I'm glad you've raised this David. I'm a Conservative voter, but I think it's absolutely appalling the way my party colludes with the other two traditional parties to stitch up the Lords. There's a clear convention in place that new appointees to the Lords should be done in proportion to the share of the vote at the last election. UKIP got 13% in the last election and the Greens got 4%. Yet they are being excluded from the convention for no other reason than pure arbitrariness. And the politicians get away with it because the media is dominated by establishment Liberals, Tories and Labourites that don't like UKIP or the Greens upsetting the cosy consensus so never raise it as an issue.
I think UKIP appointments would be a very smart move for Cameron in the short and long term. Firstly, it would make the HoL seem more reasonable and would appease the eurosceptic wing of the tories to an extent. Most importantly it would still be an effective increase in the unofficial right-wing (at least compared to Corbyn/Farron) peer coalition to prevent his legislation getting held up or blocked.
"If, to avoid the introduction of flash-in-the-pan parties, we also introduce a 3% UK-wide threshold, or a 10% threshold for the regional parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, then..."
You seem to be begging the question. Why would we want to "avoid the introduction of flash-in-the-pan parties"? Where do you get the 3% and 10% thresholds from? You seem to be moving the goalposts before you've even started.
If there is a case for a reformed Upper House, allocation of seats could be done on a regional basis (as was proposed by the Coalition), without silly thresholds, with a third of the seats elected every 5 years. The initial House could be done with retrospective allocations according to the previous three elections, or with some sort of phasing-out of the old House.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
No surprise. The ECHR affords little protection to someone who isn't a security risk or an illegal immigrant.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
"If, to avoid the introduction of flash-in-the-pan parties, we also introduce a 3% UK-wide threshold, or a 10% threshold for the regional parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, then..."
You seem to be begging the question. Why would we want to "avoid the introduction of flash-in-the-pan parties"? Where do you get the 3% and 10% thresholds from? You seem to be moving the goalposts before you've even started.
If there is a case for a reformed Upper House, allocation of seats could be done on a regional basis (as was proposed by the Coalition), without silly thresholds, with a third of the seats elected every 5 years. The initial House could be done with retrospective allocations according to the previous three elections, or with some sort of phasing-out of the old House.
I am in favour of proper reform to the Lords, on a similar basis to that which you propose (though I'd have elections every three years rather than every five - 9 years is a long enough term to give a good degree of independence but they should be allowed to stand for re-election).
However, it's clear the government isn't going there so what I'm looking at is the Lords in its current state.
On that basis, I'm not so much 'moving the goalposts' as inventing them. Why? Because they're implicitly in place anyway, with 'smaller' parties all but excluded even though it's a moot point as to what Britain's third party currently is: the SNP, UKIP and Lib Dems all have a case depending on what criteria you choose.
I didn't want to go into the thinking behind the thresholds in the main article because it'd have devoted too much time to a detail but it's essentially the same as those applied to many parliaments the world over - that to deserve a voice in parliament, you need to represent a meaningful section of the electorate - combined with the legacy effect. Peers are appointed for life, subject to good behaviour and a few other simple requirements. I don't think it would be a good thing for several Referendum Party peers to still be kicking around on the basis of their 1997 result, long after their party was wound up.
I did toy with another rule, to require at least 3% in two of the three elections, but decided that the average alone would do the job: if a party scored 9% at their first go, that ought to be enough to count for something. The point about UKIP only appointing a third of their allocation this parliament (because of the rolling nature over several parliaments of both the average and peers' service), would also deal with that.
The regional threshold is simply to enable parties that only contest in one part of the UK a chance. The threshold's higher for the same fundamental reason: the party still needs to represent a meaningful part of the electorate. A minor party operating UK-wide still has a voice in the big debate; a minor party operating in only one region doesn't.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
26 Bishops.
IIRC, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are automatically appointed, along with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the rest by seniority.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
The HoL is a ridiculous institution which does not need more members from any party. The logic of this "convention" is absurd. The HoL is not democratic at all so why pretend it is?
I would much prefer a much beefed up Committee stage in the Commons with hearings and even relevant witnesses to scrutinise our legislation. The HoL does a pretty rotten job at that at the moment, as does the Commons.
The HoL does produce some interesting expert reports on various matters but again beefed up Committees of the Commons who could invite relevant experts to assist them could do the same.
I really can't think of any other useful purpose it serves other than as a consolation prize for those who have been rejected by the public or otherwise chosen to stand down from front line public life. So let them all keep their silly titles but shut the Institution down and replace it with an English only Parliament sitting 2 or 3 days a week dealing with devolved matters.
To David Cameron and George Osborne. Replacing the Lords with an elected senate is another way to detox the Tory brand. Go on, you know you want to!
And you know why the Tories and Labour - and the Lib Dems when it came to it - have never engaged fully in that process? Because it would upset too many senior members of their parties who they need for other purposes.
Cameron will have all on reducing the Commons by just 7.7%, never mind reducing the Lords by 90%+ (assuming some Lords would be re-elected as Senators).
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
People who failed to get elected get a permanent place in our legislature? No thanks.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
26 Bishops.
IIRC, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are automatically appointed, along with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the rest by seniority.
The Bishop of Winchester also gets in by right, and those of Sodor and Man, and Gibraltar, can't serve no matter how long they're in post due to their sees being outside the UK.
