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
Which is why long terms, such as 15 years and electing one third every 5 years is good. It evens out the troughs and peaks of populist issues.
The last thing you want to do is to base the 2nd Chamber on the election result of the GE. That invites the two houses to be too similar. There needs to be a counter cyclical element to balance out short term populism over the long term.
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.
I think they were. Far more 'responsible' and independent minded in many cases. Patronage has to be the worst option.
I would prefer both houses to be hereditary and for life. It must be better than the bunch of weirdos, chancers, crooks and perverts that we get in the Commons at present.
I would prefer both houses to be hereditary and for life. It must be better than the bunch of weirdos, chancers, crooks and perverts that we get in the Commons at present.
What's better than one house of lords? Why two, of course!
I would prefer both houses to be hereditary and for life. It must be better than the bunch of weirdos, chancers, crooks and perverts that we get in the Commons at present.
In fairness, the pervert quotient is currently looking somewhat less than conventionally assumed.
I would prefer both houses to be hereditary and for life. It must be better than the bunch of weirdos, chancers, crooks and perverts that we get in the Commons at present.
I think you forget how pervy the chancers in the Lords are!
I rather fancy a jury system with no right of refusal. Randomly selected from the registered electorate, with handsome expenses. Sure to be representative and as honest/lazy/quixotic as the general population.
I would prefer both houses to be hereditary and for life. It must be better than the bunch of weirdos, chancers, crooks and perverts that we get in the Commons at present.
I think you forget how pervy the chancers in the Lords are!
I rather fancy a jury system with no right of refusal. Randomly selected from the registered electorate, with handsome expenses. Sure to be representative and as honest/lazy/quixotic as the general population.
Being representative is not the key criteria really.
F1: speaking of stupid rules: "However, if the FIA and F1 are in agreement, the teams do not have enough power within F1's rule-making procedure to block them - unless Ferrari objects and decides to use a veto over new rules it has enshrined in its contracts with the sport."
What's alleged to be an uncensored version of "the spreadsheet" is now doing the rounds on Twitter.
It seems either already in the public domain or pretty tame.
The Tories used to do proper sex scandals!
Where are the glamorous models, foreign diplomats, football strips or tragic accidents?
Amateurs!
Similar sentiments to the expenses scandal. People used to be properly corrupt and now? They improperly claimed for some biscuits and a trouser press. It's why duck house guy and moat man hogg, (now back in the Lords after a couple of attempts I think) stood out.
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 Romans had that sort of idea. You miss out a subtlety of it though. At the end of the term there was a free vote as to whether the person leaving office should be put to death. What about that ?
A dictator typically served a year or so, I think, but could resign well before that. A number of dictators were appointed around the fourth century BC to hammer in a nail to appease the gods, and then immediately resigned.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
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 Romans had that sort of idea. You miss out a subtlety of it though. At the end of the term there was a free vote as to whether the person leaving office should be put to death. What about that ?
No better incentive than to do a good job as Dictator.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
The Cabinet minister you are referring to has been named explicitly in Daily Mail and Sun articles, now.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
I don't have a very strong view on this though I recognise the value a strong scrutinising second chamber brings to the political process.
I think an elected second chamber would work best if it was elected in a different time, place and process to the Commons. Moving to a fixed four or five year parliament would be the first step with the "Senate" (or whatever) elections also on a four or five year cycle but at the midpoint of the other cycle.
It's also hard to divorce party politics from the election process. Given "Senators" (or whatever) wouldn't be representing a place, a more proportional system could be adopted but allowing genuine Independent or Cross bench Senators to have a chance of election (draconian limits on election spending perhaps to weaken the power of parties perhaps).
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
The Cabinet minister you are referring to has been named explicitly in Daily Mail and Sun articles, now.
I still think for Mike's sake names should not be named at this point. Whether anything on that list can be made to stand up if challenged remains an open question.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
The Cabinet minister you are referring to has been named explicitly in Daily Mail and Sun articles, now.
I still think for Mike's sake names should not be named at this point. Whether anything on that list can be made to stand up if challenged remains an open question.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Yes, I can't see anything (so far) that would require this individual to resign.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
A dictator typically served a year or so, I think, but could resign well before that. A number of dictators were appointed around the fourth century BC to hammer in a nail to appease the gods, and then immediately resigned.
