Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Politicians shouldn’t appoint Lords – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,500
edited May 31 in General
Politicians shouldn’t appoint Lords – politicalbetting.com

June will see the King’s Birthday honours (even though his birthday is in November) and new peers will be created. Unless Starmer breaks the depressing precedent, new peers will include major party donors, loyal backbenchers and party officials, and other people that party leaders like. A Guardian columnist will call for an elected second chamber, which would mean yet more politicians.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,044
    edited May 31
    First - because of course my two year old didn’t want a lie in today…
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506
    Most countries in the world have an elected second chamber and get by just fine. I do not agree with this British aversion to such.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,044

    Most countries in the world have an elected second chamber and get by just fine. I do not agree with this British aversion to such.

    You get some odd arguments about the likely people it would be. If it’s elected then the public some sort of say. We don’t currently and end up with very young blond women associated with ex PMs elevated for life for who know what reason.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,841
    Disestablish the church, sack the Lords and have an elected revising chamber of 100 members elected by PR. Give the chamber slightly more relevance and power (whilst remaining unable to derail the Commons)
    Im no more attracted to a technocratic chamber than an appointed one.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,510
    Have an AI second chamber. It would save money.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,815

    Most countries in the world have an elected second chamber and get by just fine. I do not agree with this British aversion to such.

    Suspect (but can't prove) that it comes from an aversion to multiple power centres. So the same reason that Britain is still hesitant about devolution, and European subsidiarity.

    As to why... Maybe our benign history means that we've never experienced the downside of unquestionable executive power concentrated in one institution. Or person.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,307
    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,349

    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,274


    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!

    And more members than anywhere else?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism means always having someone else to blame for problems.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,508
    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,349
    Andy_JS said:


    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!

    And more members than anywhere else?
    That's right, also the only Upper Chamber with more members than its respective Lower Chamber.
  • vikvik Posts: 445

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism would help a lot to keep the Scots happy & stop them from trying to leave.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,510
    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,184
    vik said:

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism would help a lot to keep the Scots happy & stop them from trying to leave.
    They said that about devolution; fueled it instead.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,508
    vik said:

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism would help a lot to keep the Scots happy & stop them from trying to leave.
    I don't really think it would.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,593
    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?
  • vikvik Posts: 445

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,841

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I'm well up for anything that means Norfolk can reflood the fens and shoot people who cross the Waveney
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,670

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I don’t disagree that the Lords is too large, but the idea that without the Labour peers the Lords would be a dynamic force for change is ... not entirely supported by historical evidence.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,593
    vik said:

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
    Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,307
    vik said:

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism would help a lot to keep the Scots happy & stop them from trying to leave.
    Federalism is the natural order for a state comprised of 4 distinct nations. Devolution has its problems in Scotland Wales and NI because it doesn't go far enough. But the biggest hole is the lack of representation for England.

    An English parliament is a massive constitutional issue. A lack of representation where the English pretend that England is Britain whilst bemoaning the cash and independence granted to the other nations.

    We fix that quite simply. 4 nations, four parliaments. Each nation can manage its own affairs as it sees fit with a federal parliament over the top to manage our coexistence, foreign policy, defence and part of the budget.

    For the people saying no, what is the preferred model? What we have now is nonsensical and increasingly problematic, what we had prior to devolution was itself falling into disrepute and would be practically impossible to revert to. If not Federalism then what? Bumble along with the current mess?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,307

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    Federalism and Electoral Reform are related but separate. You've pretty accurately described what a Federal parliament would have in its authority - everything else devolved so that If Wales wants to do this and Scotland wants to do that then that is up to their respective electorates.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798
    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I would also like to see change and also don't know how.

    Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.

    Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
  • vikvik Posts: 445

    vik said:

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
    Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
    I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.

    England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,405
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,405
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    No, wait. Haven’t done Isle of Man of Isle of Wight either. Don’t feel a tremendous urge to amend this
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,634

    vik said:

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism would help a lot to keep the Scots happy & stop them from trying to leave.
    Federalism is the natural order for a state comprised of 4 distinct nations. Devolution has its problems in Scotland Wales and NI because it doesn't go far enough. But the biggest hole is the lack of representation for England.

    An English parliament is a massive constitutional issue. A lack of representation where the English pretend that England is Britain whilst bemoaning the cash and independence granted to the other nations.

    We fix that quite simply. 4 nations, four parliaments. Each nation can manage its own affairs as it sees fit with a federal parliament over the top to manage our coexistence, foreign policy, defence and part of the budget.

    For the people saying no, what is the preferred model? What we have now is nonsensical and increasingly problematic, what we had prior to devolution was itself falling into disrepute and would be practically impossible to revert to. If not Federalism then what? Bumble along with the current mess?
    Nobody mentioned the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy? I pop back into PB and here we are again (as well as our village Tory campaigning for Mr Johnson for PM) - it is as if I never had a break.