BTW just seen the whole of a test match ( bar the first hour). Quite astonishing. Played more at 2020 pace than the more sedate ODI with fast scoring, faster wickets, some truly brilliant fielding and a crowd that Roy Keen would have approved of for their partisanship.
Test Match cricket has evolved in a way that might frustrate some of the purists but, bloody hell, its exciting to watch.
Cameron will have all on reducing the Commons by just 7.7%, never mind reducing the Lords by 90%+ (assuming some Lords would be re-elected as Senators).
So don't bother with Commons reform. Reducing the number of elected Commons representatives is a bad thing.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
BTW just seen the whole of a test match ( bar the first hour). Quite astonishing. Played more at 2020 pace than the more sedate ODI with fast scoring, faster wickets, some truly brilliant fielding and a crowd that Roy Keen would have approved of for their partisanship.
Test Match cricket has evolved in a way that might frustrate some of the purists but, bloody hell, its exciting to watch.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
Most sensible would be to get rid of all the parasites, grasping greedy hangers on milking the public purse are hardly necessary.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
26 Bishops.
IIRC, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are automatically appointed, along with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the rest by seniority.
The Bishop of Winchester also gets in by right, and those of Sodor and Man, and Gibraltar, can't serve no matter how long they're in post due to their sees being outside the UK.
I always think of the middle one as being the Bishop of Sodom. It makes me smile in the same way as having an Archbishop Worlock, and a Cardinal Sin.
BTW just seen the whole of a test match ( bar the first hour). Quite astonishing. Played more at 2020 pace than the more sedate ODI with fast scoring, faster wickets, some truly brilliant fielding and a crowd that Roy Keen would have approved of for their partisanship.
Test Match cricket has evolved in a way that might frustrate some of the purists but, bloody hell, its exciting to watch.
Was it not like that when it began?
What Test Cricket? Even I am not old enough to answer that.
There is no doubt that the education in the shorter forms of the game is affecting test cricket now. Batsmen generally know how to attack but not so much about how to defend. Even openers want to play balls a foot outside off stump. As I say it is exciting to watch.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
26 Bishops.
IIRC, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are automatically appointed, along with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the rest by seniority.
The Bishop of Winchester also gets in by right, and those of Sodor and Man, and Gibraltar, can't serve no matter how long they're in post due to their sees being outside the UK.
I always think of the middle one as being the Bishop of Sodom. It makes me smile in the same way as having an Archbishop Worlock, and a Cardinal Sin.
To David Cameron and George Osborne. Replacing the Lords with an elected senate is another way to detox the Tory brand. Go on, you know you want to!
Mr 2-b-4 (a.k.a. Dr Planck) has got summinck right at last!
Time for an upper-chamber based upon PR. Cull the wastrels and [MODERATED] hanger-ons. Cronie Blair should do time for what he [in his Jockanese chippie-ness] has done to the ancient English constitution....
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
Yes I agree, but I believe the HoL needs reform, I don't believe that ukip has 34 people that have earned the right to sit there, in the same way I don't believe 26 bishops should.
Cameron will have all on reducing the Commons by just 7.7%, never mind reducing the Lords by 90%+ (assuming some Lords would be re-elected as Senators).
So don't bother with Commons reform. Reducing the number of elected Commons representatives is a bad thing.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
The only point where I'd agree with what I think you're implying is that if the size of the Commons is reduced, then so should the number of MPs who are members of the government.
Cameron will have all on reducing the Commons by just 7.7%, never mind reducing the Lords by 90%+ (assuming some Lords would be re-elected as Senators).
So don't bother with Commons reform. Reducing the number of elected Commons representatives is a bad thing.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
The only point where I'd agree with what I think you're implying is that if the size of the Commons is reduced, then so should the number of MPs who are members of the government.
Is there anything wrong with a larger legislature? Surely the pool of 'talent' (ahem) is bigger?
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
Yes I agree, but I believe the HoL needs reform, I don't believe that ukip has 34 people that have earned the right to sit there, in the same way I don't believe 26 bishops should.
Is the question whether 34 UKIP supporters have earned the right to sit in the Lords or whether UKIP (and, for that matter, any party), has the right to have its voice heard given its level of support?
The notion of a 'Lords of merit' is a modern one and not something that is necessarily universally accepted - hence the continual reference its composition in the context of election results.
From the BBC, Ed Balls has criticised Labour's business policy at the last election.. "What I didn't like was the language giving the impression that energy companies are the bad guys," http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33744200
He may be right that Labour's business policy lost them votes, but him saying that now won't help Labour.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
People who failed to get elected get a permanent place in our legislature? No thanks.
Abolish the HoL, it is way past its sell by date.
The HoL is a useful political garbage dump. The system requires a rectum.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
Largely because we are a very centralised state (especially in England).
A US citizen for example has more representation. An MP currently covers the work of a state representative, a state senator, a federal representative and a federal senator. Some also cover the role of the executive function as well.
I simply do not believe that one person can cover all the needs of 80,000+ citizens.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
Largely because we are a very centralised state (especially in England).
A US citizen for example has more representation. An MP currently covers the work of a state representative, a state senator, a federal representative and a federal senator. Some also cover the role of the executive function as well.
I simply do not believe that one person can cover all the needs of 80,000+ citizens.
Maybe we shouldn't view them as highly paid social workers then.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
Largely because we are a very centralised state (especially in England).
A US citizen for example has more representation. An MP currently covers the work of a state representative, a state senator, a federal representative and a federal senator. Some also cover the role of the executive function as well.
I simply do not believe that one person can cover all the needs of 80,000+ citizens.
