politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Michael Crick is right about appointments to the House of Lord
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Michael Crick is right about appointments to the House of Lords
All this speculation about who might or might not be on the imminent new peers list is silly. Appointments to our legislature – FOR LIFE – ought to be an open process, subject to proper public and media scrutiny
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Happy new year everyone - may your 2018 be pineapple-topped, full of caustic wit and may your nuclear buttons be large and close at hand.
So while the Lords may be able to block other elements of May's programme as a result of the hung Parliament (though most of the manifesto has been dumped anyway), Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block.
Do you mean Brexit itself is not something the Lords ought to block (in your opinion) or do you think there is an actual legal impediment?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949287555660500992
FPT I think that some of the polls, giving 20%+ leads to the Conservatives, were froth.
But I think that a lead of 10-15% was perfectly feasible, given a competent campaign.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-types/
Am surprised that a precise figure isn't given.
However another link gives a total of 794.
Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.
1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country
2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html
3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.
Take back control – renationalise the railways!
What an absolute chump he is.
"In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.
Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."
Very true!
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/
100 LD.
248 Con.
198 Lab.
182 Cross Bench.
28 non affiliated.
14 other.
24 Bishops.
But even if the Lords could block it, they most certainly shouldn't. When you refer a decision to the people, you have to implement what they say. If you don't like an option, don't put it on the paper. It isn't for either House to block Brexit, still less the unelected one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva_UK_Trains
The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
Reform is important. It needs to be done right and should start with an agreement on what the role of the second house should be.
The Clegg plan, which was demented, was dropped when he objected to it being scrutinised (an omitted detail which rather sits askew the main thrust of the article).
F1: Sirotkin still looking very likely to get the second Williams seat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42579911
He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.
Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
Although I think the working-age leave vote can be seen as a consequence of austerity. After six years of dave/george it was pretty clear we weren't all in this together.
I see Crick is throwing his toys out the pram because he can't get any leaks about what is really going on. So he wants to change the whole system.
Amusing.
Instead we seem only to get proposals which advantage Party prospects.
If we first debated what they are for then we wouldn't be having this argument about whether they could stop Brexit or not.
Also. We could discuss how many there need to be. I am not aware of anywhere else where the Upper House is larger than the Lower.
Nor where being a Bishop is a qualification.
Controlling for age is difficult but in raw terms it is very possible that asset poor but high income voters (who have most to fear from the economic fallout of Brexit) have less wealth than low income retirees with capital assets in UK and abroad (who are insulated from the adverse effects of Brexit).
As generally in the UK we tax income and expenditure rather than wealth, it may well be that Leavers are both wealthier, and pay less tax. Indeed many would be net recipients from the Exchequer. I certainly intend to be!
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/why-do-cartoon-villains-speak-in-foreign-accents/549527/
Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.
I do accept that if we abolished the Upper Chamber we would need to significantly boost aspects of the HoC's performance. I would be looking at committees reviewing legislation having the right to call witnesses and take evidence, to have staff to research the basis of the legislation, etc etc. Some aspects of the Scottish experience may be useful to look at in this regard although that system has undoubtedly worked best when no party had a majority, something quite unusual and not especially desirable in the HoC.
In any event, I am using it as a figure of speech. A more precise way is to point out that the German state (DB) runs a quarter of our railways. More than our own state.
I got rid of my sox for the New Year!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/retired-peers-awarded-a-meal-ticket-for-life-7gsffmrjt
Dr. Foxy, did the Kiwis have an established church, though?
Mr. L, all a morris dancer need do is wave his wiffle stick and the delighted patrons almost fight one another to buy him his drinks.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib+dem+membership+card+options&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrqqGFmcHYAhWPCuwKHUuZBOsQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=E2BOvCZM53qd6M:
*I started and did not finish Story in the Stone, on account of the fact that it's the most boring thing since I asked my geography teacher a straightforward question and he talked at me for a solid 40 minutes.
‘You can’t be mate', he said ‘You’re wearing sandals without socks!.'
My geography teacher was much more fun. He once asked us for different soil types and coped admirably when I replied 'sod'.
Secondly, yes, I would agree that the House of Lords as it is composed and appointed is undemocratic. But it has no mandate at all to halt any form of Brexit since it is not elected in any form -indeed the Liberal element is grossly over-represented as a result of the Coalition. Remoaners should not hide behind the undemocratic House of Lords in its undemocratic bid to cancel the result of a democratic referendum.