    Though, in all fairness, this is a good and serious issue. It might also be added that the question of the supremacy of the UK parliament in constitutional affairs is an important one. At the moment, Scotland and Wales only have devolution, which is instantly reversible by Prime Ministerial edict and the majority vote of a HoC which itself is mostly non-Scots. Federalism it ain't. It should be remembered that for centuries the separate Scots legal, educational and administrative systems were run solely from Whitehall till the development of administrative devolution started ca 1890s onwards.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798
    edited May 31
    vik said:

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
    Just restore proper powers to local government. A number of British historic counties have a population greater than NI, and a united Yorkshire would be on the same scale as Scotland.

    Lots of countries are federal with much smaller units of population, including some US States and Switzerland. Even the IOW has a bigger population than devolved regions like Nunavut or Greenland, and the Channel islands and Isle of Man manage their own affairs perfectly competently with small populations.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,634
    edited May 31
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    Wales doesn't exist?!

    I got 276 ...

    Edit: 285 actually!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,405
    edited May 31
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    Orkney and Shetland are both magnificent in different ways - you should go. Orkney for the megaliths and Kirkwall

    Shetland for the total wildness. Foula!!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798
    edited May 31
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    No, wait. Haven’t done Isle of Man of Isle of Wight either. Don’t feel a tremendous urge to amend this
    I am sure you would enjoy taking the scale of Ventnor with @IanB2
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,082
    kjh said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I would also like to see change and also don't know how.

    Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.

    Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you
    remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
    So there are more conservatives than others once you remove a large chunk of the non conservatives?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,634
    edited May 31
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    No, wait. Haven’t done Isle of Man of Isle of Wight either. Don’t feel a tremendous urge to amend this
    Mistake. The walk(s) along the south-west coast of Wight, past Tennyson's monument and house, are magnificent, as is the Needles fort (though the mouldering remains [edit] a little way away of a test site forming part of the UK space programme, and the dinosaur footprints and Cretaceous logjam on the beach further to the south beyond Freshwater Bay, may not appeal).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    Wales doesn't exist?!

    I got 276 ...
    All of Wales covered too.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,634
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    Orkney and Shetland are both magnificent in different ways - you should go. Orkney for the megaliths and Kirkwall

    Shetland for the total wildness. Foula!!
    Get a local boatman to take you across to Mousa for the day/morning/afternoon to see the complete-ish broch, and a circular walk around the island to see the seafowl and seals in the little lagoon.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,654
    Morning all :)

    You can tell politics is calming down when the Lords question comes out for a visit.

    I'm fairly ambivalent - it all depends what you want from an Upper Chamber and that in return relates to how you want the Lower Chamber to operate.

    There's a strong argument for a body to properly scrutinise legislation - we've had a lot of poorly constructed legislation in recent times and having somewhere where the faults in the legislation itself can be found and corrected is no bad thing but we have a Committee system in the Commons and the basic question then becomes why is such poor legislation being drafted and put before Parliament?

    If one chamber represents the will of the people (to a point under FPTP), having a second chamber of people who know what they're talking about is no bad thing. That would require a more flexible approach of bringing in experts (yes, we all "hate" experts, I'm told - I don't) to examine partiular pieces of legislation (a quality control exercise if you will) and ensure what is being promulgated a) works and b) doesn't contradict or clash with existing law.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    Orkney and Shetland are both magnificent in different ways - you should go. Orkney for the megaliths and Kirkwall

    Shetland for the total wildness. Foula!!
    I have been to Fair Isle by boat, so technically part of the Shetlands, but not really able to tick off mainland Orkney or Shetland. We sailed to the Faeroes after that, a pretty wild sea as the prevailing wind and sea off the beam. I loved the Faeroes and would happily go back.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I have lived in only London, Surrey and East Sussex (in the UK). Manchester if you count Uni and Suffolk if you count second homes. I was based in Cyprus for a few months.

    I have no idea exactly what places I have stayed in, visited, or passed through but I presume it is all of England and Wales, about half of Scotland and none of NI. A very large percentage of that will also be 'stayed in' if you count at least one sleep.

    My world travel is very much more limited focusing primarily on Western Europe with only a little further afield.

    I am amazed you have only hit 50% of the world. It shows what a challenge that is, particularly as Europe contributes a significant number of countries.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,508
    Phil said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I don’t disagree that the Lords is too large, but the idea that without the Labour peers the Lords would be a dynamic force for change is ... not entirely supported by historical evidence.
    I am not sure it's even a leftist bias (that's just the closest political way of describing it) its a group-think blob bias. This chamber has been stuffed over decades now with blob nodding dogs who are drenched in a code and a set of ticky boxes that were always suspect but are now becoming ugly, and they a powerful blocker not just to 'change' but to common sense. Yes the Lords was always a force for conservatism and somewhat resisted social change, but this is quite different. It has become parliament's arm of the blob, and that will have to be dealt with.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    62 for me, not bad for someone working full time in the UK for 35 years.