Maybe we shouldn't view them as highly paid social workers then.
Reducing the commons does not address the question at all and makes that job of an MP still harder. At best a complete waste of time.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
Yes I agree, but I believe the HoL needs reform, I don't believe that ukip has 34 people that have earned the right to sit there, in the same way I don't believe 26 bishops should.
Is the question whether 34 UKIP supporters have earned the right to sit in the Lords or whether UKIP (and, for that matter, any party), has the right to have its voice heard given its level of support?
The notion of a 'Lords of merit' is a modern one and not something that is necessarily universally accepted - hence the continual reference its composition in the context of election results.
I accept your point but I mention HoL reform, if ukip are to be seen as being different I'd like us not to fill the lords with cronies and the undeserved.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
Largely because we are a very centralised state (especially in England).
A US citizen for example has more representation. An MP currently covers the work of a state representative, a state senator, a federal representative and a federal senator. Some also cover the role of the executive function as well.
I simply do not believe that one person can cover all the needs of 80,000+ citizens.
Maybe we shouldn't view them as highly paid social workers then.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
26 Bishops.
IIRC, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are automatically appointed, along with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the rest by seniority.
The Bishop of Winchester also gets in by right, and those of Sodor and Man, and Gibraltar, can't serve no matter how long they're in post due to their sees being outside the UK.
I always think of the middle one as being the Bishop of Sodom. It makes me smile in the same way as having an Archbishop Worlock, and a Cardinal Sin.
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The MPs that aren't in the executive. The ones that sit on committees etc.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
Largely because we are a very centralised state (especially in England).
A US citizen for example has more representation. An MP currently covers the work of a state representative, a state senator, a federal representative and a federal senator. Some also cover the role of the executive function as well.
I simply do not believe that one person can cover all the needs of 80,000+ citizens.
Maybe we shouldn't view them as highly paid social workers then.
Correct and Scottish MPs have nothing to do anyway. Corbynite is certainly exposing the leftie loony toons for what they are.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
26 Bishops.
IIRC, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are automatically appointed, along with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the rest by seniority.
The Bishop of Winchester also gets in by right, and those of Sodor and Man, and Gibraltar, can't serve no matter how long they're in post due to their sees being outside the UK.
I always think of the middle one as being the Bishop of Sodom. It makes me smile in the same way as having an Archbishop Worlock, and a Cardinal Sin.
To David Cameron and George Osborne. Replacing the Lords with an elected senate is another way to detox the Tory brand. Go on, you know you want to!
Mr 2-b-4 (a.k.a. Dr Planck) has got summinck right at last!
Time for an upper-chamber based upon PR. Cull the wastrels and [MODERATED] hanger-ons. Cronie Blair should do time for what he [in his Jockanese chippie-ness] has done to the ancient English constitution....
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
UKIP managed to find seventy or so candidates it was willing to put forward for the European parliament, 24 of which were elected, plus well over 500 more that it was willing to nominate for the Commons. Now I accept that there's a difference between a name as a paper candidate and a nomination that's near-100% guaranteed a place but still, there ought to be a few among that lot who'd be willing and able. Besides, as I hint at towards the end, it might not be sensible to appoint all 34 in one go: if the average remained the same over the next two parliaments then UKIP would have one batch all appointed at the same time and then nothing for fifteen years.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
People who failed to get elected get a permanent place in our legislature? No thanks.
Abolish the HoL, it is way past its sell by date.
The HoL is a useful political garbage dump. The system requires a rectum.
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The MPs that aren't in the executive. The ones that sit on committees etc.
That's not enough. There are perverse incentives at play. Where govt policy goes against the interest of a particular constituency, these interests cannot be represented if the MP just happens to be a minister. Unless of course that MP is willing to forfeit his or her career for it.
Do you know what criteria are used to make a bishop a Lord?
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
I'm an enthusiastic kipper, and notwithstanding the ridiculous point that Mr marquee makes I'd struggle to find 34 of us that have earned the right to the HoL. Of course that might easily apply to plenty others already there, but we're in favour of democracy and fairness, not just tribal point scoring.
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
26 Bishops.
IIRC, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are automatically appointed, along with the Bishops of London and Durham, and the rest by seniority.
The Bishop of Winchester also gets in by right, and those of Sodor and Man, and Gibraltar, can't serve no matter how long they're in post due to their sees being outside the UK.
I always think of the middle one as being the Bishop of Sodom. It makes me smile in the same way as having an Archbishop Worlock, and a Cardinal Sin.
Yes, it rumbled through about 50 miles to the north of me so it got quite exciting for a while, we know several people from Bantayan Island which got flattened. Its been quite an exciting few years what with the 7.2 earthquake the same year.
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The MPs that aren't in the executive. The ones that sit on committees etc.
That's not enough. There are perverse incentives at play. Where govt policy goes against the interest of a particular constituency, these interests cannot be represented if the MP just happens to be a minister. Unless of course that MP is willing to forfeit his or her career for it.
It's not hugely democratic.
If the constituents are aggrieved at their member's record, they can boot them out at the subsequent election.
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
As simple expedient would seem to be some sort of retirement age. We forcibly retire judges at 70, that would seem to be reasonable for their Lordships. We could pay them a small pension for "their service to a grateful nation" to sweeten the deal with the current incumbents.
