| Go Keir...love him...xx on 19:59 - Nov 19 with 2942 views | Churchman |
I’d get rid of the HoL tomorrow. An unelected and in many cases unqualified group of people deciding on stuff in this country? Never agreed with it and never will.
Those people even objected and refused to share a restaurant with members of the HoC because theirs is far better. Some of them turn up, claim their expenses, have a lovely lunch and tootle home.
Bye. |  | |  |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:10 - Nov 19 with 2899 views | bluelagos |
Long overdue but like PR it feels like a second term policy tbh.
And reading that, Truss gets to nominate some peers ffs. My money is on Kwasi and her PR bods who did all Maggie-a-like photo ops that gave the elder party membership such a boner. |  |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:12 - Nov 19 with 2881 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 19:59 - Nov 19 by Churchman |
I’d get rid of the HoL tomorrow. An unelected and in many cases unqualified group of people deciding on stuff in this country? Never agreed with it and never will.
Those people even objected and refused to share a restaurant with members of the HoC because theirs is far better. Some of them turn up, claim their expenses, have a lovely lunch and tootle home.
Bye. |
We are finally arriving into the twentieth century. |  |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:14 - Nov 19 with 2873 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:10 - Nov 19 by bluelagos |
Long overdue but like PR it feels like a second term policy tbh.
And reading that, Truss gets to nominate some peers ffs. My money is on Kwasi and her PR bods who did all Maggie-a-like photo ops that gave the elder party membership such a boner. |
Not forgetting the I.E.A. | |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:21 - Nov 19 with 2822 views | HARRY10 |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 19:59 - Nov 19 by Churchman |
I’d get rid of the HoL tomorrow. An unelected and in many cases unqualified group of people deciding on stuff in this country? Never agreed with it and never will.
Those people even objected and refused to share a restaurant with members of the HoC because theirs is far better. Some of them turn up, claim their expenses, have a lovely lunch and tootle home.
Bye. |
actually they don't decide on anything |  | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:22 - Nov 19 with 2841 views | Guthrum |
The issue I have replacing the HoL with a second elected chamber is that it will merely produce a shadow House of Commons, with all the same party political bollox we currently have in that place. I can't think of any effective way of excluding that party alignment and ensuring it becomes some sort of neutral scrutiny forum.
Can't quite see what the point of having it at all would be, really. Especially if it still (post 1911) has no actual power to assert influence upon legislation in the face of government insistence. Might as well go unicameral. |  |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:27 - Nov 19 with 2790 views | jeera |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:22 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
The issue I have replacing the HoL with a second elected chamber is that it will merely produce a shadow House of Commons, with all the same party political bollox we currently have in that place. I can't think of any effective way of excluding that party alignment and ensuring it becomes some sort of neutral scrutiny forum.
Can't quite see what the point of having it at all would be, really. Especially if it still (post 1911) has no actual power to assert influence upon legislation in the face of government insistence. Might as well go unicameral. |
Well obviously TWTD [forum only] should be the second chamber.
Stands to reason. |  |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:48 - Nov 19 with 2724 views | HARRY10 |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:22 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
The issue I have replacing the HoL with a second elected chamber is that it will merely produce a shadow House of Commons, with all the same party political bollox we currently have in that place. I can't think of any effective way of excluding that party alignment and ensuring it becomes some sort of neutral scrutiny forum.
Can't quite see what the point of having it at all would be, really. Especially if it still (post 1911) has no actual power to assert influence upon legislation in the face of government insistence. Might as well go unicameral. |
The Lords provides a vital and very necessary role in our democracy - if only as a delaying power to stop instant and what might be thought
Theres is a scrutinising chamber rather than any legislative body.
In laymans language if you were buying a car you might select three models, which would then be passed the Lords to examine in detrail and make recommendations to you. However the ultimate decision of what you buy would up rto you. So not only would you get 'expert' advice, but they would be able to stop you buying some 'carlos fandago' souped up car when you were pissed.
And as said previously I think the Lords has far too many members - Botham, Lloyd -Webber. What expertise do they bring ?
Around two hundred maximum
They could be elected through party affiliation at the same time as the GE. It wouldn't stop party allegiance, but it would be impossible to have a 200 voting list and for any voter to have heard of the vast majority of them.
Being dependant upon that it would soon weed out the slackers and skivers. It would stop the gutbucket from rewarding those who have done him, not the party or the country. good.
But first voters would have to be informed, and this time actually listen to what is being explained - not simply bleat master knows best, and agree that they and the judiciary are the 'enemies of the people.'
Sadly most voters are woefully ignorant of how Parliament works, or even the judiciary for that matter time this stuff was made part of the national curriculum. And not just the odd couple of lessons either. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 21:28 - Nov 19 with 2637 views | Churchman |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:48 - Nov 19 by HARRY10 |
The Lords provides a vital and very necessary role in our democracy - if only as a delaying power to stop instant and what might be thought
Theres is a scrutinising chamber rather than any legislative body.