    I think larger countries need to be covered by State/Province/Oblast etc. I can't really claim to have seen Russia just by visiting St Petersberg and Moscow, nor Canada having only been to Toronto and Montreal.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,380
    edited May 31
    224 for me - north of Scotland, Western Isles, Isle of Man and Northern Ireland to do. I have no good excuses:


  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,044
    Well, that's a good start to Saturday! Seems I have been the victim of credit card details theft overnight. :disappointed:
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690
    edited May 31

    kjh said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I would also like to see change and also don't know how.

    Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.

    Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you
    remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
    So there are more conservatives than others once you remove a large chunk of the non conservatives?
    ????? What. Simply stating obvious facts.

    You don't know what those other are. So you aren't removing just non Conservatives. They will have political views. I can think of two immediately that were LD MPs just for example.

    It is a simple fact that there are approximately 100 more Conservative whipped Lords more than any other grouping and that they approximately equal all the other whipped groupings added together. A simple fact I quoted to negate the statement 'stuffed with left leaning statist peers'

    How on earth could you have an issue with that?

    In fairness to @Luckyguy1983 from his political perspective his view may well be that many of the Conservative whipped Lords may be left leaning which is a fair enough view, but it is bizaree you should challenge the 2 facts I stated.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798

    224 for me


    As a community, we do seem to neglect NI.

    It sounds beautiful and interesting if you catch the right weather, but I never seem to have cause to go.

    When I retire completely*, I am tempted to get a camper van and do an IanB2 with my hound and tour the rest of Britain and Europe. There is an incredible density of things to see.

    * it will be to the IoW, but I am likely to want to get away at times.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,478
    edited May 31
    Thanks for the article. My starting point is:
    No elected second chamber (unless it is a small element) as, whatever other countries do, in the UK we would see rival claims from both chambers to the same legitimacy which would cause both rows and get things stuck (see USA).

    There needs to be an element of political appointment but this should be limited much more than now.

    We manage to have a body which is respected to oversee judicial appointments, and it works pretty well. Such a commission would be one option.

    There needs to be more than just an applicant scrutiny process. Lots of people who would be good in the Lords would never apply, and lots of applicants should be disqualified simply because they want the job. It should mostly go to people who don't want it.

    Finally, I am in a minority of about one here, there should be a small hereditary element, to represent the Edmund Burke elements of political theory.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,798

    Phil said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I don’t disagree that the Lords is too large, but the idea that without the Labour peers the Lords would be a dynamic force for change is ... not entirely supported by historical evidence.
    I am not sure it's even a leftist bias (that's just the closest political way of describing it) its a group-think blob bias. This chamber has been stuffed over decades now with blob nodding dogs who are drenched in a code and a set of ticky boxes that were always suspect but are now becoming ugly, and they a powerful blocker not just to 'change' but to common sense. Yes the Lords was always a force for conservatism and somewhat resisted social change, but this is quite different. It has become parliament's arm of the blob, and that will have to be dealt with.
    We should have compulsory retirement from the Lords at age 80 (keeping titles if people are vain enough to want to) or if someone has not spoken or voted in a debate for over year without appropriate sicknote.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,405
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I have lived in only London, Surrey and East Sussex (in the UK). Manchester if you count Uni and Suffolk if you count second homes. I was based in Cyprus for a few months.

    I have no idea exactly what places I have stayed in, visited, or passed through but I presume it is all of England and Wales, about half of Scotland and none of NI. A very large percentage of that will also be 'stayed in' if you count at least one sleep.

    My world travel is very much more limited focusing primarily on Western Europe with only a little further afield.

    I am amazed you have only hit 50% of the world. It shows what a challenge that is, particularly as Europe contributes a significant number of countries.
    I’ve been all over the world and all 7 continents and almost every country I ever wanted to visit…

    The only big holes now are central and west Africa, Central America and parts of the Middle East - Saudi Iran etc

    But there are also about 60 micro states - mainly islands in the Caribbean and Polynesia and so on. So getting over 130 is really quite hard unless you dedicate yourself to it. Which some do!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,044
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    62 for me, not bad for someone working full time in the UK for 35 years.

    I think larger countries need to be covered by State/Province/Oblast etc. I can't really claim to have seen Russia just by visiting St Petersberg and Moscow, nor Canada having only been to Toronto and Montreal.
    211.

    Basically all coloured apart from NI, Caithness, Argyll, Ayrshire, Aberdeenshire, various Scots islands.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,841
    Experts are just as prone to bias politically or theoretically according to their discipline. Given that the various economic bodies can't remotely agree what the outlook is for the UK economy then surely 'i reckon' is no worse than 'i reckon' with a qualification, and much worse democratically than 'i reckon' with the votes.
    And which experts? For example - SAGE or alt SAGE? Mark Carney?
    Technocrats are always the worst option and a quick tweak of their terms of reference and they are just a veneer for ramming through draconian horse shit 'we all agree the proposed legislation for radioactive cornflakes will result in no suppertime radiological incidents'
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,578
    edited May 31
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,531
    Good morning everyone.

