politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BMG finds 63% now want an elected House of Lords – up 15 point

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BMG finds 63% now want an elected House of Lords – up 15 points on two years ago

Maybe its down to the Brexit-induced greater focus on constitutional affairs but support for overhauling the second chamber has soared over the past two years – from 48% backing partly- or fully-elected upper house in 2015, to 63% now, according to polling by BMG Research commissioned by the Electoral Reform Society.

Read the full story here

Scrapheap_as_was

He's one of our own.

TheScreamingEagles

Yup, a wholly directly elected upper House/Senate is what we need.

HYUFD

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Toms

You guys have clout, clearly. I get no respect from WordPress, apparently.
I tried once to recommend Trump for an entry in Berk's Peerage.

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

He's one of our own.

Sorry to hear about your lifetime ban from Spurs.

Tottenham hand lifetime bans to two fans in West Ham urine video

AlastairMeeks

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Slackbladder

Surely the more important thing is sorting out the respective powers of each house first, rather than working out how they're appointed??

What does the Lords do, and what powers should it have to make our systems work well?

anothernick

History tells us that House of Lords reform only happens when there is a big Labour majority in the Commons. There have been two major changes to the HoL in the modern era - the Parliament Act 1949 and the House of Lords Act 1999 - both passed by Labour Governments with landslide majorities.

We now have a hung Commons and the weakest government since the 1920s. Lords reform is completely unrealistic in current political circumstances.

logical_song

Slackbladder said:

Surely the more important thing is sorting out the respective powers of each house first, rather than working out how they're appointed??

What does the Lords do, and what powers should it have to make our systems work well?

Aren't the respective powers well known?
Or are you suggesting that they change.

logical_song

HYUFD said:

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Would that be a bad thing? - genuine question.
The Lords should be elected for a longer timescale, we could do with more longer term thinking.

philiph

anothernick said:

History tells us that House of Lords reform only happens when there is a big Labour majority in the Commons. There have been two major changes to the HoL in the modern era - the Parliament Act 1949 and the House of Lords Act 1999 - both passed by Labour Governments with landslide majorities.

We now have a hung Commons and the weakest government since the 1920s. Lords reform is completely unrealistic in current political circumstances.

The 1999 act has only managed to increase patronage at the expense of the hereditary element.

I'm not convinced that patronage is either superior or preferable to anything.

philiph

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Would that be a bad thing? - genuine question.
The Lords should be elected for a longer timescale, we could do with more longer term thinking.

I know I'm in a minority, but the Nick Clegg single 15 year terms (i.e. no consecutive re election), electing one third every 5 years has a lot of merit, if it is allied to a recall procedure for failure to attend or for outrageous behaviour. Recall should not be because I disagree politically with the incumbent.

DavidL

I'm with the 27% on this one. I really don't see the need. Obviously the Commons would have to be a bit more vigorous in their examination of legislation, possibly drawing on external expertise and evidence in the way the Scots Parliament does, but that is not a bad thing.

TheScreamingEagles

We're all agreed, elections to the Lords to be conducted AV.

eristdoof

HYUFD said:

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Germany does not have a directly elected upper house. The Bundesrat is made up of 16 representatives one from each state. The strength of each state's vote is weighted between 3 and 6 "votes" according to size. The government of each state decides how this representative will vote on the day.

So when Max Mustermann is voting in state elections for Baden-Würtemburg he is also indirectly voting for the Bundesrat.

RobD

No option for fully hereditary?

I'm with @DavidL... no need for two elected chambers.

HYUFD

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Germany does not have a directly elected upper house. The Bundesrat is made up of 16 representatives one from each state. The strength of each state's vote is weighted between 3 and 6 "votes" according to size. The government of each state decides how this representative will vote on the day.

So when Max Mustermann is voting in state elections for Baden-Würtemburg he is also indirectly voting for the Bundesrat.

The Bundesrat effectively reflects the results of each state election in Germany so again it can lead to a differently constituted upper chamber to the lower chamber, in this case the Bundestag.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

We're all agreed, elections to the Lords to be conducted AV.

No we're not. We simply do not need more elected politicians on the public purse. Maybe the quid pro quo for staying at 650 in the Commons should be the removal of 700+ from the Lords.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

We're all agreed, elections to the Lords to be conducted AV.

If it's got to be AV, then single-round AV it is.

HYUFD

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Would that be a bad thing? - genuine question.
The Lords should be elected for a longer timescale, we could do with more longer term thinking.

6 year terms like the US Senate with a third up each time would certainly make it more reflective.

Philip_Thompson

The problem with Clegg's insane proposal is that it did nothing the ERS boss suggests.

The crazy notion of electing people for 15 year terms does nothing to "hold ineffective peers to account". It combines the worst of both worlds, it gives a fake sense of legitimacy to someone "elected" potentially 14 years ago, without the power to remove bad people.