In laymans language if you were buying a car you might select three models, which would then be passed the Lords to examine in detrail and make recommendations to you. However the ultimate decision of what you buy would up rto you. So not only would you get 'expert' advice, but they would be able to stop you buying some 'carlos fandago' souped up car when you were pissed.
And as said previously I think the Lords has far too many members - Botham, Lloyd -Webber. What expertise do they bring ?
Around two hundred maximum
They could be elected through party affiliation at the same time as the GE. It wouldn't stop party allegiance, but it would be impossible to have a 200 voting list and for any voter to have heard of the vast majority of them.
Being dependant upon that it would soon weed out the slackers and skivers. It would stop the gutbucket from rewarding those who have done him, not the party or the country. good.
But first voters would have to be informed, and this time actually listen to what is being explained - not simply bleat master knows best, and agree that they and the judiciary are the 'enemies of the people.'
Sadly most voters are woefully ignorant of how Parliament works, or even the judiciary for that matter time this stuff was made part of the national curriculum. And not just the odd couple of lessons either. |
Then replace them with an elected body. I don’t care what vital and necessary or even useful role they perform. They are not elected to do it. Some are born into it, then we have sportsmen, actors, Russians wheeled in for favours, tv people, people who have done good works, old politicians wheeled in to bump up party numbers etc etc. Worthy though some may be, they should play no part in our democracy. If necessary, adopt an American style system.
To take your analogy further, if I was buying some ‘Carlos fandango car’, I wouldn’t be taking advice from Botham, that Russian bloke, Johnson’s mates, failed politicians or senile old duffers whose interest doesn’t stretch beyond soup of the day.
For the record, I do know how Parliament works and broadly it’s history. | | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 21:54 - Nov 19 with 2580 views | BlueForYou |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:48 - Nov 19 by HARRY10 |
The Lords provides a vital and very necessary role in our democracy - if only as a delaying power to stop instant and what might be thought
Theres is a scrutinising chamber rather than any legislative body.
In laymans language if you were buying a car you might select three models, which would then be passed the Lords to examine in detrail and make recommendations to you. However the ultimate decision of what you buy would up rto you. So not only would you get 'expert' advice, but they would be able to stop you buying some 'carlos fandago' souped up car when you were pissed.
And as said previously I think the Lords has far too many members - Botham, Lloyd -Webber. What expertise do they bring ?
Around two hundred maximum
They could be elected through party affiliation at the same time as the GE. It wouldn't stop party allegiance, but it would be impossible to have a 200 voting list and for any voter to have heard of the vast majority of them.
Being dependant upon that it would soon weed out the slackers and skivers. It would stop the gutbucket from rewarding those who have done him, not the party or the country. good.
But first voters would have to be informed, and this time actually listen to what is being explained - not simply bleat master knows best, and agree that they and the judiciary are the 'enemies of the people.'
Sadly most voters are woefully ignorant of how Parliament works, or even the judiciary for that matter time this stuff was made part of the national curriculum. And not just the odd couple of lessons either. |
Actually agree with everything said here! |  | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 22:08 - Nov 19 with 2545 views | MattinLondon |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:10 - Nov 19 by bluelagos |
Long overdue but like PR it feels like a second term policy tbh.
And reading that, Truss gets to nominate some peers ffs. My money is on Kwasi and her PR bods who did all Maggie-a-like photo ops that gave the elder party membership such a boner. |
Why do we need a permanent seating second chamber?
If there’s a Health Bill going through the HoC can the NHS nominate some respected and politically independent fifties or senior nurses (or people in the know) to discuss it and to advise on its passage? Both having to sign-off? Same principle with other areas with relevant professionals acting as a barrier to a government rushing through ill-advised legislation. |  | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 23:07 - Nov 19 with 2427 views | HARRY10 |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 21:28 - Nov 19 by Churchman |
Then replace them with an elected body. I don’t care what vital and necessary or even useful role they perform. They are not elected to do it. Some are born into it, then we have sportsmen, actors, Russians wheeled in for favours, tv people, people who have done good works, old politicians wheeled in to bump up party numbers etc etc. Worthy though some may be, they should play no part in our democracy. If necessary, adopt an American style system.
To take your analogy further, if I was buying some ‘Carlos fandango car’, I wouldn’t be taking advice from Botham, that Russian bloke, Johnson’s mates, failed politicians or senile old duffers whose interest doesn’t stretch beyond soup of the day.
For the record, I do know how Parliament works and broadly it’s history. |
If you do not care what work they do, then why the concern ?
You paint a picture rather reminiscent of the Sun trying to explain to its readers what the Lords is about.
Labour rid the Lords of around 650 hereditary peers in 1999, the other 92 are elected by the Lords themselves.
So how would you go about electing the second chamber ? On what basis ? One for each consticuency ? So many for each county, as with the flawed US system (only it is states instead of counties).
Though to hold up the US as an example would be to advocate that fossil fuel burning modern vehicles should be replaced with ones that don't - the horse and cart.
Yes the second chamber needs a complete overhaul, not for the reasons the Sun, Mail or Express might whine about. The Lords is very good at what it dies. But that it should be massively cut down in numbers to reflect the workload and those who are competent. And it that light age is not a handicap.