    Thank-you for an interesting header, on what is currently an important subject.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690
    edited May 31
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    You can tell politics is calming down when the Lords question comes out for a visit.

    I'm fairly ambivalent - it all depends what you want from an Upper Chamber and that in return relates to how you want the Lower Chamber to operate.

    There's a strong argument for a body to properly scrutinise legislation - we've had a lot of poorly constructed legislation in recent times and having somewhere where the faults in the legislation itself can be found and corrected is no bad thing but we have a Committee system in the Commons and the basic question then becomes why is such poor legislation being drafted and put before Parliament?

    If one chamber represents the will of the people (to a point under FPTP), having a second chamber of people who know what they're talking about is no bad thing. That would require a more flexible approach of bringing in experts (yes, we all "hate" experts, I'm told - I don't) to examine partiular pieces of legislation (a quality control exercise if you will) and ensure what is being promulgated a) works and b) doesn't contradict or clash with existing law.

    The committee systems is one of the best parts of our Parliament, having in recent years to be involved with it in a very minor way and it seems pretty non-political compared to the chamber. They actually seem to get on with stuff to get the right result rather than play party politics generally.

    Again in recent years I have had to get involved with the Limitations Act and sadly had to read it in detail. It is a can of worms. It reads like a compromise between two groups who fundamentally disagree with one another (and by the nature of it I don't think this is political). It is full of rules, with exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions and exceptions to exceptions to exceptions as if one group of people were trying to undo what another group of people have done and then the first group try and undo the second groups amendment, etc, etc. It is a hotch potch of compromises. Not a good advert for lawmaking.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,841

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 126
    I would have an upper chamber elected not from geographic areas but from individually declared interest groups. Interest groups broadly defined as whatever could attract support.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    Left-leaning statist peers? Stuffed with?

    Conservative 287
    Labour 212
    Crossbenchers 181
    LibDem 77
    Non-affiliated/independent 40
    Bishops 24
    DUP 6
    other groups <5 each

    It’s stuffed with Tories.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506
    vik said:

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism would help a lot to keep the Scots happy & stop them from trying to leave.
    Ha ha ha ha ha. The more devolution, often the stronger the arguments for independence. We’ve seen that with Scotland and Catalonia.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    vik said:

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
    Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
    The Highlands and Islands might agree to that.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,531
    edited May 31

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
    I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.

    OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.

    (Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here? I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I have lived in only London, Surrey and East Sussex (in the UK). Manchester if you count Uni and Suffolk if you count second homes. I was based in Cyprus for a few months.

    I have no idea exactly what places I have stayed in, visited, or passed through but I presume it is all of England and Wales, about half of Scotland and none of NI. A very large percentage of that will also be 'stayed in' if you count at least one sleep.

    My world travel is very much more limited focusing primarily on Western Europe with only a little further afield.

    I am amazed you have only hit 50% of the world. It shows what a challenge that is, particularly as Europe contributes a significant number of countries.
    I’ve been all over the world and all 7 continents and almost every country I ever wanted to visit…

    The only big holes now are central and west Africa, Central America and parts of the Middle East - Saudi Iran etc

    But there are also about 60 micro states - mainly islands in the Caribbean and Polynesia and so on. So getting over 130 is really quite hard unless you dedicate yourself to it. Which some do!
    Yep I guess if you remove the micro states your total percentage increases significantly which is more of the feel one gets with your travel. As we both said, it is quite a challenge.

    You ok with me doing that @StillWaters? I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting again do I?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690
    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
    I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.

    OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.

    (Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
    Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    Phil said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I don’t disagree that the Lords is too large, but the idea that without the Labour peers the Lords would be a dynamic force for change is ... not entirely supported by historical evidence.
    I am not sure it's even a leftist bias (that's just the closest political way of describing it) its a group-think blob bias. This chamber has been stuffed over decades now with blob nodding dogs who are drenched in a code and a set of ticky boxes that were always suspect but are now becoming ugly, and they a powerful blocker not just to 'change' but to common sense. Yes the Lords was always a force for conservatism and somewhat resisted social change, but this is quite different. It has become parliament's arm of the blob, and that will have to be dealt with.
    By the “blob”, do you mean people who think climate change is real, Liz Truss was a bad PM and that Ukraine never had bioweapon labs?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,487
    I agree with the header. The upper chamber should be stocked with people who are there for their subject matter expertise. The current HoL does not meet this spec and neither (in fact even less so) would an elected one.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,508
    ...
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I would also like to see change and also don't know how.

    Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.

    Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you
    remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
    So there are more conservatives than others once you remove a large chunk of the non conservatives?
    ????? What. Simply stating obvious facts.

    You don't know what those other are. So you aren't removing just non Conservatives. They will have political views. I can think of two immediately that were LD MPs just for example.

    It is a simple fact that there are approximately 100 more Conservative whipped Lords more than any other grouping and that they approximately equal all the other whipped groupings added together. A simple fact I quoted to negate the statement 'stuffed with left leaning statist peers'

    How on earth could you have an issue with that?

