The LDs would fancy their chances if Parish resigns – politicalbetting.com

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

YBarddCwsc said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL

Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu

Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.

Perfect weather for it! What we drinking

At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.

Guzzling brew named "Beavertown" sounds problematic under current circumstances. Have you no shame?

I am not convinced that the slang usage of 'beaver' in the UK/US is quite the same (see also fanny, fag, rubber).

At least historically (see PG Wodehouse), the slang meaning of 'beaver' in the UK was 'a bearded man'.

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

OldKingCole said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL

Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu

Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.

Perfect weather for it! What we drinking

At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.

Not an IPA fan me

Get yourself some nice lager

Arguably no such thing in these islands. Colchester Brewery do a very nice bitter, though. Probably only available within 20 miles or so of the brewery of course.

IanB2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?

More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

kjh said:

So I have already been contacted by the LDs re Tiverton by election so pretty safe to say they will be going for it big time.

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

kjh said:

So I have already been contacted by the LDs re Tiverton by election so pretty safe to say they will be going for it big time.

Foxy said:

kjh said:

So I have already been contacted by the LDs re Tiverton by election so pretty safe to say they will be going for it big time.

I cannot see North Shropshire being repeated. Patersan was much more shameless in his arrogance.

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

So I have already been contacted by the LDs re Tiverton by election so pretty safe to say they will be going for it big time.

Me too, and I’m not even a member any more

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nick, re: Parish, his wiki page says he was active as MP in environmental protection and animal welfare.

Can you tell me, what is YOUR take on that?

Theuniondivvie said:

OldKingCole said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Taz said:

Good afternoon @CorrectHorseBattery hope you’re enjoying the bank holiday weekend. We’re watching the IPL

Hey there Taz, yes feeling good been for a 10K run today and now having some roast chicken! Wbu

Yeah, we’re good. Visiting family and watching the cricket with a beer. Glorious weather too. Healthy option for meal tonight. Doner kebab and chips.

Perfect weather for it! What we drinking

At the moment Beavertown Heavy Gravity IPA. from sainsburys.

Not an IPA fan me

Get yourself some nice lager

Arguably no such thing in these islands. Colchester Brewery do a very nice bitter, though. Probably only available within 20 miles or so of the brewery of course.

Glasgow has it’s own ‘German’ brewery that does various lagers adhering to the Reinheitsgebot. They even do a German Pale Ale..

https://www.westbeer.com/

Jonathan said:

Ok, I’m stumped. What dodgy term sounds like tractor?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Jonathan said:

Ok, I’m stumped. What dodgy term sounds like tractor?

Civil war re-enactor?

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.

The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.

To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.

The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.

That's where we should be concentrating our fire.

I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.

The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.

To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.

The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.

That's where we should be concentrating our fire.

I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.

Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.

If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.

Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.

Foxy said:

Looking at the run ins, Everton has a tough one, albeit 2 games in hand, but Leeds looks difficult too. Burnley plays Villa twice in its 4 remaining games.

It does look like Everton were doomed by Burnley today. Sacking Dyche clearly the right decision.

BlancheLivermore said:

My beer has gone all Russian tank..

It’s a Budvar, and I’m guessing “zàlohované” means recyclable in Czech. Which works for the Russian tanks!

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.

The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.

To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.

The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.

That's where we should be concentrating our fire.

Say what you like about our PM, he sure knows how to make a lady mone.

Omnium said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.

The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.

To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.

The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.

That's where we should be concentrating our fire.

I find the idea that Oliver Letwin's elevation to the peerage would demonstrate a revitalised, cronyism-free honours system to be quaint to say the least.

Which is why I am suggesting we should abolish the whole lot.

If we must have a second chamber, it would be better to elect it.

Heck, even the original Lords before Blair monkeyed with it was better than this shambles.

I'm in favour of electing them, but for life. So not much change. The parties get a share of Lords appointments according to their vote share at GE. Lords encouraged to retire sooner. It wouldn't eliminate the patronage, but would be fairer.

If there was a change to that model it'd almost certainly finish up far worse in my view. You'd finish up with a far more politicised chamber with some complete nutters. It would entirely cease to function.

I don't really like the way things work at the moment, but it does seem the most likely system to maintain some sort of worthwhile function.

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

kjh said:

NickPalmer said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Yes, a reason I was so keen on Oliver Letwin is that he was the ONLY MP I ever encountered who was willing to be persuaded in committee debate - "I see what you mean - OK, I withdraw the amendment", he'd say - not often, but often renough to make it worth the effort.

Time limits are certainly part of the answer. You could easily sit through a debate for 4 hours and never get called to speak, because others with greater seniority rattled on at length. I think 90% of MPs would be delighted to be limited to 5 minutes if it meant that their colleagues would express themselves succinctly and they'd have a better chance of getting in themselves.

Also, where Parliament works well is when it's interactive, e.g. a Select Committee hearing, where you're essentially discussing something with a witness, and anyone can chip in. I know that Parish apparently watched porn even then, but that really is weird - in my experience of Select Committees (and I was on 4) people really do pay attention.