Following last week's scandal where Lord Sewel had to stand down from the House of Lords because he was photographed wearing a bra which didn't fit. I was heartened to read this morning that David Cameron has appointed a bra minister to ensure that any male member of the H of L who wishes to wear a bra, will have a properly fitted bra in a choice of 5 colours.
I think the H of L is a joke and an affront to democracy and should be abolished.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
Isn't removing money from your account before the facts have been determined in court in effect imposing a punishment before the trial has taken place ? What happens if the revenue removing the money causes severe personal or professional embarrassment, such as if made by other people would amount to defamation, and then they were subsequently shown to be in error. What happens if they money they remove under the scheme forces the person into bankruptcy, and then they were shown to be in error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
As well as giving the House of Lords the benefit of a perspective supported by one in eight voters, increased UKIP representation in the Lords would give UKIP the opportunity to consider the practicalities of law-making closer up.
But could Nigel Farage bear to see another cohort of UKIP politicians with nominally higher standing than he has in the political process?
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The MPs that aren't in the executive. The ones that sit on committees etc.
That's not enough. There are perverse incentives at play. Where govt policy goes against the interest of a particular constituency, these interests cannot be represented if the MP just happens to be a minister. Unless of course that MP is willing to forfeit his or her career for it.
It's not hugely democratic.
If the constituents are aggrieved at their member's record, they can boot them out at the subsequent election.
But that doesn't work either in practice. Voters are not able to vote against the individual and in support of their preferred party. Or vice versa.
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The MPs that aren't in the executive. The ones that sit on committees etc.
That's not enough. There are perverse incentives at play. Where govt policy goes against the interest of a particular constituency, these interests cannot be represented if the MP just happens to be a minister. Unless of course that MP is willing to forfeit his or her career for it.
It's not hugely democratic.
If the constituents are aggrieved at their member's record, they can boot them out at the subsequent election.
But that doesn't work either in practice. Voters are not able to vote against the individual and in support of their preferred party. Or vice versa.
People can and do vote against individuals, even if it means they don't support the party they prefer. I think the current system is better than having an unelected executive, members of which you couldn't kick out at the ballot box (directly).
As well as giving the House of Lords the benefit of a perspective supported by one in eight voters, increased UKIP representation in the Lords would give UKIP the opportunity to consider the practicalities of law-making closer up.
But could Nigel Farage bear to see another cohort of UKIP politicians with nominally higher standing than he has in the political process?
He wouldn't accept a peerage? I suppose you can no longer be a Lord and an MEP at the same time.
The more you think about it, the more our system is completely nuts. How can an MP hold the executive to account when they are in the executive? It's utterly barmy.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
The MPs that aren't in the executive. The ones that sit on committees etc.
That's not enough. There are perverse incentives at play. Where govt policy goes against the interest of a particular constituency, these interests cannot be represented if the MP just happens to be a minister. Unless of course that MP is willing to forfeit his or her career for it.
It's not hugely democratic.
If the constituents are aggrieved at their member's record, they can boot them out at the subsequent election.
But that doesn't work either in practice. Voters are not able to vote against the individual and in support of their preferred party. Or vice versa.
People can and do vote against individuals, even if it means they don't support the party they prefer. I think the current system is better than having an unelected executive, members of which you couldn't kick out at the ballot box (directly).
The executive is entirely appointed already. I don't get any say who is CofE.
From the BBC, Ed Balls has criticised Labour's business policy at the last election.. "What I didn't like was the language giving the impression that energy companies are the bad guys," http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33744200
He may be right that Labour's business policy lost them votes, but him saying that now won't help Labour.
I suspect Ed Balls' diaries will tell us that he never believed antagonising business was a vote winner, but Ed Miliband and his hand-picked horror show of hangers-on were not for changing (partly just because it was Ed Balls raising the objection).
As well as giving the House of Lords the benefit of a perspective supported by one in eight voters, increased UKIP representation in the Lords would give UKIP the opportunity to consider the practicalities of law-making closer up.
But could Nigel Farage bear to see another cohort of UKIP politicians with nominally higher standing than he has in the political process?
He wouldn't accept a peerage? I suppose you can no longer be a Lord and an MEP at the same time.
Why does Britain need more members of its primary house of parliament than any other country outside China? Even after a reduction to 600, it would still be bigger than all bar Germany (IIRC).
Largely because we are a very centralised state (especially in England).
A US citizen for example has more representation. An MP currently covers the work of a state representative, a state senator, a federal representative and a federal senator. Some also cover the role of the executive function as well.
I simply do not believe that one person can cover all the needs of 80,000+ citizens.
Well said! Any one with any sense who has looked at the possibility of being elected to any government, local or Central (Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff or Stormont) moves hurriedly away from any political machine once the huge amount of work against the low level of payment comes to light. ( I speak from experience )
We do need change through out the UK and now may be the time to start considering it.
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
The Lords reforms could have been passed if the Lib Dems hadn't been looking for an excuse to drop them. The threatened Tory backbench vote to enable (much needed) longer discussion on the bill was hardly a dagger through its heart. It would of course have been mauled in both Commons and Lords but as you say, that would have been no bad thing.
I'm not sure we do need the hereditaries as such: those who have ability and a good track record can stand for election. My personal preference would be
- Replace the Lords with an elected Senate. - c150 elected members, elected in thirds by Open List Plus every three years, using the Euroconstituencies. - Powers to be those of the Lords pre-1948 (i.e. those of the 1911 Parliament Act). - Provision for the House to co-opt up to ten Life Members, with all the powers of any other member, for exceptional contribution to public life. Co-options to require a two-thirds vote in favour, with no more than three in any one three-year 'Senate parliament'. - Provision for Senate committees to co-opt external members, with voting rights, as necessary, subject to certain safeguards (e.g. externals forming no more than 50% of a committee, super-majority vote for their co-options etc.). - No Senator may serve as a minister, but any minister may address the Senate both in speeches and for questions.