Put it this way, a person elected upto 15 years ago could have been elected not just before the Coalition, not just before the recession and banking crisis, but elected even before the Iraq War.

Danny565

Personally, I quite like the idea of an indirectly-elected Lords (do they do something like it in France?), where the "quotas" for how many seats each party gets is decided by the numbers of councillors each party has at any one time. Then the parties themselves can decide which politicians fill up the quotas.

DavidL

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Germany does not have a directly elected upper house. The Bundesrat is made up of 16 representatives one from each state. The strength of each state's vote is weighted between 3 and 6 "votes" according to size. The government of each state decides how this representative will vote on the day.

So when Max Mustermann is voting in state elections for Baden-Würtemburg he is also indirectly voting for the Bundesrat.

There may be an argument for such a body made up of representatives of the devolved administrations as well as MPs but I think its scope should be quite restricted. Certainly constitutional matters, arguably UK wide legislation, certainly not English or devolved legislation.

brendan16

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

I think the issue is perhaps more where they seek to sabotage the will of the voters in a referendum AND the will of the Commons, We have a Lords that grossly overrepresents the Lib Dems based on when their vote share was triple what it is now - and the only way to address that currently is to pack it with even more appointees.

kyf_100

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Conversely, one might think that the remain-demented are worried that people might quite like the idea of democracy.

Slackbladder

logical_song said:

Slackbladder said:

Surely the more important thing is sorting out the respective powers of each house first, rather than working out how they're appointed??

What does the Lords do, and what powers should it have to make our systems work well?

Aren't the respective powers well known?
Or are you suggesting that they change.

Well known to political anoraks maybe. To the general populace?

Changing them to being elected would automatically change the nature and focus of the lords, so surely that power should be defined.

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yup, a wholly directly elected upper House/Senate is what we need.

Only if it is a different model to the direct election to the HoC. Otherwise you end up with a clusterf*ck.

I like the idea of an elected Senate of the Regions to make sure that there is proper consideration given to ex - London interests (in the way that the hereditary peers used to do. There should also be a smattering of appointed positions.

But no ministers can sit in the Senate, it should be term limited, and the powers should make it clearly subordinate to the Commons

philiph

Philip_Thompson said:

The problem with Clegg's insane proposal is that it did nothing the ERS boss suggests.

The crazy notion of electing people for 15 year terms does nothing to "hold ineffective peers to account". It combines the worst of both worlds, it gives a fake sense of legitimacy to someone "elected" potentially 14 years ago, without the power to remove bad people.

Put it this way, a person elected upto 15 years ago could have been elected not just before the Coalition, not just before the recession and banking crisis, but elected even before the Iraq War.

An easy way to introduce stability, have people who know how it works, stop knee jerk reactions to political situations (Iraq, 2008 crash,Trump, Brexit etc) if there is one third re elected every 5 years. Always a combination of the new, the old the fresh, experienced, elected at different times so hopefully a blend of political views for the old, young and middle aged.

Far more stable and consistent, not open to pressure from whips as no re election possibilities. With the right sanctions for non attendance, a much better way forward for good governance than any alternative that I have seen.

AlastairMeeks

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Conversely, one might think that the remain-demented are worried that people might quite like the idea of democracy.

Try reading, then blush.

AlastairMeeks

I note that Betfair has opened an "overall majority" market on the next general election.

MTimT

philiph said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

If we do get an elected Lords, especially if elected midterm, we could well see different parties control the House of Commons and the Lords, as often happens in the USA, Australia and Germany which all have elected second chambers.

Would that be a bad thing? - genuine question.
The Lords should be elected for a longer timescale, we could do with more longer term thinking.

I know I'm in a minority, but the Nick Clegg single 15 year terms (i.e. no consecutive re election), electing one third every 5 years has a lot of merit, if it is allied to a recall procedure for failure to attend or for outrageous behaviour. Recall should not be because I disagree politically with the incumbent.

All questions re the nature of a reformed Lords have to be closely tied to the powers it will have. If you elect its members, I'm assuming it will have to be given more powers than it has in its current unelected state.

A 15 year term would put a real brake on things. Not always a bad thing in certain areas to weed out populist fads. But consider changes in social norms. Do we really want legislation to be held up by a body part of which was elected 15 years ago?

kyf_100

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Conversely, one might think that the remain-demented are worried that people might quite like the idea of democracy.

Try reading, then blush.

Oh, I did read your comment. And I'm aware that you're in favour of Lords Reform.

However your use of the word "demented" to describe leavers is incredibly insulting to anyone with a family member with dementia and is part of a consistent pattern of contempt towards those with views different to yours.

Philip_Thompson

philiph said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The problem with Clegg's insane proposal is that it did nothing the ERS boss suggests.

