As mentioned late on the last thread, the Lords' vote on individual voter registration will also affect things. Two matters (one finance, the other democratic) being voted down by the Lords on consecutive days will raise the heat substantially and make drastic action by the Conservatives seem more reasonable/acceptable/necessary.
IVR was a manifesto pledge. Deliberately voting it down would definitely turn up the heat on Lords reform.
As an aside, former MPs of whichever persuasion should not be ennobled. The HoL can do without their dirty habits.
Presumably the government could just use the Parliament Act to ram through IVR if the Lords reject it.
I don't know what argument there is against IVR, other than pure partisanship.
The argument is over bringing it forward a year.The Electoral Commission is among the bodies to call for that to be rejected since they say the process of transferring to individual registration has not yet proceeded far enough, so numerous people would be disenfranchised, with knock-on effects on the constituency boundaries (because if inner cities seem to have fewer people, they will get fewer seats).
Overriding the Electoral Commission by means of a secondary instrument is pretty cavalier, and I don't think bring the launch forward by a year was in fact in the manifesto. The Government can't use the Parliament Act precisely because it's a secondary instrument - the Act only works on primary legislation. It's karma, really.
Nick if you look here it says they are always planning to remove the people who hadn't transferred after the 2015 election:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the manifesto and timing etc. It strikes me just as plain daft to rush this and get the seat boundaries wrong. They may end up having to be radically redrawn in a few years time.
Still have my Mega Drive. Very occasionally I shifted from PS3 to PS2 (which can also play original PlayStation games). Worms Armageddon, despite being about two decades old, holds up surprisingly well.
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
Mr. Max, not an Anglican Party, perhaps. But an Islamist one?
The BNP are allowed to stand candidates, so why shouldn't 'Islamic unity' or whoever do so if they want to. Bradford West elected the odious Galloway on practically an islamist platform but turfed him out at the GE thankfully.
Is there specifically a ban on religous standing? I'm not religous myself but stopping people standing (Unless they are inciting violence) due to their beliefs is a slippery slope itself.
Two points: the BNP are not a religious party. So they are not comparable - on this ground anyway - with Islamic Unity or similar. But, second, it's not about banning. It's about whether it is desirable. And I think along with Mr Dancer, Mr Clipp (and I hope others) a view that political parties based on religious lines would be a very retrograde step and most undesirable. See, for instance, Northern Ireland. The last thing we need in this country is to embed the sorts of practices which Lutfur Rahman used in Tower Hamlets and which were first introduced in the late 19th century to stop Catholic priests telling their Irish Catholic parishioners how to vote.
I rather think it is impossible to define "religious party".
For example the Women's Equality Party believes in a series of dogmas, as do Socialists - and neither can be demonstrated purely rationally or numerically.
Meanwhile some religions have no Deity. And some Anglican priests have been explicitly atheist for 50-100 years.
And it is not exactly straightforward codifying concisely what either the Tories or the Lib Dems believe.
I would be happy either to enforce a maximum term of say 20 or 25 years (a long time!) or do what All Souls did when presented with a not dissimilar problem, and require you to be reaffirmed every 7 years, which would be little more than a rubberstamping if you regularly attended/contributed.
A gaming geek's dream! 'Game Over' cafe features 30 retro consoles and more than 400 titles
Retro gaming cafe 'Game Over' has opened in Old Portsmouth, Hampshire It features 30 consoles and computers with more than 400 playable games Owner Steve Lowe has spent the past 30 years building the collection
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Quite. I see no problem with having a large second chamber. The idea being there is a large pool of "talent" to draw from. True for the peers from industry etc., less so for the political appointments (which should cease IMO).
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Quite. I see no problem with having a large second chamber. The idea being there is a large pool of "talent" to draw from. True for the peers from industry etc., less so for the political appointments (which should cease IMO).
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
Mr. Max, not an Anglican Party, perhaps. But an Islamist one?