But all this is for the future. The point of the leader is to consider things as they are now.
From the BBC, Ed Balls has criticised Labour's business policy at the last election.. "What I didn't like was the language giving the impression that energy companies are the bad guys," http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33744200
He may be right that Labour's business policy lost them votes, but him saying that now won't help Labour.
I suspect Ed Balls' diaries will tell us that he never believed antagonising business was a vote winner, but Ed Miliband and his hand-picked horror show of hangers-on were not for changing (partly just because it was Ed Balls raising the objection).
I think there's a decent chance of a full Ed Balls rehabilitation in the future. He's clever, folksy and a big, big hitter. His brutal loyalty to Brown made him a lot of enemies but he seemed to chill out under Ed's leadership.
I couldn't stand the Balls, Brown, McBride bunch when they were in power but McBride's book (which was excellent) got me to at least understand them (one of Brown's great skills was his ability to command outstanding loyalty from his inner circle) and since McBride's writing and insight has been first class.
Time spent away from office does wonders for popularity and Balls could win over new friends in a similar way. I think he will end up as a powerful Labour figure - perhaps even PM - one day.
We should not appoint any more ex politicians or those engaged in full time politics to the HoL and those politicians currently there should retire in ten years time. We should keep the cross-benchers and appoint more of those as they should be people who actually know about matters outside of party politics. No member of the HoL should be aged under 45 for reasons of accumulation of experience.
As the HoL is a revising and recommending chamber, such expertise is urgently required as that knowledge has rapidly diminished and is still diminishing in the HoC. We must not have a HoL that mirrors the HoC.
How long before this disgrace gets struck down under Article 6 ?
Simler J held that article 6 was inapplicable, on the basis of Strasbourg case law that the determination of a person's liability to pay tax is not a determination of their civil rights and obligations, and that, in any event, the taxpayer's ability to challenge a purported notice by way of judicial review would have cured any defects in the process (Rowe v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs[2015] EWHC 2293 (Admin), at [149]-[154]). A thoroughly outrageous scheme, but one which is seemingly immune from challenge under the ECHR, which offers notably weak protection of property rights.
error ?
Taxation is theft. Or so I'm told...
Its getting close to it with the 50,000 or so wrong demands sent out so far this year. Not to mention this sort of nonsense also in today's paper.
At least we can be thankful for small mercies, they are smaller wrong demands than they would have been under Miliband
I'll let you into a little secret. If there weren't any lefties, there wouldn't be any taxes either!
That might be a surprise to William Pitt the Younger, Tory Prime Minister that introduced Income Tax to pay for the Napoleonic wars.
A worthy cause. Now,why are they still being raised?
To go to war with France again?
That is Archie, my evermore rickety, near 15 year old wire-haired fox terrier. Been an absolutely superb companion. Going to be in bits when he finally departs...
We should not appoint any more ex politicians or those engaged in full time politics to the HoL and those politicians currently there should retire in ten years time. We should keep the cross-benchers and appoint more of those as they should be people who actually know about matters outside of party politics. No member of the HoL should be aged under 45 for reasons of accumulation of experience.
As the HoL is a revising and recommending chamber, such expertise is urgently required as that knowledge has rapidly diminished and is still diminishing in the HoC. We must not have a HoL that mirrors the HoC.
I may be mis-remembering, but didn't the LibDems have a series of encouraging by-election results earlier this year - right up to the point where they got squished under the voters' boots?
From the BBC, Ed Balls has criticised Labour's business policy at the last election.. "What I didn't like was the language giving the impression that energy companies are the bad guys," http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33744200
He may be right that Labour's business policy lost them votes, but him saying that now won't help Labour.
I suspect Ed Balls' diaries will tell us that he never believed antagonising business was a vote winner, but Ed Miliband and his hand-picked horror show of hangers-on were not for changing (partly just because it was Ed Balls raising the objection).
But it will help Yvette by showing the absurdity of electing a loony tune old style socialist which was surely his objective. His second objective was to make it loud and clear that he is finished with front line politics, that he plans to do something else and that she is her own woman. As a piece of politicking it is quite a classy effort.
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
The Lords reforms could have been passed if the Lib Dems hadn't been looking for an excuse to drop them. The threatened Tory backbench vote to enable (much needed) longer discussion on the bill was hardly a dagger through its heart. It would of course have been mauled in both Commons and Lords but as you say, that would have been no bad thing.
I'm not sure we do need the hereditaries as such: those who have ability and a good track record can stand for election. My personal preference would be
- Replace the Lords with an elected Senate. - c150 elected members, elected in thirds by Open List Plus every three years, using the Euroconstituencies. - Powers to be those of the Lords pre-1948 (i.e. those of the 1911 Parliament Act). - Provision for the House to co-opt up to ten Life Members, with all the powers of any other member, for exceptional contribution to public life. Co-options to require a two-thirds vote in favour, with no more than three in any one three-year 'Senate parliament'. - Provision for Senate committees to co-opt external members, with voting rights, as necessary, subject to certain safeguards (e.g. externals forming no more than 50% of a committee, super-majority vote for their co-options etc.). - No Senator may serve as a minister, but any minister may address the Senate both in speeches and for questions.