The crazy notion of electing people for 15 year terms does nothing to "hold ineffective peers to account". It combines the worst of both worlds, it gives a fake sense of legitimacy to someone "elected" potentially 14 years ago, without the power to remove bad people.

Put it this way, a person elected upto 15 years ago could have been elected not just before the Coalition, not just before the recession and banking crisis, but elected even before the Iraq War.

An easy way to introduce stability, have people who know how it works, stop knee jerk reactions to political situations (Iraq, 2008 crash,Trump, Brexit etc) if there is one third re elected every 5 years. Always a combination of the new, the old the fresh, experienced, elected at different times so hopefully a blend of political views for the old, young and middle aged.

Far more stable and consistent, not open to pressure from whips as no re election possibilities. With the right sanctions for non attendance, a much better way forward for good governance than any alternative that I have seen.

Sound points perhaps except they are the exact same points as made for the current system of appointees.

By removing the possibility of re-election you remove one of the main purposes of the elections - to hold those elected to account.

Alistair

If we are to be stuck with FPTP for the house of commons then I'd suggest a 200 seat Lords that gets elected via pure PR based on the national General Election results.

AlastairMeeks

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Conversely, one might think that the remain-demented are worried that people might quite like the idea of democracy.

Try reading, then blush.

Oh, I did read your comment. And I'm aware that you're in favour of Lords Reform.

However your use of the word "demented" to describe leavers is incredibly insulting to anyone with a family member with dementia and is part of a consistent pattern of contempt towards those with views different to yours.

Choose another word that means "behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement".

Or, alternatively, don't be so ridiculously hypersensitive about a perfectly normal use of a perfectly normal word.

Beverley_C

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We're all agreed, elections to the Lords to be conducted AV.

If it's got to be AV, then single-round AV it is.

Too complex. I prefer an option offering more involvement - perhaps something along the lines of the 1980s Japanese TV show "Endurance".

Carolus_Rex

Beverley_C said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We're all agreed, elections to the Lords to be conducted AV.

If it's got to be AV, then single-round AV it is.

Too complex. I prefer an option offering more involvement - perhaps something along the lines of the 1980s Japanese TV show "Endurance".

It's too bad Clive James is so very ill. Under that arrangement he'd be an ideal Lord Speaker.

RobD

Beverley_C said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We're all agreed, elections to the Lords to be conducted AV.

If it's got to be AV, then single-round AV it is.

Too complex. I prefer an option offering more involvement - perhaps something along the lines of the 1980s Japanese TV show "Endurance".

Doesn’t get much simpler than single-round AV aka FPTP

Cyclefree

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

kyf_100

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Conversely, one might think that the remain-demented are worried that people might quite like the idea of democracy.

Try reading, then blush.

Oh, I did read your comment. And I'm aware that you're in favour of Lords Reform.

However your use of the word "demented" to describe leavers is incredibly insulting to anyone with a family member with dementia and is part of a consistent pattern of contempt towards those with views different to yours.

Choose another word that means "behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement".

Or, alternatively, don't be so ridiculously hypersensitive about a perfectly normal use of a perfectly normal word.

If that was your intended meaning, you could have chosen the word hysterical.

Call me a snowflake if you will, even a hysterical one, but as someone with a family member with dementia, your use of the word to describe people who made a perfectly rational decision at the ballot box hit a raw nerve.

Was there really any need to describe people whose views differ from yours as demented?

Plenty of leavers have been banned from this site for far more temperate language to describe rem(a)iners.

TheScreamingEagles

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congratulations.

philiph

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

First of many, I expect

Congratulations on getting off the ground

AlastairMeeks

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Conversely, one might think that the remain-demented are worried that people might quite like the idea of democracy.

Try reading, then blush.

Oh, I did read your comment. And I'm aware that you're in favour of Lords Reform.

However your use of the word "demented" to describe leavers is incredibly insulting to anyone with a family member with dementia and is part of a consistent pattern of contempt towards those with views different to yours.

Choose another word that means "behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement".

Or, alternatively, don't be so ridiculously hypersensitive about a perfectly normal use of a perfectly normal word.

If that was your intended meaning, you could have chosen the word hysterical.

Call me a snowflake if you will, even a hysterical one, but as someone with a family member with dementia, your use of the word to describe people who made a perfectly rational decision at the ballot box hit a raw nerve.

Was there really any need to describe people whose views differ from yours as demented?

Plenty of leavers have been banned from this site for far more temperate language to describe rem(a)iners.

"Hysterical" is often decried as being sexist, derived as it is from the Greek word for uterus.

You don't like the fact that I think that many of your fellow travellers are nutty as fruitcakes. But I do and I'm going to express that view forthrightly. The word "demented" is a perfectly normal English word and I'm not going to stop using it because you have concocted an entirely spurious objection to it.

philiph

Philip_Thompson said:

philiph said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The problem with Clegg's insane proposal is that it did nothing the ERS boss suggests.