Two points: the BNP are not a religious party. So they are not comparable - on this ground anyway - with Islamic Unity or similar. But, second, it's not about banning. It's about whether it is desirable. And I think along with Mr Dancer, Mr Clipp (and I hope others) a view that political parties based on religious lines would be a very retrograde step and most undesirable. See, for instance, Northern Ireland. The last thing we need in this country is to embed the sorts of practices which Lutfur Rahman used in Tower Hamlets and which were first introduced in the late 19th century to stop Catholic priests telling their Irish Catholic parishioners how to vote.
I rather think it is impossible to define "religious party".
For example the Women's Equality Party believes in a series of dogmas, as do Socialists - and neither can be demonstrated purely rationally or numerically.
Meanwhile some religions have no Deity. And some Anglican priests have been explicitly atheist for 50-100 years.
And it is not exactly straightforward codifying concisely what either the Tories or the Lib Dems believe.
I'm tempted to say that this is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'd have thought that some belief in the divine, the sacred, the spiritual, the after-life is a key element of religion. And on that basis neither the WEP or the Socialists would pass the test. Nor the BNP for that matter.
But to be more prosaic, I think it is most undesirable from a number of perspectives to have political parties which represent people purely or mostly on the basis of their religion i.e. if you're Catholic you vote for X or if Muslim you vote for Y and those parties explicitly base their policies on what will appeal to those people based principally on their religion. So, for instance, an Islamist party which sought votes from Muslims and whose main programme was to implement sharia law and impose Islamic blasphemy law on all. Or a Catholic party which campaigned in favour of making abortion illegal.
I do not want a situation where individuals are seen as no more than the religion which they follow. I am not a "Catholic" voter. I am a voter who happens to be Catholic and the Cardinal of Westminster does not speak for me in matters political. I deplore the way in which some politicians view voters who are Muslim as "Muslim" voters as if that is the only characteristic which distinguishes them and the only matter which they must take account of. It is putting individuals into a mental ghetto.
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
Mr. Max, not an Anglican Party, perhaps. But an Islamist one?
The BNP are allowed to stand candidates, so why shouldn't 'Islamic unity' or whoever do so if they want to. Bradford West elected the odious Galloway on practically an islamist platform but turfed him out at the GE thankfully.
Is there specifically a ban on religous standing? I'm not religous myself but stopping people standing (Unless they are inciting violence) due to their beliefs is a slippery slope itself.
Not any more, although until about 15 years ago ordained ministers of the Church of England were forbidden from standing for Parliament itself and I think also some local offices.
Speaking as an Anglican though, I don't think it would be a good idea to start religious parties because (1) they are by their very nature pretty exclusive and (2) they tend on past experience to be very bad things because they generally end up with a very narrow focus chanelled through just that one world view. It becomes almost a siege mentality in consequence. One of the reasons the Conservative Party was so successful is that it ultimately proved willing, despite its strong links with Anglicanism, to reach out beyond it to a number of different denominations including the Presbyterians, Unitarians and even the Jews. Not only did it give them different constituencies to call on, but it gave them much broader views than the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types (without the Chamberlains, for example, the Conservative party would have been very different in the twentieth century, something that is far too often either forgotten or credited to Churchill and Bonar Law).
The most successful avowedly Church party in Europe would be the old Catholic Centre Party in Germany, who eventually came to see everything as a straightforward fight against Communism. Therefore they put a man who was officially at least a member of the Catholic church into power. His name was Adolf Hitler and it didn't end terribly well - indeed, one of its consequences was the murder of several million Catholics in the ultimate example of counter-productive politicking.
I'm tempted to say that this is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'd have thought that some belief in the divine, the sacred, the spiritual, the after-life is a key element of religion. And on that basis neither the WEP or the Socialists would pass the test. Nor the BNP for that matter.
Not necessarily. Taoism does not require any belief in any of those, but it is definitely a religion. Buddhist views on that are a little ill-defined, but generally it is accepted that if there were gods they died very long ago. Menawhile, the Communists definitely do believe in the supernatural, although they have some difficulty recognising it. Let us not forget that apparently Kim Jong Il could control the weather, Stalin was capable of knowing what all Russians thought before they said it, and Mao could think.