But all this is for the future. The point of the leader is to consider things as they are now.
I think if we are going to have a 2nd chamber then it should be a wholly elected and David's proposed approach makes sense. However, the minute we start having co-opts we start to erode its legitimacy.
I find it odd that the very same commentators who get their knickers in a twist about EVEL and the SNP, seem to have no problem with way over represented LibDem peers voting on legislation or English Bishops for UK laws !!
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
On an abstract level, yes. But not against Cameron-Osborne, who have clearly bested him for the past five years, even with hand-gestures and all. Just remember that horror show of a response he gave to the autumn statement a couple of years back. He really hasn't found a way to bat against this Tory bodyline bowling. Five years of the same would have done no good to either him or his party.
The HoL is a ridiculous institution which does not need more members from any party. The logic of this "convention" is absurd. The HoL is not democratic at all so why pretend it is?
I would much prefer a much beefed up Committee stage in the Commons with hearings and even relevant witnesses to scrutinise our legislation. The HoL does a pretty rotten job at that at the moment, as does the Commons.
The HoL does produce some interesting expert reports on various matters but again beefed up Committees of the Commons who could invite relevant experts to assist them could do the same.
I really can't think of any other useful purpose it serves other than as a consolation prize for those who have been rejected by the public or otherwise chosen to stand down from front line public life. So let them all keep their silly titles but shut the Institution down and replace it with an English only Parliament sitting 2 or 3 days a week dealing with devolved matters.
The Lords needs reform of that there is no doubt. But the idea it serves no useful function is ridiculous. I regularly inflicts defeats on the Government which then usually leads to the Government rethinking or adjusting legislation to improve it. In 2005/6 it defeated the Government over 60 times. That is before you start to take into account all the amendments that it tables which clean up ill thought legislation and which are then accepted without complaint by the Government.
The end result of all of this is far better, more balanced and considered legislation.
Personally I would remove party affiliation from the Lords entirely. Ban whipping, appoint on the basis of contribution that can be made to the Lords rather than as a reward or for party political purposes and bring in a mandatory retirement age of 70. Reduce the number of Lords by not replacing any retiring members until the number of Lords is down below a reasonable number- say 450 or 500.
Appointments should be taken away from party leaders and placed with an independent Lords panel which takes recommendations from the politicians and from the wider public but which is able to make final decisions without political interference.
We should not appoint any more ex politicians or those engaged in full time politics to the HoL and those politicians currently there should retire in ten years time. We should keep the cross-benchers and appoint more of those as they should be people who actually know about matters outside of party politics. No member of the HoL should be aged under 45 for reasons of accumulation of experience.
As the HoL is a revising and recommending chamber, such expertise is urgently required as that knowledge has rapidly diminished and is still diminishing in the HoC. We must not have a HoL that mirrors the HoC.
Looks like your views are almost exactly what mine were Financier.
The HoL is a ridiculous institution which does not need more members from any party. The logic of this "convention" is absurd. The HoL is not democratic at all so why pretend it is?
I would much prefer a much beefed up Committee stage in the Commons with hearings and even relevant witnesses to scrutinise our legislation. The HoL does a pretty rotten job at that at the moment, as does the Commons.
The HoL does produce some interesting expert reports on various matters but again beefed up Committees of the Commons who could invite relevant experts to assist them could do the same.
I really can't think of any other useful purpose it serves other than as a consolation prize for those who have been rejected by the public or otherwise chosen to stand down from front line public life. So let them all keep their silly titles but shut the Institution down and replace it with an English only Parliament sitting 2 or 3 days a week dealing with devolved matters.
The Lords needs reform of that there is no doubt. But the idea it serves no useful function is ridiculous. I regularly inflicts defeats on the Government which then usually leads to the Government rethinking or adjusting legislation to improve it. In 2005/6 it defeated the Government over 60 times. That is before you start to take into account all the amendments that it tables which clean up ill thought legislation and which are then accepted without complaint by the Government.
The end result of all of this is far better, more balanced and considered legislation.
Personally I would remove party affiliation from the Lords entirely. Ban whipping, appoint on the basis of contribution that can be made to the Lords rather than as a reward or for party political purposes and bring in a mandatory retirement age of 70. Reduce the number of Lords by not replacing any retiring members until the number of Lords is down below a reasonable number- say 450 or 500.
Appointments should be taken away from party leaders and placed with an independent Lords panel which takes recommendations from the politicians and from the wider public but which is able to make final decisions without political interference.
I think 70 is a bit young as a retiring age actually. There's a good argument that there should be more active participation from retired judges/civil servants/academics/businesspeople, who are only likely to be able to contribute after their main career is over. Plenty of people are intellectually acute into their 70s and beyond. I appreciate that your objective is to shrink the size of the place but I think I'd rather people were debarred for inactivity than for age alone.
We should not appoint any more ex politicians or those engaged in full time politics to the HoL and those politicians currently there should retire in ten years time. We should keep the cross-benchers and appoint more of those as they should be people who actually know about matters outside of party politics. No member of the HoL should be aged under 45 for reasons of accumulation of experience.
As the HoL is a revising and recommending chamber, such expertise is urgently required as that knowledge has rapidly diminished and is still diminishing in the HoC. We must not have a HoL that mirrors the HoC.
Looks like your views are almost exactly what mine were Financier.
And I would happily sign up to that manifesto too.