The crazy notion of electing people for 15 year terms does nothing to "hold ineffective peers to account". It combines the worst of both worlds, it gives a fake sense of legitimacy to someone "elected" potentially 14 years ago, without the power to remove bad people.

Put it this way, a person elected upto 15 years ago could have been elected not just before the Coalition, not just before the recession and banking crisis, but elected even before the Iraq War.

An easy way to introduce stability, have people who know how it works, stop knee jerk reactions to political situations (Iraq, 2008 crash,Trump, Brexit etc) if there is one third re elected every 5 years. Always a combination of the new, the old the fresh, experienced, elected at different times so hopefully a blend of political views for the old, young and middle aged.

Far more stable and consistent, not open to pressure from whips as no re election possibilities. With the right sanctions for non attendance, a much better way forward for good governance than any alternative that I have seen.

Sound points perhaps except they are the exact same points as made for the current system of appointees.

By removing the possibility of re-election you remove one of the main purposes of the elections - to hold those elected to account.

By removing patronage you remove a debt / loyalty
By removing re election you remove fear of the party machine and whip

The purpose of the election is to appoint competent people that the public select.

Beverley_C

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congrats! I hope it all goes well for you

MTimT

AlastairMeeks said:

Choose another word that means "behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement".

Human

Beverley_C

RobD said:

Beverley_C said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We're all agreed, elections to the Lords to be conducted AV.

If it's got to be AV, then single-round AV it is.

Too complex. I prefer an option offering more involvement - perhaps something along the lines of the 1980s Japanese TV show "Endurance".

Doesn’t get much simpler than single-round AV aka FPTP

Endurance is more entertaining

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mRklA6KRmo

MTimT

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congrats! Even more so if it is the type of work you want to do ...

Sandpit

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congratulations Ms Cyclefree, welcome to the world of freelancing and best of luck for the future!

david_herdson

"The public call for a real overhaul is loud and clear"

No, it really isn't. The public don't give a damn about the House of Lords, except briefly on occasion when it does something silly.

That's not to say it shouldn't be reformed (indeed, it's something the last parliament should have done and had she won a decent majority, May should have pledged to do post-Brexit), but now is not the time nor the circumstances.

kyf_100

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kyf_100 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This might be that rare thing: a positive from Brexit. I suspect that the Brexit-demented are fearful that the enemies of the people are going to sabotage the popular will, and are responding accordingly.

Conversely, one might think that the remain-demented are worried that people might quite like the idea of democracy.

Try reading, then blush.

Oh, I did read your comment. And I'm aware that you're in favour of Lords Reform.

However your use of the word "demented" to describe leavers is incredibly insulting to anyone with a family member with dementia and is part of a consistent pattern of contempt towards those with views different to yours.

Choose another word that means "behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement".

Or, alternatively, don't be so ridiculously hypersensitive about a perfectly normal use of a perfectly normal word.

If that was your intended meaning, you could have chosen the word hysterical.

Call me a snowflake if you will, even a hysterical one, but as someone with a family member with dementia, your use of the word to describe people who made a perfectly rational decision at the ballot box hit a raw nerve.

Was there really any need to describe people whose views differ from yours as demented?

Plenty of leavers have been banned from this site for far more temperate language to describe rem(a)iners.

"Hysterical" is often decried as being sexist, derived as it is from the Greek word for uterus.

You don't like the fact that I think that many of your fellow travellers are nutty as fruitcakes. But I do and I'm going to express that view forthrightly. The word "demented" is a perfectly normal English word and I'm not going to stop using it because you have concocted an entirely spurious objection to it.

I have some fairly forthright views too, but I shan't stoop to an ad hominem. Work calls.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/925373773804703744

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Given recent constitutional tinkering has only buggered things up more, I have no faith that any change or replacement would be anything other than a bloody shambles.

franklyn

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congratulations, and welcome to the wonderful world of self-employment, the real powerhouse of every successful economy. Best wishes for your future success

williamglenn

Morris_Dancer said:

Given recent constitutional tinkering has only buggered things up more, I have no faith that any change or replacement would be anything other than a bloody shambles.

Are you saying we shouldn't repeal the European Communities Act?

Cyclefree

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congrats! Even more so if it is the type of work you want to do ...

Thanks to all for your congrats.

It is something I will enjoy doing and it involves a bit of a challenge as well plus it is with people I like.

Now I just have to deliver......

Anyway, I won't starve.....not yet anyway.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Given recent constitutional tinkering has only buggered things up more, I have no faith that any change or replacement would be anything other than a bloody shambles.

Sounds like a persuasive case for not repealing the Euopean Communities Act and this overturning Brexit.

Carolus_Rex

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/925373773804703744

If I were him I would examine his next bill very carefully!

