Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Re Mr. Cameron’s plan to appoint many more CON peers – the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Re Mr. Cameron’s plan to appoint many more CON peers – the vote split from GE15
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
Comments
On topic: the way the HoL is set up is not fit for purpose. Sadly, none of the alternatives (e.g. an elected house) is fir for purpose either.
Time for my idea: a house of experts!
(goes off to paint another wall).
"What's the feeling on the FT having been bought by Nikkei ?
Japanese bosses tend to look long term and be reasonably benign, in my experience."
Andrew Neil tweeted this about a lack of scrutiny over Japanese corporate accounting scandals
https://twitter.com/afneil/statuses/624930279694684160
"Five year of tireless work in the greenhouse by the Singapore Botanic Gardens has led to the propagation of an orchid to celebrate the illustrious visit of David Cameron, but it has all ended in a minor diplomatic disaster.
The beautiful orchid named Papilionanda David Cameron is less Tory blue and more Ukip purple, and might best be rechristened Papilionanda Nigel Farage."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/28/david-cameron-orchid-papilionanda-singapore-ukip-purple
Strangely, I had a dream about being appointed to the Lords and made Foreign Secretary last night.
Of course, they do say that orchids resemble a lady's nether-regions so perhaps Papilionanda Sewell might have been more appropriate?
Woodford vs the domesticated Nikkei journalist starts at minute 57
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/18728870
That would also have the happy result of slashing the bloated contingent of Lib Dems...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/28/stephen-gethins-snp-kylie-snp-referendum_n_7885200.html?1438083182
halfway down the article
There is really no reason whatsoever for a non-Federal state to have more than a single legislative chamber.
Everyone knows only 24% of the population voted Tory.
Either Committees should be abolished or the Lords should be abolished. I suspect the Committees work out far cheaper and probably have much better ability to call in "appropriate expertise".
Could you not do a thread or two on it? Perhaps we could have a constitution themed week, Salisbury-Addsion convention from Monday through Wednesday and then AV for the rest.
"Your will can be ignored, say judges
The landmark Court of Appeal ruling has implications for how people should draw up their wills, legal experts say"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11766651/Your-will-can-be-ignored-say-judges.html
You must be refering to the Lady's Slipper Orchid.
http://www.hippyshopper.com/lady.jpg
One parliamentarian who is particularly good at this I always think is Mr Vaz.
I don't think the Germans or Irish care much who their president is. Those president's can't do anything.
Cameron should appoint as many peers as necessary to get his programme through.
All you need to know.
Also, we would not be the United Kingdom without a monarch. Being the United Republic just sounds rubbish.
On the other hand, it is getting overstuffed again, it's full of semi-retired politicos, so is its particular worth being maximised in its current form?
Although moderately content then I could be persuaded to either a model where it was elected for some kind of federal system - the best, if forlorn, hope of keeping the UK together - or just going with a single chamber if full elections are to be implemented and the deliberative nature and subordination to the Commons lessened.
Perhaps I need to do more posts on electoral reform
Add whining doctors and lawyers to the 'due for major reform' list.
Named Person policy
Education "policies"
SNP "antics" in Westminster
Looming SNP landslide at Holyrood
SNP activists and the increasing religious feel of the support.
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need?
Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
Sorry, quite lost the plot there for a moment.
The HoL has done a reasonable job for about 700 years and no one has yet come up with a generally acceptable alternative which seems to me to be a good enough reason for keeping it as a check on the elected dictatorship provided by the Commons.
Cameron should appoint hundreds of new peers if people try and interfere with his programme for government. The bitter undead of the Lib Dems in the Lords can go fly.
Hmmm... whoever named that one was not too familiar with ladies.
Oh wait... it is the wrong way up!
Without replacement, they'll sort themselves out.
Then we can abolition the Lords spiritual, immediately reappointing the current batch and most replacements.
I'd say either you have a president with power, or no need for one at all. If you still want the head of state to be different than head of government, just rotate a random person to be head of state each year like chairmen of councils.
"Voted LAB"
"Did NOT vote LAB"
Anti-Labour bias by Mike!!!!
The judiciary is enforcing the will of Parliament.
There needs to be a much better argument for the Lords than "it's been there for years".
Which is precisely the way it should be.
I don't see any great constitutional right to be an evil and vindictive will-shaker.
Out of interest, GIRFEC could turn out to be one of the best pieces of legislation passed anywhere in the UK by any government in the last 50 years. Countries with a strong "hands on" approach to child development have significantly better outcomes than "hands off" states.
This is about the elected government of the day overcoming cynical petulant politics to get its manifesto programme through by Lords that are defying convention just because they hate Tories.
It costs money, therefore should be considered against the alternative of spending nothing. That leaves it up to those proposing to continue to spend the money to justify it.
The only justification anyone seems to be able to give is that it provides a "revising chamber" but it's ability to do this is very suspect when compared to the Committee Stage which offers far more scope for experts (more variety, wider pool, international options) than the Lords does and at a fraction of the cost.
Would you keep FPTP as our current electoral system, or would you opt for say AV or some form of PR?
The Named Person policy is illiberal statist nonsense. As best it can be described as a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, and that is if I'm inclined to be kind, which I'm not. It's a dog's dinner of a proposal and will not measurably make "vulnerable" children safer; many have claimed that it will have the direct opposite effect.