HMG has a ban on revolving doors between government and the private sector – I'd like to see similar restriction on MPs elevated to the HoL and a ban peerages for MPs, perhaps those who have served only one term or never reached ministerial level – Oh, and all speakers of the house…
HMG has a ban on revolving doors between government and the private sector – I'd like to see similar restriction on MPs elevated to the HoL and a ban peerages for MPs, perhaps those who have served only one term or never reached ministerial level – Oh, and all speakers of the house…
I don’t anyone disagrees that the HoL needs reform. The problem is how. Personally I’d be in favour of the LD scheme (well, I would be wouldn’t I) but TBH it does seem as good as anything else and probably better than most. 402 “members” each elected for one term of 15 years, with one-third (134) coming up every five years, Not at the same time as HoC elections, though. We’d have to elect all 402 first time round, unless it was decided to elect 134 at first and keep 268 of the present lot (drawn by lot from those under 75?), electing another 134 five years later and thanking 134 non-elected for their services. Constituencies based on the European Parliament ones. Elections by STV. None of this Party List rubbish.
Having a bunch of party placemen with no independent thinking is not what we want. Appointment by committee allows for cross benchers and other free thinkers.
Get rid of bishops, have 20 year terms and appointment by committee with 12.5% per cycle appointed on party lines and the remainder appointed for expertise as cross benchers. Keeps the politics mostly out of it and then no one can moan about under or over representation.
How many other countries have appointed legislatures? Sounds London-centric to me!
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
Another unelected body stuffed with jobsworths that the left thinks should supersede the sovereign right of the house of commons, now that they have lost the election.
HMG has a ban on revolving doors between government and the private sector – I'd like to see similar restriction on MPs elevated to the HoL and a ban peerages for MPs, perhaps those who have served only one term or never reached ministerial level – Oh, and all speakers of the house…
Indeed. The HoL should not be a rest home and source of never ending pocket money for many people who, quite frankly, should not be permitted further influence over politics in this country. Particularly those rejected at the ballot box.
I don’t anyone disagrees that the HoL needs reform. The problem is how. Personally I’d be in favour of the LD scheme (well, I would be wouldn’t I) but TBH it does seem as good as anything else and probably better than most. 402 “members” each elected for one term of 15 years, with one-third (134) coming up every five years, Not at the same time as HoC elections, though. We’d have to elect all 402 first time round, unless it was decided to elect 134 at first and keep 268 of the present lot (drawn by lot from those under 75?), electing another 134 five years later and thanking 134 non-elected for their services. Constituencies based on the European Parliament ones. Elections by STV. None of this Party List rubbish.
Having a bunch of party placemen with no independent thinking is not what we want. Appointment by committee allows for cross benchers and other free thinkers.
Get rid of bishops, have 20 year terms and appointment by committee with 12.5% per cycle appointed on party lines and the remainder appointed for expertise as cross benchers. Keeps the politics mostly out of it and then no one can moan about under or over representation.
How many other countries have appointed legislatures? Sounds London-centric to me!
Why London centric? I think we should put the upper house in Yorkshire. I think too much power is concentrated in London. Moving one of the major power centres out of London would be good for the country.
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Quite. I see no problem with having a large second chamber. The idea being there is a large pool of "talent" to draw from. True for the peers from industry etc., less so for the political appointments (which should cease IMO).
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Why should there be more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones?
While it would be a retrograde step to see parties emerging based on eg. religion, it would be dangerous indeed to try and somehow restrict them. Freedom of speech should be absolute in politics, we have progressed as a society when people don't see such pigeonholed categories as relevant to them.
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
That's the same commission that has been instructed to rig the boundaries for the Tories?
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Quite. I see no problem with having a large second chamber. The idea being there is a large pool of "talent" to draw from. True for the peers from industry etc., less so for the political appointments (which should cease IMO).