I'm pretty sure they had annualish terms. I don't think any of the early Republican offices had much of a life expectation after ther term was complete.
For the House of Lords I don't think any of the changes from 1911 onwards could truly be called "reforms" - changes for the conceived partisan advantage of those who controlled the House of Commons at the time would be a more accurate descriptions.
What's alleged to be an uncensored version of "the spreadsheet" is now doing the rounds on Twitter.
It seems either already in the public domain or pretty tame.
The Tories used to do proper sex scandals!
Where are the glamorous models, foreign diplomats, football strips or tragic accidents?
Amateurs!
Similar sentiments to the expenses scandal. People used to be properly corrupt and now? They improperly claimed for some biscuits and a trouser press. It's why duck house guy and moat man hogg, (now back in the Lords after a couple of attempts I think) stood out.
The expenses scandal wasn’t in the public domain and Speaker Martin fought mightily to keep it that way - half these “revelations” are - and the other half are pretty small potatoes. One male Cabinet Minister has simply another mans name next to his - while none of us would want to get OGH in trouble by naming them, we all know who they are....
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?
For insuring the safety with prospers, the Republic organizes afresh, become the Empire of the First Choice. This is for the sake of a more safe the society!
There are 10,000 alternatives as to how to arrange an upper house in a bi-cameral legislature. The obvious current problems with the Lords are, it is far too large and Blairs changes built in historic party advantage, viz the current over representation of the Lib Dems and lack of representation of UKIP.
I can't help but think there is merit in indirect elections. As an example if Cumbria appointed one member of the Upper House then that would improve voting for county elections and that would be a good thing per se. There would be no issue of any term - the appointment would be open ended until Cumbria changed its view - which it could do at any time.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
Agreed. The spreadsheet appears to be little more than tittle tattle and unsubstantiated accusations of "inappropriate" behaviour. Another expenses scandal it isn't and the idea that it could bring down the government is laughable.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
This is all remarkably boring so far, if all they’ve got is an MP who touched the leg of a well known journalist more than a decade ago. I was expecting a couple of Monica Lewinskys to come forward.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
Agreed. The spreadsheet appears to be little more than tittle tattle and unsubstantiated accusations of "inappropriate" behaviour. Another expenses scandal it isn't and the idea that it could bring down the government is laughable.
Most of the stories would be embarrassing for the individuals concerned (especially for the MP who likes watersports) but I don't see much that would lead to people having to resign from the Commons.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
This is all remarkably boring so far, if all they’ve got is an MP who touched the leg of a well known journalist more than a decade ago. I was expecting a couple of Monica Lewinskys to come forward.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
Give it time. I suspect there may be only a few people who lose their jobs total, and a whole lot of gnashing of teeth over casual sexism and harassment, which did not rise to resignation levels. Omara type stuff.
Parliament seems to already have a system to deal with sex pests.
It is a spreadsheet on Whats App on which members of the group can give warnings to each other. Maybe they should add a ranking system with five stars the worst pest category.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
Agreed. The spreadsheet appears to be little more than tittle tattle and unsubstantiated accusations of "inappropriate" behaviour. Another expenses scandal it isn't and the idea that it could bring down the government is laughable.
Most of the stories would be embarrassing for the individuals concerned (especially for the MP who likes watersports) but I don't see much that would lead to people having to resign from the Commons.
Why would an MP be embarrassed to admit they liked swimming and diving?
Parliament seems to already have a system to deal with sex pests.
It is a spreadsheet on Whats App on which members of the group can give warnings to each other. Maybe they should add a ranking system with five stars the worst pest category.
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
That's why you tie to the General Election vote rather than making it separate.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
This is all remarkably boring so far, if all they’ve got is an MP who touched the leg of a well known journalist more than a decade ago. I was expecting a couple of Monica Lewinskys to come forward.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
Parliament is Hollywood for ugly people. So results in less action.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
Agreed. The spreadsheet appears to be little more than tittle tattle and unsubstantiated accusations of "inappropriate" behaviour. Another expenses scandal it isn't and the idea that it could bring down the government is laughable.
Most of the stories would be embarrassing for the individuals concerned (especially for the MP who likes watersports) but I don't see much that would lead to people having to resign from the Commons.
Why would an MP be embarrassed to admit they liked swimming and diving?
Oh.
It would depend what he liked swimming and diving in.