The Salisbury Convention (officially called the Salisbury Doctrine,[1] the Salisbury-Addison Convention or the Salisbury/Addison Convention) is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords will not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto.[2]
Following a landslide Labour general election victory in 1945, there were only 16 Labour peers in the House of Lords, led by Lord Addison. Throughout the 20th century, the second chamber had an in-built Conservative majority. However, it was believed that because Clement Attlee's Labour government had a clear mandate to deliver the policies of nationalisation and welfare state measures, the House of Lords should not oppose such legislation at second reading.
Lord Addison and Lord Salisbury (then Lord Cranborne), the Conservative leader in the House of Lords from 1942 to 1957, both with memories of the troubles leading to the passing of the Parliament Act 1911, agreed that anything promised in a party's manifesto would eventually pass; anything else would be subject to full debate. In its modern form, the convention still permits the offering of reasoned amendments to a motion for second reading of a Government bill, provided such amendments are not wrecking amendments designed to destroy the bill.
After the Labour general election victory in 2005, the Liberal Democrats indicated that they did not feel bound by the Salisbury Convention as a result of decreasing voter turnout, the low share of the vote received by the Government, and the changes to the composition of the House of Lords introduced in 1999 by the Labour Government.[3]
In 2006, Tony Blair appointed Lord Cunningham of Felling to chair a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to investigate possibilities of formalising numerous conventions including the Salisbury Convention.[4]
References[edit]
1. "Salisbury Doctrine". Parliament.uk. 2013. Retrieved 2013-02-14.
2. http://thoughtundermined.com/?p=37#
3. "House of Lords: conventions" (PDF). House of Commons Library. 2007. Retrieved 2013-02-14.
4. Lawrence, Jon (January 2007). "What is to be done with the second chamber?". History & Policy. Retrieved 9 December 2010
It seems to do a reasonable job of that.
What's the Named Person thingy?
Question: In my father's will I'm currently down to receive (not that I expect there to be anything much to receive beyond personal effects, the man has hit very hard times) double what my three siblings would individually receive - if that is not suitably justified, and I do not say if it is or not, would that be deemed unreasonable, or do provisions to set aside the wishes of the deceased only apply in cases of no consideration having been given to descendents?
My issue in this case is the woman provided reasons (if not a connection to those she did leave the money to, the charities), and the court seems to have said they weren't good enough, ie your crappy relationship with your middle aged child is not a reasonable reason, when I'd have thought, when adults are expected to support themselves (or be supproted by the state if they need help), that is an acceptable reason to do what you want with your money, ie not give it to someone.
The Lords serves a function in our parliamentary democracy, the alternative is not "spending nothing".
The Lords costs money, sure. So Part of the argument against it could be that alternative x is cheaper. But that isn't what is being proposed is it?
Still can't see any compelling argument to engage in a very costly exercise in reform for an outcome that isn't demonstrably better.
It would perhaps be nice to think that a theoretical dogma like "no state intervention" is best. But the reality of the world demonstrates time and time again that with child development it is a failed, broken system.
It seems to be a parent appointed by the state to supercede the biological parents. In every family.
A tartan Pohl-Pot sort of thing
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/background
Some concerned voices:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/police-scotland-criticise-snp-named-person-plans-1-3818002
http://no2np.org/snp-minister-comes-fire-ex-teachers-named-person-plans/
I would like to know more about the facts of this case because it does not seem to me - at least on the facts as reported - that there was any relationship at all, no care by the daughter, no provision by the mother during her lifetime of assistance to the family and, in the absence of some other facts, I don't see why a will drafted by someone of sound mind should be overturned.
I tend to dislike people - even hard up children in their fifties - who think that they ought to be entitled to their parents' money
What I want to know, and what so far nobody has been able or willing to answer is:
When the named person for my children phones me, what will happen when I tell them to bugger off?
My scottish friend is thinking about moving. What holds him back is that his youngest is 16 so in less than two years it is not an issue for him.
It seems highly significant to me that the court attributed the fault for the crappy relationship to the mother. I doubt a prodigal daughter who had had her mother tearing her hair out in distress at her antics would get the same indulgence.
I can't really comment on your own circumstances but let me give an example from my extended family which may be helpful. I know two sisters, A and B, whose mother is dead. Their stepfather is in his mid-80s and lives on his own. He has four children from another previous marriage. One of his own four children visits once in a blue moon but the others never come. Stepdaughter A visits as often as she can (she lives a long way away from him) and cooks him dinners for freezing and later eating whenever she visits. Stepdaughter B lives 10 minutes away and never visits.
Five out of six of the younger generation are expecting equal shares when he dies. However, I understand that he has secretly made a will leaving half of the money to A because he takes the view that she's the only one of the pack of them that actually gives a damn about him.
This is going to cause uproar when he eventually dies but I don't blame him at all. And I doubt a court would intervene in those circumstances.
I really think the time has come to abolish it and replace it with something useful like an English Parliament dealing with devolved matters.
When you also consider the long term outcomes in countries with VERY hands on state intervention in child development (the most obvious being those in Scandinavia) it is, as I said, potentially the most important and beneficial legislation in the UK in over 50 years.
Two of the worst laws seen on these shores in recent times.
The Lords would be better without the political appointees (i.e. working peers) and failed politicians elevated as a top up to their pension.
Is the attrition rate due to natural causes high enough to reduce it's overall size if we had a moratorium on new peers for the rest of this Parly after Cameron lobs in enough to get the balance even up?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/29/goodbye-london-moving-to-brighton-house-prices
I'm glad you are a true believer, perhaps you can answer my previous question?