The HoL is a ridiculous institution which does not need more members from any party. The logic of this "convention" is absurd. The HoL is not democratic at all so why pretend it is?
I would much prefer a much beefed up Committee stage in the Commons with hearings and even relevant witnesses to scrutinise our legislation. The HoL does a pretty rotten job at that at the moment, as does the Commons.
The HoL does produce some interesting expert reports on various matters but again beefed up Committees of the Commons who could invite relevant experts to assist them could do the same.
I really can't think of any other useful purpose it serves other than as a consolation prize for those who have been rejected by the public or otherwise chosen to stand down from front line public life. So let them all keep their silly titles but shut the Institution down and replace it with an English only Parliament sitting 2 or 3 days a week dealing with devolved matters.
The Lords needs reform of that there is no doubt. But the idea it serves no useful function is ridiculous. I regularly inflicts defeats on the Government which then usually leads to the Government rethinking or adjusting legislation to improve it. In 2005/6 it defeated the Government over 60 times. That is before you start to take into account all the amendments that it tables which clean up ill thought legislation and which are then accepted without complaint by the Government.
The end result of all of this is far better, more balanced and considered legislation.
snip
Appointments should be taken away from party leaders and placed with an independent Lords panel which takes recommendations from the politicians and from the wider public but which is able to make final decisions without political interference.
I think 70 is a bit young as a retiring age actually. There's a good argument that there should be more active participation from retired judges/civil servants/academics/businesspeople, who are only likely to be able to contribute after their main career is over. Plenty of people are intellectually acute into their 70s and beyond. I appreciate that your objective is to shrink the size of the place but I think I'd rather people were debarred for inactivity than for age alone.
Mr. Mark, it's a shame dogs don't have better life expectancies.
On a selfish level, yes. But if dogs did live to say 40 or 50, then many people would be robbed of their companionship for much more of their lives - who aged say 60 would take on a new dog, knowing they would probably die before it did? The worry of the upheaval and finding it a new home would weigh too heavy.
No, as I know you have just suffered, we have to enjoy them (and it my case, unashamedly spoil them rotten) for that too brief time they are with us.
Comments
Trump – 31% (-)
Walker – 15% (17)
Bush – 10% (10)
Jindal – 7% (-)
Cruz – 6% (6)
Huckabee – 6% (8)
Carson – 5% (12)
Kasich – 5% (-)
Fiorina – 4% (5)
Rubio – 3% (13)
Santorum – 3% (6)
Perry – 2% (-)
Graham – 1% (-)
Christie – * (-)
Pataki – * (-)
Paul – * (4)
Undecided – 0% (15
http://www.oann.com/trump-has-big-lead-in-iowa/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11776226/HMRC-given-go-ahead-to-demand-7.1bn-from-taxpayers-before-they-have-chance-to-appeal.html
You seem to be begging the question. Why would we want to "avoid the introduction of flash-in-the-pan parties"? Where do you get the 3% and 10% thresholds from? You seem to be moving the goalposts before you've even started.
If there is a case for a reformed Upper House, allocation of seats could be done on a regional basis (as was proposed by the Coalition), without silly thresholds, with a third of the seats elected every 5 years. The initial House could be done with retrospective allocations according to the previous three elections, or with some sort of phasing-out of the old House.
"only the top 10 finishers in an average of the five most recent national polls will appear on the main stage during the primetime debate.
"Fox will not announce who those 10 candidates will be until this coming Tuesday, August 4."
Failing that, try the local crack house, and look for someone in an orange bra...
Where are UKIP going to find 34 people who wouldn't provide spectacular embarrassment to the Other Place?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/raf-bomber-command/11776979/Bomber-Command-Memorial-fundraiser-faces-loss-of-home-after-taxman-keeps-40000-he-paid-in-error.html
At least we can be thankful for small mercies, they are smaller wrong demands than they would have been under Miliband
I'm curious to hear how many bishops are lords, I doubt 4m people go to church every week.
However, it's clear the government isn't going there so what I'm looking at is the Lords in its current state.
On that basis, I'm not so much 'moving the goalposts' as inventing them. Why? Because they're implicitly in place anyway, with 'smaller' parties all but excluded even though it's a moot point as to what Britain's third party currently is: the SNP, UKIP and Lib Dems all have a case depending on what criteria you choose.
I didn't want to go into the thinking behind the thresholds in the main article because it'd have devoted too much time to a detail but it's essentially the same as those applied to many parliaments the world over - that to deserve a voice in parliament, you need to represent a meaningful section of the electorate - combined with the legacy effect. Peers are appointed for life, subject to good behaviour and a few other simple requirements. I don't think it would be a good thing for several Referendum Party peers to still be kicking around on the basis of their 1997 result, long after their party was wound up.
I did toy with another rule, to require at least 3% in two of the three elections, but decided that the average alone would do the job: if a party scored 9% at their first go, that ought to be enough to count for something. The point about UKIP only appointing a third of their allocation this parliament (because of the rolling nature over several parliaments of both the average and peers' service), would also deal with that.
The regional threshold is simply to enable parties that only contest in one part of the UK a chance. The threshold's higher for the same fundamental reason: the party still needs to represent a meaningful part of the electorate. A minor party operating UK-wide still has a voice in the big debate; a minor party operating in only one region doesn't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4875502.stm
I've never thought about it.
And do we have Lords of other faith appointed in the same way?
