woke-news-welby