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
That's why you tie to the General Election vote rather than making it separate.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
You really wouldn't want to set the qualification level that low. It would risk opening the door to some extremist views you really wouldn't want anywhere near the legislature.
I would be looking at something closer to 5% - but that could well prove difficult for regional parties without a national presence. But going lower is risky.
You only have to look at Euro Election results to see the potential pitfalls. It may be 'representative' but it would not necessarily be good for our national debate.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
This is all remarkably boring so far, if all they’ve got is an MP who touched the leg of a well known journalist more than a decade ago. I was expecting a couple of Monica Lewinskys to come forward.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
Parliament is Hollywood for ugly people. So results in less action.
I would not say Harvey Weinstein is exactly an Adonis, it is more the actor side where looks are key, apart from 'character actors' the producers and directors rather less so.
Though of course Reagan made it from Hollywood actor to President.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
Agreed. The spreadsheet appears to be little more than tittle tattle and unsubstantiated accusations of "inappropriate" behaviour. Another expenses scandal it isn't and the idea that it could bring down the government is laughable.
Most of the stories would be embarrassing for the individuals concerned (especially for the MP who likes watersports) but I don't see much that would lead to people having to resign from the Commons.
True story (and just for TSE!) - outside the loos at the Rose Garden in Regent's Park, London is a bed of roses of a variety named "Golden Showers"
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
That's why you tie to the General Election vote rather than making it separate.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
You really wouldn't want to set the qualification level that low. It would risk opening the door to some extremist views you really wouldn't want anywhere near the legislature.
I would be looking at something closer to 5% - but that could well prove difficult for regional parties without a national presence. But going lower is risky.
You only have to look at Euro Election results to see the potential pitfalls. It may be 'representative' but it would not necessarily be good for our national debate.
But due to tying it to the FPTP constituency vote it avoids the extremist nutters issue. Based on the 2017 result the 2nd Chamber would be
85 Conservatives 80 Labour 6 SNP 15 Lib Dems 2 DUP 2 Sinn Fein 1 Paid Cymru 4 Greens 3 UKIP
Plus another 2 due to rounding to hand out, probably SDLP and UUP
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
This is all remarkably boring so far, if all they’ve got is an MP who touched the leg of a well known journalist more than a decade ago. I was expecting a couple of Monica Lewinskys to come forward.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
Parliament is Hollywood for ugly people. So results in less action.
I would not say Harvey Weinstein is exactly an Adonis, it is more the actor side where looks are key, apart from 'character actors' the producers and directors rather less so.
Though of course Reagan made it from Hollywood actor to President.
Via the non trivial intermediate steps of Union Leader and Governor of California....
Some lefties seemed very smug on the 'tory sleaze' I did say this would impact all parties.
Of course it will - trying to make partisan capital out of this is a very risky thing to do. Though naturally the spotlight will fall heavier on a Government, especially one with a thin majority.
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
That's why you tie to the General Election vote rather than making it separate.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
You really wouldn't want to set the qualification level that low. It would risk opening the door to some extremist views you really wouldn't want anywhere near the legislature.
I would be looking at something closer to 5% - but that could well prove difficult for regional parties without a national presence. But going lower is risky.
You only have to look at Euro Election results to see the potential pitfalls. It may be 'representative' but it would not necessarily be good for our national debate.
But due to tying it to the FPTP constituency vote it avoids the extremist nutters issue. Based on the 2017 result the 2nd Chamber would be
85 Conservatives 80 Labour 6 SNP 15 Lib Dems 2 DUP 2 Sinn Fein 1 Paid Cymru 4 Greens 3 UKIP
Plus another 2 due to rounding to hand out, probably SDLP and UUP
Hardly stacking the house with nutters.
Except under PR, candidate lists are chosen by the party - voters can't vote for candidates, only the party eg UKIP MEPS most of which seem to have had to resign over issues and be replaced.
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
That's why you tie to the General Election vote rather than making it separate.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
You really wouldn't want to set the qualification level that low. It would risk opening the door to some extremist views you really wouldn't want anywhere near the legislature.
I would be looking at something closer to 5% - but that could well prove difficult for regional parties without a national presence. But going lower is risky.
You only have to look at Euro Election results to see the potential pitfalls. It may be 'representative' but it would not necessarily be good for our national debate.