    In fairness to @Luckyguy1983 from his political perspective his view may well be that many of the Conservative whipped Lords may be left leaning which is a fair enough view, but it is bizaree you should challenge the 2 facts I stated.
    Yes, that is my view - it has happened despite the majority of peers being appointed by Tory Governments. Much like the woke takeover of other institutions.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,759
    FWIW I think we should look at the method of election to the Seanad Éireann where many of the senators (about 2/3 I think) are a elected from “vocational panels” ie a groupings of "interests and services" (professions or vocations) of which candidates are required to have "knowledge and practical experience".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,854
    House of Lords composed of the 100 closet living relatives of the bastards of Charles II

    To be known as The House of Bastards.

    Titles would run in reverse complexity

    5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard
    4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard
    3) The Right Honourable Bastard
    2) Right Bastard
    1) Bastard
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,531
    vik said:

    I want a Federal UK. Absolutely no place for a House of Cronies.

    Federalism would help a lot to keep the Scots happy & stop them from trying to leave.
    I'd say that Federalism is already in place in Scotland and Wales, with England (slowly) catching up to a point part-way along the spectrum; we will maybe get there by 2030 to the extent of Regional Mayors, which so far have been beneficial in a number of places.

    Changes of Scottish involvement in the Lords over the next few years may be interesting.

    SNP non-involvement in the Lords is entirely a deliberate decision by the SNP to punch themselves in the face.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 10,082
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I would also like to see change and also don't know how.

    Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.

    Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you
    remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
    So there are more conservatives than others once you remove a large chunk of the non conservatives?
    ????? What. Simply stating obvious facts.

    You don't know what those other are. So you aren't removing just non Conservatives. They will have political views. I can think of two immediately that were LD MPs just for example.

    It is a simple fact that there are approximately 100 more Conservative whipped Lords more than any other grouping and that they approximately equal all the other whipped groupings added together. A simple fact I quoted to negate the statement 'stuffed with left leaning statist peers'

    How on earth could you have an issue with that?

    In fairness to @Luckyguy1983 from his political perspective his view may well be
    that many of the Conservative whipped Lords may be left leaning which is a fair enough view, but it is bizaree you should challenge the 2 facts I stated.
    But by virtue of the fact that they are not conservatives the likelihood is they will be to the left of the Tories. There will be some Reform minded cross benchers I assume, but probably not a majority. Bishops - again an assumption - are likely left leaning as well.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,380
    @bondegezou

    In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.

    It's no different in practice in the Lords.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,405
    kjh said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
    I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.

    OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.

    (Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
    Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
    No this is wrong. I’ve done NI twice. It’s really lush in places

    And Belfast is quite a handsome if scarred city. In a striking location
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,508
    edited May 31
    kinabalu said:

    I agree with the header. The upper chamber should be stocked with people who are there for their subject matter expertise. The current HoL does not meet this spec and neither (in fact even less so) would an elected one.

    So you remove all democratic accountability of this body for its legislative actions, and its avowed 'expertise' makes its decisions unchallengable. So effectively you make the second chamber of our parliament another guango (or to please William Glenn, a quago).

    This despite the fact that the idea of a scientist or economist being a neutral, politically innocent computing machine who wears a white coat and does things with test tubes or graphs went out with char ladies and bowler hats - they all have a political agenda.

    Can you see how thinking a little deeper than surface level might reveal this to be a rather bad idea?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,405
    Speaking of travel Southern Europe is suffering some insane temps at the moment

    Alentejo - 40C - in late May. I think that’s a record

    The other day a friend offered me his beautiful house in Provence for a week of quiet knapping. Normally I’d jump at the chance - but he was offering a week in July

    And I thought… July? Provence? Hmmmmm
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690
    listening to the Kitchen Cabinet and there is a discussion on resting steak. One of the contributors said the resting steak has a lot of kinetic energy. I hope to god it hasn't. I would consider that uncooked and might moo.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,155

    House of Lords composed of the 100 closet living relatives of the bastards of Charles II

    To be known as The House of Bastards.

    Titles would run in reverse complexity

    5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard
    4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard
    3) The Right Honourable Bastard
    2) Right Bastard
    1) Bastard

    House of Lords composed of the 100 closet living relatives of the bastards of Charles II

    To be known as The House of Bastards.

    Titles would run in reverse complexity

    5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard
    4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard
    3) The Right Honourable Bastard
    2) Right Bastard
    1) Bastard

    Why do you want such a clear rival to the 'Commons'?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,531
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
    I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.

    OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.

    (Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
    Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
    No this is wrong. I’ve done NI twice. It’s really lush in places

    And Belfast is quite a handsome if scarred city. In a striking location
    450km wildcamping across the North Coast of Ireland, on a Brompton. Try it some time :smile:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5gZWJHP6Hk
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,155
    kjh said:

    listening to the Kitchen Cabinet and there is a discussion on resting steak. One of the contributors said the resting steak has a lot of kinetic energy. I hope to god it hasn't. I would consider that uncooked and might moo.