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Given recent constitutional tinkering has only buggered things up more, I have no faith that any change or replacement would be anything other than a bloody shambles.

Sounds like a persuasive case for not repealing the Euopean Communities Act and this overturning Brexit.

Unless the European Communities Act was constitutional tinkering. For our Morris_Dancer, recent means anything AD.

Cyclefree

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/925373773804703744

If I were him I would examine his next bill very carefully!

Or look at the one he's just paid.......

Fishing

I don't see why the default assumption should be that we need a second chamber at all. I'm with the 27% on this one.

Having a democratically elected Lords would just lead to a bizarre situation when two democratically elected chambers clashed. Maybe we should go back to having a House of Lords composed solely of hereditaries? If the purpose of the Lords is to be a check on the democratic lower house, it seems as good a way as any to introduce anti-democracy to Parliament. And at least it is historically precedented and seemed to work fairly well for centuries.

TheScreamingEagles

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/925373773804703744

If I were him I would examine his next bill very carefully!

You mean some in the legal profession would stick the cost of lunch under disbursements ?

TOPPING

Cyclefree said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congrats! Even more so if it is the type of work you want to do ...

Thanks to all for your congrats.

It is something I will enjoy doing and it involves a bit of a challenge as well plus it is with people I like.

Now I just have to deliver......

Anyway, I won't starve.....not yet anyway.

Many congrats.

Carolus_Rex

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/925373773804703744

If I were him I would examine his next bill very carefully!

You mean some in the legal profession would stick the cost of lunch under disbursements ?

Perish the thought!

Edit: this reminds me of one of my first tasks as an articled clerk, many moons ago. I was given long lists of mystery disbursements to identify. An awful lot were for relatively small sums and labelled "World Traders Club" and no two were on the same file. Turned out the senior partner was in the habit of wandering off from his office in Mark Lane to the World Traders Club for a pint and a pie, and then billing the cost to the first file he opened when he got back.

philiph

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/925373773804703744

If I were him I would examine his next bill very carefully!

You mean some in the legal profession would stick the cost of lunch under disbursements ?

Mine uses disburpments

TOPPING

Never mind who paid for lunch, did anyone put their hand on anyone's knee?

TheScreamingEagles

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/925373773804703744

If I were him I would examine his next bill very carefully!

You mean some in the legal profession would stick the cost of lunch under disbursements ?

Perish the thought!

The kicker would be if their billable hours included the time for the lunch, as well as the travel time to lunch and back.

TheScreamingEagles

TOPPING said:

Never mind who paid for lunch, did anyone put their hand on anyone's knee?

Shall I tell you about the time I entertained a client at Stringfellow's Lapdancing club.

They serve food in there.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/925377668857638913

Big_G_NorthWales

Cyclefree said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congrats! Even more so if it is the type of work you want to do ...

Thanks to all for your congrats.

It is something I will enjoy doing and it involves a bit of a challenge as well plus it is with people I like.

Now I just have to deliver......

Anyway, I won't starve.....not yet anyway.

Very pleased for you. I have no doubt you will be very successful

Big_G_NorthWales

Julia Hartley Brewer live on Sky at 3.30 with Kay Burley

TheScreamingEagles

Oh the timing of this.

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/925382857975042048

BudG

Perhaps we should have a Referendum on the Lords.

oxfordsimon

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

oxfordsimon

TheScreamingEagles said:

Oh the timing of this.

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/925382857975042048

Because the rest of them weren't invited to watch?

Carolus_Rex

Cyclefree said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congrats! Even more so if it is the type of work you want to do ...

Thanks to all for your congrats.

It is something I will enjoy doing and it involves a bit of a challenge as well plus it is with people I like.

Now I just have to deliver......

Anyway, I won't starve.....not yet anyway.

Congratulations.

Chances are you'll soon find you are busier than ever, but it will be immeasurably more satisfying.

rottenborough

oxfordsimon said:

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

No, a thousand times no to such a small Commons. As is pointed out on this site every day the quality of ministers is a concern, so reducing the pool from which they are drawn would make this worse.

kle4

It depends what kind of elected lords. Personally, with some reform, I’d be happy with an unelected lords solely committed to revising, but they cannot even sort it out as it currently stands. If elected, I struggle to see how the Commons justifies its total primacy, even if it retained some if not all of that primacy.

I am surprised at why support for an elected lords has leaped so. I’m not convinced Brexit pondering would lead to it as suggested, but in fairness I cannot think of another reason. Tory leavers swayed into it when they were worried the Lords would stymie A50?

I’m actually not a huge fan, though not really opposed, of this 15 year suggestion if they are not even elected. It makes the argument of who gets to be there in first place very periodical. 10-15 years for and elected person makes some sense to me.