But due to tying it to the FPTP constituency vote it avoids the extremist nutters issue. Based on the 2017 result the 2nd Chamber would be
85 Conservatives 80 Labour 6 SNP 15 Lib Dems 2 DUP 2 Sinn Fein 1 Paid Cymru 4 Greens 3 UKIP
Plus another 2 due to rounding to hand out, probably SDLP and UUP
Hardly stacking the house with nutters.
But if you look at 2010 - for instance - that could have seen 4 BNP members of the 2nd Chamber.
Might not be stacking the house with nutters - but it would be giving them a certain legitimacy and a platform.
I find it hard to imagine being so committed to an organisation that I’d try to silence even truly terrible allegations from being looked into, but it is so common across so many organisations it must be a truly powerful force.
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
That's why you tie to the General Election vote rather than making it separate.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
You really wouldn't want to set the qualification level that low. It would risk opening the door to some extremist views you really wouldn't want anywhere near the legislature.
I would be looking at something closer to 5% - but that could well prove difficult for regional parties without a national presence. But going lower is risky.
You only have to look at Euro Election results to see the potential pitfalls. It may be 'representative' but it would not necessarily be good for our national debate.
But due to tying it to the FPTP constituency vote it avoids the extremist nutters issue. Based on the 2017 result the 2nd Chamber would be
85 Conservatives 80 Labour 6 SNP 15 Lib Dems 2 DUP 2 Sinn Fein 1 Paid Cymru 4 Greens 3 UKIP
Plus another 2 due to rounding to hand out, probably SDLP and UUP
Hardly stacking the house with nutters.
Except under PR, candidate lists are chosen by the party - voters can't vote for candidates, only the party eg UKIP MEPS most of which seem to have had to resign over issues and be replaced.
I find it hard to imagine being so committed to an organisation that I’d try to silence even truly terrible allegations from being looked into, but it is so common across so many organisations it must be a truly powerful force.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
This is all remarkably boring so far, if all they’ve got is an MP who touched the leg of a well known journalist more than a decade ago. I was expecting a couple of Monica Lewinskys to come forward.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
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
That's why you tie to the General Election vote rather than making it separate.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
You really wouldn't want to set the qualification level that low. It would risk opening the door to some extremist views you really wouldn't want anywhere near the legislature.
I would be looking at something closer to 5% - but that could well prove difficult for regional parties without a national presence. But going lower is risky.
You only have to look at Euro Election results to see the potential pitfalls. It may be 'representative' but it would not necessarily be good for our national debate.
But due to tying it to the FPTP constituency vote it avoids the extremist nutters issue. Based on the 2017 result the 2nd Chamber would be
85 Conservatives 80 Labour 6 SNP 15 Lib Dems 2 DUP 2 Sinn Fein 1 Paid Cymru 4 Greens 3 UKIP
Plus another 2 due to rounding to hand out, probably SDLP and UUP
Hardly stacking the house with nutters.
But if you look at 2010 - for instance - that could have seen 4 BNP members of the 2nd Chamber.
Might not be stacking the house with nutters - but it would be giving them a certain legitimacy and a platform.
A 5% rule would have seen the SNP with 56 seats in the house of commons and zero in the 2nd house in 2015.
The BNP got a stack of councillors at one point and then promptly lost them all when it turned out they were terrible at doing the job for which they were elected.
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
Agreed. The spreadsheet appears to be little more than tittle tattle and unsubstantiated accusations of "inappropriate" behaviour. Another expenses scandal it isn't and the idea that it could bring down the government is laughable.
Most of the stories would be embarrassing for the individuals concerned (especially for the MP who likes watersports) but I don't see much that would lead to people having to resign from the Commons.
Why would an MP be embarrassed to admit they liked swimming and diving?
Being careful with my words, if it should turn out that a cabinet minister who is arguably the PMs only real supporter in the Cabinet felt the need to resign would there not be betting implications for May's survival?
Over a story which was published in a National newspaper in 2015? (If we’re thinking of the same person)
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
Telegraph on line has an article on the claims, and frankly they are ridiculous.
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
This is all remarkably boring so far, if all they’ve got is an MP who touched the leg of a well known journalist more than a decade ago. I was expecting a couple of Monica Lewinskys to come forward.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
Parliament is Hollywood for ugly people. So results in less action.
I would not say Harvey Weinstein is exactly an Adonis, it is more the actor side where looks are key, apart from 'character actors' the producers and directors rather less so.