I don’t anyone disagrees that the HoL needs reform. The problem is how. Personally I’d be in favour of the LD scheme (well, I would be wouldn’t I) but TBH it does seem as good as anything else and probably better than most. 402 “members” each elected for one term of 15 years, with one-third (134) coming up every five years, Not at the same time as HoC elections, though. We’d have to elect all 402 first time round, unless it was decided to elect 134 at first and keep 268 of the present lot (drawn by lot from those under 75?), electing another 134 five years later and thanking 134 non-elected for their services. Constituencies based on the European Parliament ones. Elections by STV. None of this Party List rubbish.
Having a bunch of party placemen with no independent thinking is not what we want. Appointment by committee allows for cross benchers and other free thinkers.
Get rid of bishops, have 20 year terms and appointment by committee with 12.5% per cycle appointed on party lines and the remainder appointed for expertise as cross benchers. Keeps the politics mostly out of it and then no one can moan about under or over representation.
How many other countries have appointed legislatures? Sounds London-centric to me!
Why London centric? I think we should put the upper house in Yorkshire. I think too much power is concentrated in London. Moving one of the major power centres out of London would be good for the country.
Feel sorry for the Clerk, or whoever has to run the bill between houses during ping pong
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
That's the same commission that has been instructed to rig the boundaries for the Tories?
Unrig the boundaries so the no longer favour Labour.
I don’t anyone disagrees that the HoL needs reform. The problem is how. Personally I’d be in favour of the LD scheme (well, I would be wouldn’t I) but TBH it does seem as good as anything else and probably better than most. 402 “members” each elected for one term of 15 years, with one-third (134) coming up every five years, Not at the same time as HoC elections, though. We’d have to elect all 402 first time round, unless it was decided to elect 134 at first and keep 268 of the present lot (drawn by lot from those under 75?), electing another 134 five years later and thanking 134 non-elected for their services. Constituencies based on the European Parliament ones. Elections by STV. None of this Party List rubbish.
Having a bunch of party placemen with no independent thinking is not what we want. Appointment by committee allows for cross benchers and other free thinkers.
Get rid of bishops, have 20 year terms and appointment by committee with 12.5% per cycle appointed on party lines and the remainder appointed for expertise as cross benchers. Keeps the politics mostly out of it and then no one can moan about under or over representation.
How many other countries have appointed legislatures? Sounds London-centric to me!
Why London centric? I think we should put the upper house in Yorkshire. I think too much power is concentrated in London. Moving one of the major power centres out of London would be good for the country.
Feel sorry for the Clerk, or whoever has to run the bill between houses during ping pong
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
That's the same commission that has been instructed to rig the boundaries for the Tories?
Unrig the boundaries so the no longer favour Labour.
Yeah, I know. Just teasing the people who scream gerrymandering every time this subject comes up.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
Another unelected body stuffed with jobsworths that the left thinks should supersede the sovereign right of the house of commons, now that they have lost the election.
I had a look on their website and there is nothing to back up their opinion. They were supposed to be publishing an update in June but it is not on there.
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Why should there be more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones?
Why shouldn't there be? There are already far more unelected public servants than elected ones. Why should this particular facility be any different?
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
That's the same commission that has been instructed to rig the boundaries for the Tories?
Unrig the boundaries so the no longer favour Labour.
Yeah, I know. Just teasing the people who scream gerrymandering every time this subject comes up.
One thing to bear in mind - the Lords were (almost) all appointed by an elected Government.
Like the PM was appointed (in effect) by an elected House of Commons (as per Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Alec Douglas-Home, Neville Chamberlain, who were as legitimate as any other PM).
While the Lords are certainly not democratically legitimate, neither are they democratically illegitimate. A very British system, really.
You could argue that public opinion has changed since they were appointed, but then again, it changes between elections. Otherwise we'd never have any change. It's just more pronounced in terms of the Lords.
But does it need to be larger than the elected Lower House?
Is that relevant? Why should it be smaller, larger, exactly the same, or any specific size? Regardless of what is or is not done elsewhere, the fundamental question should be: Does it work?