Other Obvious steps

1) Anyone who has not participated in X number of votes within the past 3 years should lose their place - we want people who might not usually participate in the legislature, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to put in a base level of effort and time if you agree to serve. It’s not a cushy retirement or merely a title, or it shouldn’t be.
2) Do not replace any of those excluded under 1) until the house numbers fall below, say, 600

At very simple strokes the scale of the house is reduced and those who do not participate are kicked out.

tpfkar

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Given recent constitutional tinkering has only buggered things up more, I have no faith that any change or replacement would be anything other than a bloody shambles.

Are you saying we shouldn't repeal the European Communities Act?

Wot he said

I'd much rather focus on the checks and balances in the Commons. I am very uncomfortable with any Government, let alone a minority one, stuffing committees with majorities and ignoring votes in the House they don't like. Time for more MPs (gasp I said it but under FPTP the only way for a more proportional chamber is more of the blasted people) fewer ministers, and binding effects of Commons votes.

Sort all that out, and you can do away with the Lords.

PeterMannion

rottenborough said:

oxfordsimon said:

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

No, a thousand times no to such a small Commons. As is pointed out on this site every day the quality of ministers is a concern, so reducing the pool from which they are drawn would make this worse.

Surely that's also/more about (and addressed by) the quality of applicants becoming MPs, rather than the quantity of MPs themselves?

PeterMannion

PeterMannion said:

rottenborough said:

oxfordsimon said:

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

No, a thousand times no to such a small Commons. As is pointed out on this site every day the quality of ministers is a concern, so reducing the pool from which they are drawn would make this worse.

Surely that's also/more about (and addressed by) the quality of applicants becoming MPs, rather than the quantity of MPs themselves?

i.e. pay peanuts, get Andrea Leadsom

DavidL

Whilst I do find the HoL mildly irritating from time to time, particularly when the House of Bishops feels it appropriate to make a contribution, I would agree with those saying now is really not the time. After all we have been waiting since 1911 to make real progress on this so it is a bit hard to say that there is a rush.

Once Brexit is put to bed abolition of the HoL should certainly be on the to do list but it can wait another 3 or 4 years. The statement: "The public call for a real overhaul is loud and clear" frankly baffles me. Where are the barricades?

kle4

rottenborough said:

oxfordsimon said:

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

No, a thousand times no to such a small Commons. As is pointed out on this site every day the quality of ministers is a concern, so reducing the pool from which they are drawn would make this worse.

I happen to agree, but using the inadequate example of local government reviews (and I am talking about ones where the number of councillors has already been vastly reduced with the creation of unitaries) it seems to be a core principle that fewer politicians means better governance. Possibly due to less challenge.

I have never been convinced of an argument based purely on numbers. Why is 500 a good number, or too many, for the Commons? Why 400? And Sure most upper houses have less, far less, than the lower, but does that mean it cannot work the other way around (I only suggest reducing the number as many of the current members are barely there, so culling will not matter).

“Because that is the way we have always done it’ is certainly no definitive rebuttal of reform, but you really do need to establish why reforms will be an improvement, since if that is not clear, then you may as well stick with the status quo, the reason needs to be beyond merely that the new way is different, that it is better.

Elected will normally be better, admittedly, but the exact form and nature of such a radically different upper chamber would need lose assessment to be sure.

Alistair

Just spotted this on the Mueler investigation

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/mueller-manafort-gates-testimony-244339


New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said the judge was persuaded that there was significant evidence Manafort and Gates had duped their lawyer into sending inaccurate letters to Justice about their lobbying efforts and about what emails might exist about the work.

"Essentially, the judge is saying that it is probable or likely that the clients had a criminal or fraudulent purpose in hiring the lawyer, even if (we would hope) the lawyer did not know it," Gillers told POLITICO.

...

"The implications of this decision are significant. First, a judge has decided that the clients were committing a crime or fraud and using a lawyer to do it. So that tells us something about the strength of the OSC’s evidence. The OSC had the burden of proof and it met it," Gillers said. "Further, once you can pierce the privilege, there’s no telling what information you can go on to discover. This decision will be useful in other contests to discover lawyer-client communications, even communications with different law firms, if any."


Mueller convinced a judge to break attorney/client privilege and get Manafort and Gates's lawyers to testify. That seems big to me?

kle4

DavidL said:

Whilst I do find the HoL mildly irritating from time to time, particularly when the House of Bishops feels it appropriate to make a contribution, I would agree with those saying now is really not the time. After all we have been waiting since 1911 to make real progress on this so it is a bit hard to say that there is a rush.

Once Brexit is put to bed abolition of the HoL should certainly be on the to do list but it can wait another 3 or 4 years. The statement: "The public call for a real overhaul is loud and clear" frankly baffles me. Where are the barricades?

Top of the list after Brexit? That’s very high.