    It has. Anything hot does.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 27,531

    House of Lords composed of the 100 closet living relatives of the bastards of Charles II

    To be known as The House of Bastards.

    Titles would run in reverse complexity

    5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard
    4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard
    3) The Right Honourable Bastard
    2) Right Bastard
    1) Bastard

    That's quite tricky to go from "defintion" to "who is on the list".

    Here's one try, based on succession, but only about 30:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23272491

  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,405
    The Glenn Greenwald video is kinda tame. Yawn
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,966
    vik said:

    vik said:

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
    Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
    I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.

    England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
    I do like it though. It would need to be a written (yeah, I know) rule that if ever there was a conflict between the 'local' First Minister and British Prime Minister that the British Prime Minister had the final say.

    End of.

    Maybe we'd even get a British PM from NI at some point. I still think its terrible that we haven't/can't.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 30,973
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    You can tell politics is calming down when the Lords question comes out for a visit.

    I'm fairly ambivalent - it all depends what you want from an Upper Chamber and that in return relates to how you want the Lower Chamber to operate.

    There's a strong argument for a body to properly scrutinise legislation - we've had a lot of poorly constructed legislation in recent times and having somewhere where the faults in the legislation itself can be found and corrected is no bad thing but we have a Committee system in the Commons and the basic question then becomes why is such poor legislation being drafted and put before Parliament?

    If one chamber represents the will of the people (to a point under FPTP), having a second chamber of people who know what they're talking about is no bad thing. That would require a more flexible approach of bringing in experts (yes, we all "hate" experts, I'm told - I don't) to examine partiular pieces of legislation (a quality control exercise if you will) and ensure what is being promulgated a) works and b) doesn't contradict or clash with existing law.

    The trouble with the Lords as revising chamber is when it becomes heavily whipped along party lines, and when the government turns down any amendments as a matter of course.

    As our American friends are demonstrating, good chaps theory breaks down when the chaps in charge are not good.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).

    But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506
    edited May 31
    agingjb2 said:

    I would have an upper chamber elected not from geographic areas but from individually declared interest groups. Interest groups broadly defined as whatever could attract support.

    A bit like the Irish Seanad Éireann? Or indeed the old Soviets.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I would also like to see change and also don't know how.

    Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.

    Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you
    remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
    So there are more conservatives than others once you remove a large chunk of the non conservatives?
    ????? What. Simply stating obvious facts.

    You don't know what those other are. So you aren't removing just non Conservatives. They will have political views. I can think of two immediately that were LD MPs just for example.

    It is a simple fact that there are approximately 100 more Conservative whipped Lords more than any other grouping and that they approximately equal all the other whipped groupings added together. A simple fact I quoted to negate the statement 'stuffed with left leaning statist peers'

    How on earth could you have an issue with that?

    In fairness to @Luckyguy1983 from his political perspective his view may well be
    that many of the Conservative whipped Lords may be left leaning which is a fair enough view, but it is bizaree you should challenge the 2 facts I stated.
    But by virtue of the fact that they are not conservatives the likelihood is they will be to the left of the Tories. There will be some Reform minded cross benchers I assume, but probably not a majority. Bishops - again an assumption - are likely left leaning as well.
    First of all (even if correct) completely irrelevant to the statements I made which were both factually correct statements.

    I simply challenged 'stuffed with left leaning'. 'stuffed' has a real meaning and the evidence showed that to be wrong unless you consider the Conservative peers to be left leaning which @Luckyguy1983 might, which is a fair argument on his part.

    Secondly you jump to conclusions regarding the assumption that a crossbencher must be left of the Tories. I assume because you assume if they were Tories they would take the Tory whip. The Lords doesn't work like that. People with strong political views, including Tories sit as Crossbenchers. All ex-speakers of the Commons sit as crossbenchers, non political appointments do also, politicians sometimes change for reasons often when taking a non political role eg Lord Carlile. Many inherited peers do also. None of us know the makeup, but at a guess I would assume there are more Tories amongst them just because of history and appointments even if they don't sit as Tories. Crossbenchers don't take the whip because of their politics, they don't take it for other reasons.

    However regardless of the crossbenchers position my 2 statements were factually correct and negate the comment made.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    @bondegezou

    In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.

    It's no different in practice in the Lords.

    I think the crossbenchers can often be quite small-c conservative. Rather like many independents in local government!

    The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506
    kjh said:

    listening to the Kitchen Cabinet and there is a discussion on resting steak. One of the contributors said the resting steak has a lot of kinetic energy. I hope to god it hasn't. I would consider that uncooked and might moo.

    A resting steak is hot and heat is just kinetic energy of the molecules…?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    vik said:

    vik said:

    Do pro-federalists mean a PR-elected chamber with members from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? An English Parliament, greater devolved powers and the central Government reduced to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and some Treasury/Home Office functions? Or something else?