So the answer, is no, it doesn't need to be larger?
If so, it's equally valid to say it doesn't need to be smaller.
Why should there be more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones?
Why shouldn't there be? There are already far more unelected public servants than elected ones. Why should this particular facility be any different?
I'm tempted to say that this is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'd have thought that some belief in the divine, the sacred, the spiritual, the after-life is a key element of religion. And on that basis neither the WEP or the Socialists would pass the test. Nor the BNP for that matter.
Not necessarily. Taoism does not require any belief in any of those, but it is definitely a religion. Buddhist views on that are a little ill-defined, but generally it is accepted that if there were gods they died very long ago. Menawhile, the Communists definitely do believe in the supernatural, although they have some difficulty recognising it. Let us not forget that apparently Kim Jong Il could control the weather, Stalin was capable of knowing what all Russians thought before they said it, and Mao could think.
Then the next problem you get into is whether the "problem" is actually "religion" or what people actually propose to do.
Is there a stronger argument for excluding religion than nationalism, or the parties of the Left (or Right) which believe in street violence and intimidation, even if they don't practice it at present - leaving aside movements such as Antifas which exist on the fringes.
Or what about appendages of Terrorist Organisations, such as Sinn Fein?
Was it actually acceptable for Harriet Harman to ban parties she defined as racist - which is what the BNP was targetted for?
Mr. Max, not an Anglican Party, perhaps. But an Islamist one?
The BNP are allowed to stand candidates, so why shouldn't 'Islamic unity' or whoever do so if they want to. Bradford West elected the odious Galloway on practically an islamist platform but turfed him out at the GE thankfully.
Is there specifically a ban on religous standing? I'm not religous myself but stopping people standing (Unless they are inciting violence) due to their beliefs is a slippery slope itself.
Not any more, although until about 15 years ago ordained ministers of the Church of England were forbidden from standing for Parliament itself and I think also some local offices.
Speaking as an Anglican though, I don't think it would be a good idea to start religious parties because (1) they are by their very nature pretty exclusive and (2) they tend on past experience to be very bad things because they generally end up with a very narrow focus chanelled through just that one world view. It becomes almost a siege mentality in consequence. One of the reasons the Conservative Party was so successful is that it ultimately proved willing, despite its strong links with Anglicanism, to reach out beyond it to a number of different denominations including the Presbyterians, Unitarians and even the Jews. Not only did it give them different constituencies to call on, but it gave them much broader views than the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types (without the Chamberlains, for example, the Conservative party would have been very different in the twentieth century, something that is far too often either forgotten or credited to Churchill and Bonar Law).
The most successful avowedly Church party in Europe would be the old Catholic Centre Party in Germany, who eventually came to see everything as a straightforward fight against Communism. Therefore they put a man who was officially at least a member of the Catholic church into power. His name was Adolf Hitler and it didn't end terribly well - indeed, one of its consequences was the murder of several million Catholics in the ultimate example of counter-productive politicking.
The Zentrum did not put Hitler into power - von Papen, who was the principal orchestrater behind the appointment by Hindenburg, had been expelled from the party after his betrayal of Bruening. For almost the entire Weimar period, the Zentrum was in coalition with the Social Democrats
Just had an offer through by e-mail... When the risk and marketing department collide:
Simply place a bet on the Capital One Cup this week and if it doesn't win, you'll get 20% of your stake back as a free bet up to £0!
Ha ha, you bad customer you. You must be PUNISHED for your winning ways!
Seriously, how many of us here get shut down or restricted to pennies by the high street bookies? Spending half my life abroad I generally use Betfair, although friends with accounts or close to shops can be useful. Do others here work the same way?
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
That's the same commission that has been instructed to rig the boundaries for the Tories?
Nah, that's the Boundary Commission (and I think it's a separate one for England, Scotland, Wales, and NI.) This commission is the one instructed to rig the electorate for the Tories (but who don't seem afraid to call them out in fact.)