Frankly Brexit would seem an appropriate time to be talking about it, at leas once negotiations are all but concluded, since we may as well tackle other massive constitutional changes in sequence.

david_herdson

oxfordsimon said:

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

Second chambers are a good thing, particularly when they are composed on a different basis from the first. Our political system is incredibly centralised, not just within the UK (which isn't the case so much these days - though it is within England), but within parties. The party whip, patronage and nominations system puts a huge amount of power in a popular prime minister. A second chamber, able to check the first and counter that power to some extent, is a necessary safeguard.

100 senators would be a bit too small IMO - elections really ought to be by PR so as to provide a different basis from the Commons elected by FPTP - but 150-200 would suffice.

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

100 senators would be a bit too small IMO - elections really ought to be by PR so as to provide a different basis from the Commons elected by FPTP - but 150-200 would suffice.

What do you think about the opposite: FPTP for senators, and PR for the Commons?

The danger of PR for something perceived as of less direct importance is that you can get an over-representation of single-issue oppositionist parties.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, PR is the work of Satan.

DavidL

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Whilst I do find the HoL mildly irritating from time to time, particularly when the House of Bishops feels it appropriate to make a contribution, I would agree with those saying now is really not the time. After all we have been waiting since 1911 to make real progress on this so it is a bit hard to say that there is a rush.

Once Brexit is put to bed abolition of the HoL should certainly be on the to do list but it can wait another 3 or 4 years. The statement: "The public call for a real overhaul is loud and clear" frankly baffles me. Where are the barricades?

Top of the list after Brexit? That’s very high.

Frankly Brexit would seem an appropriate time to be talking about it, at leas once negotiations are all but concluded, since we may as well tackle other massive constitutional changes in sequence.

I wasn't suggesting top of the list. There are a lot more important things to deal with. But it is in the In tray. I personally think the Lords makes us look faintly ridiculous.

TheScreamingEagles

Alistair said:

Just spotted this on the Mueler investigation

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/mueller-manafort-gates-testimony-244339


New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said the judge was persuaded that there was significant evidence Manafort and Gates had duped their lawyer into sending inaccurate letters to Justice about their lobbying efforts and about what emails might exist about the work.

"Essentially, the judge is saying that it is probable or likely that the clients had a criminal or fraudulent purpose in hiring the lawyer, even if (we would hope) the lawyer did not know it," Gillers told POLITICO.

...

"The implications of this decision are significant. First, a judge has decided that the clients were committing a crime or fraud and using a lawyer to do it. So that tells us something about the strength of the OSC’s evidence. The OSC had the burden of proof and it met it," Gillers said. "Further, once you can pierce the privilege, there’s no telling what information you can go on to discover. This decision will be useful in other contests to discover lawyer-client communications, even communications with different law firms, if any."


Mueller convinced a judge to break attorney/client privilege and get Manafort and Gates's lawyers to testify. That seems big to me?

Yup

Carolus_Rex

david_herdson said:

oxfordsimon said:

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

Second chambers are a good thing, particularly when they are composed on a different basis from the first. Our political system is incredibly centralised, not just within the UK (which isn't the case so much these days - though it is within England), but within parties. The party whip, patronage and nominations system puts a huge amount of power in a popular prime minister. A second chamber, able to check the first and counter that power to some extent, is a necessary safeguard.

100 senators would be a bit too small IMO - elections really ought to be by PR so as to provide a different basis from the Commons elected by FPTP - but 150-200 would suffice.

Trouble is that there would then be a case for saying the upper house is more representative of the electorate's wishes than the lower, which would be awkward.

It will never happen, but I'd just chuck out all the life peers and elect a modestly sized Lords from among the hereditaries. You'd get a chamber full of people who know if they screw up, their children and grandchildren are likely to have to clean up the mess. Nobody would be there because they did one or other of the parties a favour (I'm looking at you, Shami), And no basis for squabbling with the Commons over who has the better mandate.

Just an idea!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Rex, a good idea.

As you say, it won't happen.

David_Evershed

Alistair said:

Just spotted this on the Mueler investigation

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/mueller-manafort-gates-testimony-244339


New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said the judge was persuaded that there was significant evidence Manafort and Gates had duped their lawyer into sending inaccurate letters to Justice about their lobbying efforts and about what emails might exist about the work.

"Essentially, the judge is saying that it is probable or likely that the clients had a criminal or fraudulent purpose in hiring the lawyer, even if (we would hope) the lawyer did not know it," Gillers told POLITICO.

...

"The implications of this decision are significant. First, a judge has decided that the clients were committing a crime or fraud and using a lawyer to do it. So that tells us something about the strength of the OSC’s evidence. The OSC had the burden of proof and it met it," Gillers said. "Further, once you can pierce the privilege, there’s no telling what information you can go on to discover. This decision will be useful in other contests to discover lawyer-client communications, even communications with different law firms, if any."