    I think that given England's lop-sided size compared to Scotland, Wales & NI, one would need to divide England into States or Provinces. Maybe 3 States of London, North England, South England ?
    Tearing England into bits is not something I could support. Scotland's twice the population of Wales. Should it be sliced in half?
    I was looking at it based on the disparity of England's population of 57 million vs Scotland's 5 million.

    England's large size would mean that an English devolved government would have way more power compared to Scotland & Wales. The English First Minister would be incredibly powerful & would start coming into conflict with the Prime Minister.
    I do like it though. It would need to be a written (yeah, I know) rule that if ever there was a conflict between the 'local' First Minister and British Prime Minister that the British Prime Minister had the final say.

    End of.

    Maybe we'd even get a British PM from NI at some point. I still think its terrible that we haven't/can't.
    We can, but we haven’t.

    But, yes, it’s like how the rise of the SNP has meant fewer Cabinet members ever represent Scottish constituencies.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690

    kjh said:

    listening to the Kitchen Cabinet and there is a discussion on resting steak. One of the contributors said the resting steak has a lot of kinetic energy. I hope to god it hasn't. I would consider that uncooked and might moo.

    It has. Anything hot does.
    Half mass times velocity squared. Cooked steaks don't tend to have velocity (OK someone is going to say they do when being delivered, but not when resting). Unless you are including the movement inside the steak, but then you could consider absolutely everything by going down to the atomic level. At the basic level they do not.

    I am simply referring to a whole steak and it was a joke.

    God the pedantry this morning. You and @StillWaters should get together.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,380

    @bondegezou

    In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.

    It's no different in practice in the Lords.

    I think the crossbenchers can often be quite small-c conservative. Rather like many independents in local government!

    The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
    And your point is an absurd one. They don't even make up 35% of the numbers.

    What we're seeing here is some confirmation bias: you believe the House of Lords is and must be an innately conservative institution so you're scratching around to try and make the evidence fit, which doesn't exist.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,380

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).

    But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
    Doesn't surprise me. Everything about you screams London.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690

    ...

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    The Lords has now become another part of the State that works against positive change - because it is stuffed with left-leaning statist peers (somehow after 14 years of Tory rule...), and there are just too many of them.

    Reform and the Tories may decide to do something about it when they get in - purely for political reasons, but that's why most things get done.

    I would decimate the numbers, let people keep their peerages and potentially their club rights but not their voting rights. How I would do this I'm not sure - I can't really think of a fair way.

    Thereafter I would make the appointment of peers correlate directly to proportion of the vote at a General Election, and for there to be a much-reduced volume.

    I would also like to see change and also don't know how.

    Not sure about the make up. I would like to see it pretty much non-political, but containing people with experience, but also it seems (in a democracy) for it to be elected, which might negate that aim. I'm not sure what benefit there is in making it proportional to the GE vote. Do you mean in proportion to the MPs elected, in which case what does that achieve, or to the vote which might be more representative, but skewed because MPs are elected on FPTP and therefore tactical voting occurs. There could of course be two votes at a GE where you vote for your constituency MP and a national vote for the Lords, but I hate list systems and that also works against Independents and Independent peers I think is a good idea.

    Also why on earth do you get the idea that the Lords is stuffed full of left leaning peers? I guess it depends where you consider the centre to be but there are nearly 100 more Conservative peers than any other group and as many as all the other parties added together (once you
    remove Crossbenchers, Bishops and unaffiliated).
    So there are more conservatives than others once you remove a large chunk of the non conservatives?
    ????? What. Simply stating obvious facts.

    You don't know what those other are. So you aren't removing just non Conservatives. They will have political views. I can think of two immediately that were LD MPs just for example.

    It is a simple fact that there are approximately 100 more Conservative whipped Lords more than any other grouping and that they approximately equal all the other whipped groupings added together. A simple fact I quoted to negate the statement 'stuffed with left leaning statist peers'

    How on earth could you have an issue with that?

    In fairness to @Luckyguy1983 from his political perspective his view may well be that many of the Conservative whipped Lords may be left leaning which is a fair enough view, but it is bizaree you should challenge the 2 facts I stated.
    Yes, that is my view - it has happened despite the majority of peers being appointed by Tory Governments. Much like the woke takeover of other institutions.
    Thanks @Luckyguy1983 . Bizarrely the only sensible reply I got was from you and you were the one I challenged. What a world PB has come.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,690

    kjh said:

    listening to the Kitchen Cabinet and there is a discussion on resting steak. One of the contributors said the resting steak has a lot of kinetic energy. I hope to god it hasn't. I would consider that uncooked and might moo.

    A resting steak is hot and heat is just kinetic energy of the molecules…?
    Agggghhhhh
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,840

    House of Lords composed of the 100 closet living relatives of the bastards of Charles II

    To be known as The House of Bastards.