Just had an offer through by e-mail... When the risk and marketing department collide:
Simply place a bet on the Capital One Cup this week and if it doesn't win, you'll get 20% of your stake back as a free bet up to £0!
Ha ha, you bad customer you. You must be PUNISHED for your winning ways!
Seriously, how many of us here get shut down or restricted to pennies by the high street bookies? Spending half my life abroad I generally use Betfair, although friends with accounts or close to shops can be useful. Do others here work the same way?
In the case of the bookies, they are raking so much in from FOBTs (high-stakes fruit machines on steroids) that they no longer need to risk taking bets. It is because FOBTs are limited to four a shop that betting shops proliferate in every high street: nothing to do with catering for hordes of political punters.
Rottenborough - but hang on a sec, all the people who are going to be removed from the register have been written to multiple times asking them to provide information.
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved -Have died - Were double registered (students) -Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen) -Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
That's not how the Electoral Commission see things.
That's the same commission that has been instructed to rig the boundaries for the Tories?
Nah, that's the Boundary Commission (and I think it's a separate one for England, Scotland, Wales, and NI.) This commission is the one instructed to rig the electorate for the Tories (but who don't seem afraid to call them out in fact.)
I was trying to be too clever.
On a serious note. I enjoyed listening to the debate in the Lords today!
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London. Not good anyway.
''But I think Government defeat looks like a 100% certainty!''
I wonder how much of this the voters will tolerate.
The public don't care in the least about the technicalities of voter registration. They don't mind the House of Lords getting stuck in so long as it doesn't completely take the piss. It's nowhere near that stage yet.
The question is not what the voters will tolerate but how soon the government loses patience with the Lords.
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London. Not good anyway.
The fact we have any sort of measurable rate of TB is shocking. It has been on the significant rise since 1990.
Just had an offer through by e-mail... When the risk and marketing department collide:
Simply place a bet on the Capital One Cup this week and if it doesn't win, you'll get 20% of your stake back as a free bet up to £0!
Ha ha, you bad customer you. You must be PUNISHED for your winning ways!
Seriously, how many of us here get shut down or restricted to pennies by the high street bookies? Spending half my life abroad I generally use Betfair, although friends with accounts or close to shops can be useful. Do others here work the same way?
Re IG, the sports part was rebranded 'extrabet' from about 2008 onwards I think... It was quite innovative, offering binary, fixed odds and spread betting earlier than anyone else... Closed down in 2011 I think... The financial spreads were a much better ROI for the shareholders even though the sports desk won a decent %... Spreadexians have more or less cloned the business I think
''A government which the public doesn't particularly like, being stopped from doing some of its most unpopular measures.''
That is a personal opinion and not a point. Why is this government, that got 25.5% of the total vote, less 'liked' than the Blair government of 2005, that got a smaller percentage???
I'm very surprised the Govt has just lost by less than yesterday - given that yesterday had the added aspect of being a financial measure.
Votes this close mean that the Govt will be able to get stuff through the Lords in about 18 to 24 months time through "normalish" levels of appointments / natural wastage.
House of Lords composition:
2011: Lab 243 Con 218
Today: Con 249 Lab 212
So Con has gone from 25 behind Lab to 37 in front of Lab in 4 years - a net movement of +62.
Another couple of years they should get another net +30.
''A government which the public doesn't particularly like, being stopped from doing some of its most unpopular measures.''
That is a personal opinion and not a point. Why is this government, that got 25.5% of the total vote, less 'liked' than the Blair government of 2005, that got a smaller percentage???
''A government which the public doesn't particularly like, being stopped from doing some of its most unpopular measures.''
That is a personal opinion and not a point. Why is this government, that got 25.5% of the total vote, less 'liked' than the Blair government of 2005, that got a smaller percentage???
The 2005 government was also unpopular, and the Lords also had the right to defeat them on things that weren't in the Labour manifesto (and they took advantage of that right often).
The current government's approval ratings have been negative ever since the election.