Mueller convinced a judge to break attorney/client privilege and get Manafort and Gates's lawyers to testify. That seems big to me?

Only if they gave incriminating evidence to the lawyer they hired. Why would they do that?

TheScreamingEagles

All this would be avoided if we followed my plan.

Abolish the Commons, and have a Directly Elected Dictator, for 15 year terms, and a Senate of 100 to be the occasional check and balance to the DED.

Cheaper, efficient, and better democracy.

Slackbladder

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

100 senators would be a bit too small IMO - elections really ought to be by PR so as to provide a different basis from the Commons elected by FPTP - but 150-200 would suffice.

What do you think about the opposite: FPTP for senators, and PR for the Commons?

The danger of PR for something perceived as of less direct importance is that you can get an over-representation of single-issue oppositionist parties.

This is true. Would a Upper House of 30% UKIPers be a good thing for example?

Which could have potentially happened given the votes for the European elections in prior year.s

FrancisUrquhart

https://order-order.com/2017/10/31/katz-channel-4/

He obviously got the gig due to the roaring success he made of Newsnight!

kle4

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Whilst I do find the HoL mildly irritating from time to time, particularly when the House of Bishops feels it appropriate to make a contribution, I would agree with those saying now is really not the time. After all we have been waiting since 1911 to make real progress on this so it is a bit hard to say that there is a rush.

Once Brexit is put to bed abolition of the HoL should certainly be on the to do list but it can wait another 3 or 4 years. The statement: "The public call for a real overhaul is loud and clear" frankly baffles me. Where are the barricades?

Top of the list after Brexit? That’s very high.

Frankly Brexit would seem an appropriate time to be talking about it, at leas once negotiations are all but concluded, since we may as well tackle other massive constitutional changes in sequence.

I wasn't suggesting top of the list. There are a lot more important things to deal with. But it is in the In tray. I personally think the Lords makes us look faintly ridiculous.

Oh I never let that bother me - pleasantly ridiculous is almost a British motto, so we just need to work on the pleasantly bit. There are elected second chambers out there, and other wholly elected governments, who do far worse than anything the Lords get up to, or fail to challenge or scrutinise even when they are suppose to. If in the end it can be made to do good work in the public interest, whether it is slightly ridiculous is a minor concern.

Though I am in favour of us retaining the name of House of Lords even if it becomes wholly elected.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

All this would be avoided if we followed my plan.

Abolish the Commons, and have a Directly Elected Dictator, for 15 year terms, and a Senate of 100 to be the occasional check and balance to the DED.

Cheaper, efficient, and better democracy.

The real question is, would it lead to a safe and secure society?

OldKingCole

Carolus_Rex said:

Cyclefree said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

Well, completely off topic but very exciting - for me anyway!

Today I got my first piece of work as a freelance. Since I only set up my company last week and have not really launched myself on an unsuspecting world, this is very exciting news for me.

Of course, it may be the only piece of work I get, but hey.... it's a start.

Has anything happened out there: any more knees touched? War in Korea? Some hitherto unappreciated aspect of Brexit we have not discussed ad nauseam?

Congrats! Even more so if it is the type of work you want to do ...

Thanks to all for your congrats.

It is something I will enjoy doing and it involves a bit of a challenge as well plus it is with people I like.

Now I just have to deliver......

Anyway, I won't starve.....not yet anyway.

Congratulations.

Chances are you'll soon find you are busier than ever, but it will be immeasurably more satisfying.

All the very best. Hope that commission is the first of many.

RobD

Carolus_Rex said:

david_herdson said:

oxfordsimon said:

The last thing we need is more elected politicians.

The only way I would even look at an elected second chamber would be to reduce the Commons down to 300 and then have a revising chamber of 100

But I am far from convinced that it would be a good move under any circumstances.

Second chambers are a good thing, particularly when they are composed on a different basis from the first. Our political system is incredibly centralised, not just within the UK (which isn't the case so much these days - though it is within England), but within parties. The party whip, patronage and nominations system puts a huge amount of power in a popular prime minister. A second chamber, able to check the first and counter that power to some extent, is a necessary safeguard.

100 senators would be a bit too small IMO - elections really ought to be by PR so as to provide a different basis from the Commons elected by FPTP - but 150-200 would suffice.

Trouble is that there would then be a case for saying the upper house is more representative of the electorate's wishes than the lower, which would be awkward.

It will never happen, but I'd just chuck out all the life peers and elect a modestly sized Lords from among the hereditaries. You'd get a chamber full of people who know if they screw up, their children and grandchildren are likely to have to clean up the mess. Nobody would be there because they did one or other of the parties a favour (I'm looking at you, Shami), And no basis for squabbling with the Commons over who has the better mandate.

Just an idea!

As barmy as it is, I think the hereditaries were far better than this collection of political appointees.