    Titles would run in reverse complexity

    5) The Most Right Honourable And Noble Bastard
    4) The Most Right Honourable Bastard
    3) The Right Honourable Bastard
    2) Right Bastard
    1) Bastard

    I always chuckle to remember Denis Skinner being rebuked by the Speaker for calling an MP a creep, and substituting “honourable and learned creep.”
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    @bondegezou

    In the Commons those numbers would lead to a centre-left coalition.

    It's no different in practice in the Lords.

    I think the crossbenchers can often be quite small-c conservative. Rather like many independents in local government!

    The point is that, if there’s anything stuffing, it’s of Tories.
    And your point is an absurd one. They don't even make up 35% of the numbers.

    What we're seeing here is some confirmation bias: you believe the House of Lords is and must be an innately conservative institution so you're scratching around to try and make the evidence fit, which doesn't exist.
    You’re a brave man arguing that the Lords isn’t an innately conservative institution. Would you at least agree that it has been that historically? Famously so? And if you agree that, when did you think it changed?

    The Lords represents the establishment. The establishment is, by definition, conservative. The Lords is overwhelmingly old and upper/middle class.

    As for percentages, it’s 34% Tory, the largest block. That’s 10pp higher than their general election vote and double their current polling! That’s a massive bias in the Tories’ favour.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,506

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    I live 300 metres from where I grew up, and 400 metres from where my great-grandfather was born… although I have lived further away (3900 miles).

    But then I do live in London. We’re a very conservative place, people don’t move around much.
    Doesn't surprise me. Everything about you screams London.
    Success, fame, wealth, hedonistic lifestyle? It’s all true, I must admit it.
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 126

    agingjb2 said:

    I would have an upper chamber elected not from geographic areas but from individually declared interest groups. Interest groups broadly defined as whatever could attract support.

    A bit like the Irish Seanad Éireann? Or indeed the old Soviets.
    But I would enable every voter to declare their preferred group. Anything, parties if that is really what is wanted, charities, churches, unions, pressure groups; anything, even individuals.

    Then appointment from a list supplied by the group, proportional to numbers declaring.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,184
    edited May 31
    kjh said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    Fun map exercise posted earlier by Meeks (FOTP).

    https://smstone0.github.io/#/uk-map

    All the places in the UK you’ve lived, stayed, visited, stopped in or passed through.


    I score 246. All of England covered, no NI, and half of Scotland to go.
    My “lived in” is not very impressive: London, Devon, Cornwall, Herefordshire

    But I’ve “visited, stayed, stopped etc” in every single one of the others - apart from the southern outer Hebrides

    This is also fun

    https://been.app/

    An app where you can see how much of the world you’ve visited. I’m on exactly 50% in terms of countries. I’ve visited 99 of 198 UN territories
    I've never lived more than 7 miles away from where I was born. Not through any conscious decision, just how the jobs came along and the girls I fell in love with.
    Similar here. Aside from a brief job related move to Essex and Uni I've spent over 50 years in Norfolk, the vast bulk of which less than 10 miles from my hatching station. Not sure if a year of Dublin during the week and home at weekends counts as 'living' in Dublin though?
    I'm fairly high in England, just by dint of visiting all the CofE cathedrals except two (Truro, Exeter) in 6-7 weeks on a cathedral tour.

    OK in Scotland, and in Ireland, but like @Leon , never NI.

    (Aside: Have we had @leomckinstry here, I am offered him as a choice on the "Who is Leo?" popup.)
    Have none of us been to NI? Why? I remember @HYUFD did a tour.
    I have done Belfast --> Glens of Antrim --> Giants causeway, and thence to ROI: Limerick and Dublin and back to England. A nice round trip on the ferries. Would go again.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,487

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with the header. The upper chamber should be stocked with people who are there for their subject matter expertise. The current HoL does not meet this spec and neither (in fact even less so) would an elected one.

    So you remove all democratic accountability of this body for its legislative actions, and its avowed 'expertise' makes its decisions unchallengable. So effectively you make the second chamber of our parliament another guango (or to please William Glenn, a quago).

    This despite the fact that the idea of a scientist or economist being a neutral, politically innocent computing machine who wears a white coat and does things with test tubes or graphs went out with char ladies and bowler hats - they all have a political agenda.

    Can you see how thinking a little deeper than surface level might reveal this to be a rather bad idea?
    It's one of those bad ideas whose only saving grace is being better than the alternatives. I specialise in them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,871
    Morning all.
    Late I know, but I've been trying to sort out posting on a new (to me) website which to me seems excessively complicated, although it might have been the chap who was trying to advise me!

    I do think we've reached stage with the British Constitution where a revision of the House of Lords is necessary; it's noticeable that recently a few people seem to be being appointed for short-term posts ..... the Lady who has been appointed to represent Plaid Cymru for example.

    And on quite another point, some of us have moved quite a long way; I'm 200 miles from where one set of grandparents lived, and 50 miles from the others, and I 'made' my wife move 250 miles from her parents.
    Now one of my children lives 60 miles from us and the other 5000. And I've two grandchildren in Australia!
Sign In or Register to comment.