It's all down to the statutory instrument.Osborne's laziness led him to believe he could slip his statutory instrument through while no-one was watching.Yesterday,Baronness hurled his statutory instrument and pinned him to the wall-it was his statutory instrument,he chose it,so have some of it back,old son.If there is any abuse,it is Osborne's constitutional abuse of his statutory instrument.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
Can anyone confirm what happened? This vote is potentially far more important than the one on tax credits.
The Lords has REJECTED an LD motion to annul the Ministerial Order that the move to Individual Voter Registration must be COMPLETED by December 2015.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).
This vote today is potentially at least as significant as the defeat of the boundary changes in the last Parliament was. It may be worth a lot of seats to the Conservatives in 2020 all by itself.
Comments
Still have my Mega Drive. Very occasionally I shifted from PS3 to PS2 (which can also play original PlayStation games). Worms Armageddon, despite being about two decades old, holds up surprisingly well.
For example the Women's Equality Party believes in a series of dogmas, as do Socialists - and neither can be demonstrated purely rationally or numerically.
Meanwhile some religions have no Deity. And some Anglican priests have been explicitly atheist for 50-100 years.
And it is not exactly straightforward codifying concisely what either the Tories or the Lib Dems believe.
I would be happy either to enforce a maximum term of say 20 or 25 years (a long time!) or do what All Souls did when presented with a not dissimilar problem, and require you to be reaffirmed every 7 years, which would be little more than a rubberstamping if you regularly attended/contributed.
https://archive.org/details/internetarcade
And how many former MPs are there in the Lords, by Party?
It seems to me these people:
-Have moved
-Have died
- Were double registered (students)
-Are not eligible (not a UK/Commenwealth citizen)
-Don't exist (are fraudulent)
A few years back I lived in shared houses and we used to get the registration form round periodically and I'd often see names on there of people I'd never heard of who were housemates from long ago.
I moved in May and the new system is really simple and takes a max of 5 minutes. What is better is that not only did I get added to the register in RBWM but they automatically told the Vale of White Horse to de-register me there.
Bear in mind this process started last year, I don't see the benefit to stringing it out longer.
But to be more prosaic, I think it is most undesirable from a number of perspectives to have political parties which represent people purely or mostly on the basis of their religion i.e. if you're Catholic you vote for X or if Muslim you vote for Y and those parties explicitly base their policies on what will appeal to those people based principally on their religion. So, for instance, an Islamist party which sought votes from Muslims and whose main programme was to implement sharia law and impose Islamic blasphemy law on all. Or a Catholic party which campaigned in favour of making abortion illegal.
I do not want a situation where individuals are seen as no more than the religion which they follow. I am not a "Catholic" voter. I am a voter who happens to be Catholic and the Cardinal of Westminster does not speak for me in matters political. I deplore the way in which some politicians view voters who are Muslim as "Muslim" voters as if that is the only characteristic which distinguishes them and the only matter which they must take account of. It is putting individuals into a mental ghetto.
Speaking as an Anglican though, I don't think it would be a good idea to start religious parties because (1) they are by their very nature pretty exclusive and (2) they tend on past experience to be very bad things because they generally end up with a very narrow focus chanelled through just that one world view. It becomes almost a siege mentality in consequence. One of the reasons the Conservative Party was so successful is that it ultimately proved willing, despite its strong links with Anglicanism, to reach out beyond it to a number of different denominations including the Presbyterians, Unitarians and even the Jews. Not only did it give them different constituencies to call on, but it gave them much broader views than the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types (without the Chamberlains, for example, the Conservative party would have been very different in the twentieth century, something that is far too often either forgotten or credited to Churchill and Bonar Law).
The most successful avowedly Church party in Europe would be the old Catholic Centre Party in Germany, who eventually came to see everything as a straightforward fight against Communism. Therefore they put a man who was officially at least a member of the Catholic church into power. His name was Adolf Hitler and it didn't end terribly well - indeed, one of its consequences was the murder of several million Catholics in the ultimate example of counter-productive politicking.