Though of course Reagan made it from Hollywood actor to President.
Via the non trivial intermediate steps of Union Leader and Governor of California....
A senior councillor has been charged with attempted murder.
Douglas Hellier-Laing, 67, a cabinet member of the Conservative-led council in Teignbridge, Devon, was charged after a woman was taken to hospital with serious injuries.
Comments
The last thing you want to do is to base the 2nd Chamber on the election result of the GE. That invites the two houses to be too similar. There needs to be a counter cyclical element to balance out short term populism over the long term.
Patronage has to be the worst option.
The Tories used to do proper sex scandals!
Where are the glamorous models, foreign diplomats, football strips or tragic accidents?
Amateurs!
I rather fancy a jury system with no right of refusal. Randomly selected from the registered electorate, with handsome expenses. Sure to be representative and as honest/lazy/quixotic as the general population.
"However, if the FIA and F1 are in agreement, the teams do not have enough power within F1's rule-making procedure to block them - unless Ferrari objects and decides to use a veto over new rules it has enshrined in its contracts with the sport."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41820129
A dictator typically served a year or so, I think, but could resign well before that. A number of dictators were appointed around the fourth century BC to hammer in a nail to appease the gods, and then immediately resigned.
https://twitter.com/CooleyOnEurasia/status/924989960805126144
A lot of it is either public domain, old hat or frankly humdrum.....
I don't have a very strong view on this though I recognise the value a strong scrutinising second chamber brings to the political process.
I think an elected second chamber would work best if it was elected in a different time, place and process to the Commons. Moving to a fixed four or five year parliament would be the first step with the "Senate" (or whatever) elections also on a four or five year cycle but at the midpoint of the other cycle.
It's also hard to divorce party politics from the election process. Given "Senators" (or whatever) wouldn't be representing a place, a more proportional system could be adopted but allowing genuine Independent or Cross bench Senators to have a chance of election (draconian limits on election spending perhaps to weaken the power of parties perhaps).
It needs a police complaint or victims coming out collectively and naming an MP for this to go further
For the House of Lords I don't think any of the changes from 1911 onwards could truly be called "reforms" - changes for the conceived partisan advantage of those who controlled the House of Commons at the time would be a more accurate descriptions.
The prisoners' dilemma.
To snitch or not to snitch? That is the question.
The obvious current problems with the Lords are, it is far too large and Blairs changes built in historic party advantage, viz the current over representation of the Lib Dems and lack of representation of UKIP.
I can't help but think there is merit in indirect elections. As an example if Cumbria appointed one member of the Upper House then that would improve voting for county elections and that would be a good thing per se. There would be no issue of any term - the appointment would be open ended until Cumbria changed its view - which it could do at any time.
If there’s no police complaints, and no MPs with dozens of accusers, then this is a very boring damp squib and the media can focus on the genuine perverts in Hollywood.
It is a spreadsheet on Whats App on which members of the group can give warnings to each other. Maybe they should add a ranking system with five stars the worst pest category.
Oh.
It makes the second chamber a representation of the whole country. With 200 member a party would need to get 0.5% in the General Election nationally to be represented.
I would be looking at something closer to 5% - but that could well prove difficult for regional parties without a national presence. But going lower is risky.
You only have to look at Euro Election results to see the potential pitfalls. It may be 'representative' but it would not necessarily be good for our national debate.
Though of course Reagan made it from Hollywood actor to President.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/925407047411290114
Why not go to court rather than the media?
We have one. It's called the police.
85 Conservatives
80 Labour
6 SNP
15 Lib Dems
2 DUP
2 Sinn Fein
1 Paid Cymru
4 Greens
3 UKIP
Plus another 2 due to rounding to hand out, probably SDLP and UUP
Hardly stacking the house with nutters.
And everybody else.
Let's not speculate on who the people involved are in the rape allegations.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/10/where-s-labour-party-list-predatory-politicians
Might not be stacking the house with nutters - but it would be giving them a certain legitimacy and a platform.
The BNP got a stack of councillors at one point and then promptly lost them all when it turned out they were terrible at doing the job for which they were elected.
Douglas Hellier-Laing, 67, a cabinet member of the Conservative-led council in Teignbridge, Devon, was charged after a woman was taken to hospital with serious injuries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-41820421
FU to FOff ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671