Re Oliver Letwin, I have had some personal dealings and I agree. It is noticeable that he hasn't been appointed to the Lord's where he would be a great asset. There are several positive stories I could tell.

The fact that Lord Lebedev is in the Lords and Oliver Letwin is not shows that there are big issues with the Lords Appointments system.

To be pedantic, it shows nothing of the sort. The whole idea with the Lord's appointment system is to appoint cronies and or big donors of the Prime Minister's party to a position of influence. And in that, it's working exactly as it should.

The issue is not the appointment system but the whole ethos of having an entirely appointed second chamber after the control of politicians who as we have seen think laws do not apply to them.

That's where we should be concentrating our fire.

Say what you like about our PM, he sure knows how to make a lady mone.

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Jonathan said:

Ok, I’m stumped. What dodgy term sounds like tractor?

Civil war re-enactor?

Knot a nice thing to say.

(Now there's a *really* obscure pun.)

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a real shame one of the Lords Spiritual hasn't been caught doing this.

Just so I could make a joke about bashing the bishop.

I mitre guessed you would think of that.

That’s because you’re crozier than he is

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's a real shame one of the Lords Spiritual hasn't been caught doing this.

Just so I could make a joke about bashing the bishop.

I mitre guessed you would think of that.

That’s because you’re crozier than he is

I was just throne it out there.

Foxy said:

algarkirk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It's quite interesting to hear (from @NickPalmer, who offers great insights into parliamentary life) that the HOC chamber is basically causing mass boredom, as MP's catch up with their emails, play Candy Crush, or (as the latest extreme example) browse tractor porn. And its hardly surprising therefore that so many debates there are so sparsely attended. It's probably time for an update. I doubt that MPs during the era of Palmerston captivating the House with 3 hour speeches had 500 emails to catch up on. I am all for preserving tradition, but to preserve them, they must evolve.

I am not sure what the answer is, not being experienced or interested enough in parliament to have a view, but we probably need something like a 20/20 version of parliament. Speeches in most cases should probably be strictly time-limited, and there needs to be more point in participating. Perhaps we need more votes - the technology is there for voting by waving order papers, rather than trooping through a lobby at the end. I say this as a means to preserve the relevancy of the debating chambers of the Lords and Commons rather than to trash their traditions.

One of the difficulties is that very few MPs are any good at public speaking/debating. Secondly, debates are only interesting when there is a degree of uncertainty about the outcome and those voting are in fact willing to be persuaded.

Increasingly the Commons is just a rubber stamp for decisions announced by the Executive, and often implemented by executive order rather than legislation.

Andy_JS said:

BlancheLivermore said:

My beer has gone all Russian tank..

It’s a Budvar, and I’m guessing “zàlohované” means recyclable in Czech. Which works for the Russian tanks!

Are you still in Catalonia?

Cicero said:

Away from Parliamentary Onanism, it has been an exceptionally savage day in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Russians just lost another general and according to the Ukrainians the Russian losses are "colossal". Nevertheless there have also been very heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side. The battle is extremely intense and it may be that we are reaching another tipping point. The general assessment here is that the Russian advance is stalling.

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Away from Parliamentary Onanism, it has been an exceptionally savage day in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The Russians just lost another general and according to the Ukrainians the Russian losses are "colossal". Nevertheless there have also been very heavy casualties on the Ukrainian side. The battle is extremely intense and it may be that we are reaching another tipping point. The general assessment here is that the Russian advance is stalling.

I pray (in an atheistic way) that it stalls, and reverses. But clearly a very bloody road still to go whatever the outcome.

The worry for Ukr I think at moment is fuel. Seems RU have been focussing on damaging supply chains for fuel in last few days.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

NickPalmer said:

IanB2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@NickPalmer does the HoC have a DAS for 4G reception?

More pertinently, why don’t they have a blocker on their network that prevents porn, gambling, alcohol, etc., like almost every local authority?

I've been away from the Commons too long to know, but generally they tried to keep up with the latest tech. I think they were reticent about putting blockers on, though. What if there was a debate about one of these subjects? If someone claims that gambling site X is using dishonest marketing tricks, you need to be able to look at it.

Did they have phone reception in the HoC?

Andy_JS said:

BlancheLivermore said:

My beer has gone all Russian tank..

It’s a Budvar, and I’m guessing “zàlohované” means recyclable in Czech. Which works for the Russian tanks!

Are you still in Catalonia?

rottenborough said:

Hope there is a thread tomorrow on 25 years since Blair's New Labour victory.

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Hope there is a thread tomorrow on 25 years since Blair's New Labour victory.

Technically that was the 2nd...

(Autocorrect made that 'end' which works after a fashion....)

IshmaelZ said:

Gardenwalker said:

To improve the HoL, simply remove the power of PM’s patronage, and leave it to an Appointments Commission.

Each parliamentary term, appoint 30 peers in proportion to a party’s vote taken at the last election, and a further 20 cross-benchers.

Powerful old committee, that. Who gets to appoint it?

If you aren't a federal government, unicameral is the way to go, as in plucky little Ukraine, Sweden, NZ etc. Our own dear HoL patently evolved by accidents of history, not with any directed purpose in mind. Away with it.