HMG has a ban on revolving doors between government and the private sector – I'd like to see similar restriction on MPs elevated to the HoL and a ban peerages for MPs, perhaps those who have served only one term or never reached ministerial level – Oh, and all speakers of the house…
Another unelected body stuffed with jobsworths that the left thinks should supersede the sovereign right of the house of commons, now that they have lost the election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34650304
Not sure whether that favours the lords or the commons to be honest.
There are already far more unelected public servants than elected ones. Why should this particular facility be any different?
Simply place a bet on the Capital One Cup this week and if it doesn't win, you'll get 20% of your stake back as a free bet up to £0!
Is there a stronger argument for excluding religion than nationalism, or the parties of the Left (or Right) which believe in street violence and intimidation, even if they don't practice it at present - leaving aside movements such as Antifas which exist on the fringes.
Or what about appendages of Terrorist Organisations, such as Sinn Fein?
Was it actually acceptable for Harriet Harman to ban parties she defined as racist - which is what the BNP was targetted for?
'Tis a quagmire.
Seriously, how many of us here get shut down or restricted to pennies by the high street bookies? Spending half my life abroad I generally use Betfair, although friends with accounts or close to shops can be useful. Do others here work the same way?
A great example of how companies use "big data" to their advantage against their customers.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34550617
Average number of seats for an Upper House among the 79 nations with bicameral legislatures = 92.5
Average number of seats for a Lower House among the 79 nations with bicameral legislatures = 234.4
Disappointing, as she spelt it out to them more than once https://t.co/Gxq74VWqZI
Result in 15 mins.
But I think Government defeat looks like a 100% certainty!
On a serious note. I enjoyed listening to the debate in the Lords today!
I wonder how much of this the voters will tolerate.
Interesting comparisons but perhaps not quite "fair"? It's likely that some parts of Rwanda, Eritrea and Iraq have a higher incidence than some parts of London.
Not good anyway.
The question is not what the voters will tolerate but how soon the government loses patience with the Lords.
Still Con has no chance with Lab + LD combining. No chance at all.
Not good anyway.
The fact we have any sort of measurable rate of TB is shocking. It has been on the significant rise since 1990.
Govt LOSES 267 to 257.
Don't hold your breath for the huge public uprising.
I was wrong before - they are now voting on the fatal motion - as just amended.
Result in 15 mins.
193.9 seats average for Upper Houses
497.1 seats average for Lower Houses
If Govt loses it just means that names will not be automatically deleted from the Electoral Register.
New people still have to register individually etc.
That is a personal opinion and not a point. Why is this government, that got 25.5% of the total vote, less 'liked' than the Blair government of 2005, that got a smaller percentage???
Votes this close mean that the Govt will be able to get stuff through the Lords in about 18 to 24 months time through "normalish" levels of appointments / natural wastage.
House of Lords composition:
2011:
Lab 243
Con 218
Today:
Con 249
Lab 212
So Con has gone from 25 behind Lab to 37 in front of Lab in 4 years - a net movement of +62.
Another couple of years they should get another net +30.
LOL.
Well, calling 12 million people tory scum may have its risks.
We'll just have to wait and see.
The current government's approval ratings have been negative ever since the election.
Divided loyalties...
Govt WINS 257 to 246!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17.48
LORDS DEFEAT GOVERNMENT AGAIN
Oh dear
Govt side got 257 on both votes.
Opposition "lost" 21 votes - went from 267 to 246????
Astonishing.
Did some Lab / LD go home thinking there was only one vote?
Whatever happened it's a very high Govt score again - looks as if they delivered the same massive turnout as they did yesterday.
We'll get the details a bit later.
The Ministerial order therefore stands.
This means any old names still on the register relating to people who have not subsequently registered individually (everyone has received approx 9 letters over the last 2 years) will be DELETED from the register in December 2015.
The December 2015 register will then be used for the Boundary review.
It's MASSIVE. What just happened will have a direct impact on the boundaries and thus a direct impact on the result of the 2020 GE.
(Assuming boundary changes go through in 2018).