Re Kipper Lords, I think appointing 8 or so over the next few years is a good middle way and allows the Party to have a good look at their candidates/mitigate chances of becoming the next Lord Sewel.
More sensible would be to appoint a third of their overall quota this time, with the expectation of building up to two-thirds in the next parliament and their full amount in the one after. On top of their current three would mean finding only another nine or ten at the moment. Even UKIP should be able to do that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_aa0eaTZ0s
:nothing-to-see-here-move-along:
I would much prefer a much beefed up Committee stage in the Commons with hearings and even relevant witnesses to scrutinise our legislation. The HoL does a pretty rotten job at that at the moment, as does the Commons.
The HoL does produce some interesting expert reports on various matters but again beefed up Committees of the Commons who could invite relevant experts to assist them could do the same.
I really can't think of any other useful purpose it serves other than as a consolation prize for those who have been rejected by the public or otherwise chosen to stand down from front line public life. So let them all keep their silly titles but shut the Institution down and replace it with an English only Parliament sitting 2 or 3 days a week dealing with devolved matters.
Cameron will have all on reducing the Commons by just 7.7%, never mind reducing the Lords by 90%+ (assuming some Lords would be re-elected as Senators).
Abolish the HoL, it is way past its sell by date.
Test Match cricket has evolved in a way that might frustrate some of the purists but, bloody hell, its exciting to watch.
There is no doubt that the education in the shorter forms of the game is affecting test cricket now. Batsmen generally know how to attack but not so much about how to defend. Even openers want to play balls a foot outside off stump. As I say it is exciting to watch.
Ha!
Time for an upper-chamber based upon PR. Cull the wastrels and [MODERATED] hanger-ons. Cronie Blair should do time for what he [in his Jockanese chippie-ness] has done to the ancient English constitution....
The only point where I'd agree with what I think you're implying is that if the size of the Commons is reduced, then so should the number of MPs who are members of the government.
Begin the conspiracy theories!
The notion of a 'Lords of merit' is a modern one and not something that is necessarily universally accepted - hence the continual reference its composition in the context of election results.
He may be right that Labour's business policy lost them votes, but him saying that now won't help Labour.
A US citizen for example has more representation. An MP currently covers the work of a state representative, a state senator, a federal representative and a federal senator. Some also cover the role of the executive function as well.
I simply do not believe that one person can cover all the needs of 80,000+ citizens.
We need a proper separation of powers. Lords reform might be a baby step towards that.
It's not hugely democratic.
The Lords could've been reformed last time if Clegg's proposals hadn't been so demented. Some means to retain the hereditaries (now few in numbers) and ensure that those who might not seek elected office but have expertise in scientific and military matters can still find their way to the Lords is needed.
I think the H of L is a joke and an affront to democracy and should be abolished.
But could Nigel Farage bear to see another cohort of UKIP politicians with nominally higher standing than he has in the political process?
We do need change through out the UK and now may be the time to start considering it.
"Charter2015" anyone?
I'm not sure we do need the hereditaries as such: those who have ability and a good track record can stand for election. My personal preference would be
- Replace the Lords with an elected Senate.
- c150 elected members, elected in thirds by Open List Plus every three years, using the Euroconstituencies.
- Powers to be those of the Lords pre-1948 (i.e. those of the 1911 Parliament Act).
- Provision for the House to co-opt up to ten Life Members, with all the powers of any other member, for exceptional contribution to public life. Co-options to require a two-thirds vote in favour, with no more than three in any one three-year 'Senate parliament'.
- Provision for Senate committees to co-opt external members, with voting rights, as necessary, subject to certain safeguards (e.g. externals forming no more than 50% of a committee, super-majority vote for their co-options etc.).
- No Senator may serve as a minister, but any minister may address the Senate both in speeches and for questions.
But all this is for the future. The point of the leader is to consider things as they are now.
I couldn't stand the Balls, Brown, McBride bunch when they were in power but McBride's book (which was excellent) got me to at least understand them (one of Brown's great skills was his ability to command outstanding loyalty from his inner circle) and since McBride's writing and insight has been first class.
Time spent away from office does wonders for popularity and Balls could win over new friends in a similar way. I think he will end up as a powerful Labour figure - perhaps even PM - one day.
As the HoL is a revising and recommending chamber, such expertise is urgently required as that knowledge has rapidly diminished and is still diminishing in the HoC. We must not have a HoL that mirrors the HoC.
Balls would have made so much a better leader than any of the current candidates.
I find it odd that the very same commentators who get their knickers in a twist about EVEL and the SNP, seem to have no problem with way over represented LibDem peers voting on legislation or English Bishops for UK laws !!
#CorbynSurge for #Labourleadership
CLP Final nominations:
Corbyn 152
Burnham 111
Cooper 106
Kendall 18
Via @paulwaugh
The end result of all of this is far better, more balanced and considered legislation.
Personally I would remove party affiliation from the Lords entirely. Ban whipping, appoint on the basis of contribution that can be made to the Lords rather than as a reward or for party political purposes and bring in a mandatory retirement age of 70. Reduce the number of Lords by not replacing any retiring members until the number of Lords is down below a reasonable number- say 450 or 500.
Appointments should be taken away from party leaders and placed with an independent Lords panel which takes recommendations from the politicians and from the wider public but which is able to make final decisions without political interference.
Don't want to encourage those with little to add to vote for the sake of it for a turn-up fee.
No, as I know you have just suffered, we have to enjoy them (and it my case, unashamedly spoil them rotten) for that too brief time they are with us.