"Starmer backs banning MPs from carrying out paid consultancy work as a way of improving ethical standards. He would also replace the ministerial code with an updated code of conduct. The party’s plans appear to include an entirely elected second chamber, but the details of the reforms have not yet been agreed." Sundays Observer [Post edited 19 Nov 2022 23:17]
| | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 23:26 - Nov 19 with 2403 views | Pinewoodblue |
There are nearly 800 who sit in the House of Lords and that is before Johnson and Truss add to the numbers.
Over the years the government in power have added to their numbers, Labour being no better than the Tories in the respect.
A personal story from mid 70’s. I won’t name the individual , nor the company I worked for but we had an office on Regent Street Cambridge, This individual decided it was OK for him to leave his shopping and come back for it later, it was at a time IRA were active. He had nothing to prove he was, but insisted he was a member of the House of Lords. Staff had told him he couldn’t so he demanded to speak to a Manager. Since staff members he had spoken to had acted reasonably and been polite about it I stood by their judgement.
Well he wrote oh HoL headed paper to the Chairman. The letter was read to me, I was told I had placed him in an awkward position could I say anything in my defence. After I told him that the gentleman in question wasn’t a hereditary peer but a Harold Wilson life peer I was told I had done the right thing.
The sooner HoL is replaced by an elected assembly, elected by proportional representation the better it will be.
Top marks to Sir K for addressing the problem. If he also promises to overhaul the tax system, combine Income Tax & National Insurance and have a lot more tax bands then he stands a good chance of getting my vote, even if it will be wasted as can’t see South Suffolk turning red. He would have to make State Pension tax free for everyone but that’s because like everyone els it’s just a bit of self interest. |  |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 00:49 - Nov 20 with 2360 views | Churchman |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 23:07 - Nov 19 by HARRY10 |
If you do not care what work they do, then why the concern ?
You paint a picture rather reminiscent of the Sun trying to explain to its readers what the Lords is about.
Labour rid the Lords of around 650 hereditary peers in 1999, the other 92 are elected by the Lords themselves.
So how would you go about electing the second chamber ? On what basis ? One for each consticuency ? So many for each county, as with the flawed US system (only it is states instead of counties).
Though to hold up the US as an example would be to advocate that fossil fuel burning modern vehicles should be replaced with ones that don't - the horse and cart.
Yes the second chamber needs a complete overhaul, not for the reasons the Sun, Mail or Express might whine about. The Lords is very good at what it dies. But that it should be massively cut down in numbers to reflect the workload and those who are competent. And it that light age is not a handicap.
"Starmer backs banning MPs from carrying out paid consultancy work as a way of improving ethical standards. He would also replace the ministerial code with an updated code of conduct. The party’s plans appear to include an entirely elected second chamber, but the details of the reforms have not yet been agreed." Sundays Observer [Post edited 19 Nov 2022 23:17]
|
How you view my post(s) is up to you. If you think the the only people qualified to do the kind of work the HoL do are 790 odd unelected and often unqualified people, fine.
Ignoring fine dining, with silver service and the best wines, this is what these people can claim.
https://fullfact.org/online/lords-allowance-universal-credit/
Personally, I believe in what is meant to be a democracy there are better, more cost effective ways. As for the monarchy which sits at the top of the privilege pyramid, that has to either go or significantly change. The only reservation I have in binning it is what you replace it with.
The first past the post system for the HoC has to go too. The disaster of the past 12 years is evidence enough for that. Time for this country to shamble into the 21c in my view. | | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 08:54 - Nov 20 with 2143 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 00:49 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
How you view my post(s) is up to you. If you think the the only people qualified to do the kind of work the HoL do are 790 odd unelected and often unqualified people, fine.
Ignoring fine dining, with silver service and the best wines, this is what these people can claim.
https://fullfact.org/online/lords-allowance-universal-credit/
Personally, I believe in what is meant to be a democracy there are better, more cost effective ways. As for the monarchy which sits at the top of the privilege pyramid, that has to either go or significantly change. The only reservation I have in binning it is what you replace it with.
The first past the post system for the HoC has to go too. The disaster of the past 12 years is evidence enough for that. Time for this country to shamble into the 21c in my view. |
Around ten years seems to be more than long enough for one party to remain in power. If truth be known the Tories wouldn’t be in power now if, at the last two election, there had been a credible alternative.
We have an real alternative now but would like to hear how Labour would being dealing differently with our current woes. How would they find the funds to give Nurses, fireman, refuse collectors et al a decent pay rise?
A Labour government after the next election is not a given it has to be worked for. | |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 09:08 - Nov 20 with 2123 views | Bobsthename |
That alone might make me vote Labour.
Way too many parasites in this country. | | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 12:05 - Nov 20 with 1990 views | HARRY10 |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 00:49 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
How you view my post(s) is up to you. If you think the the only people qualified to do the kind of work the HoL do are 790 odd unelected and often unqualified people, fine.
Ignoring fine dining, with silver service and the best wines, this is what these people can claim.
https://fullfact.org/online/lords-allowance-universal-credit/
Personally, I believe in what is meant to be a democracy there are better, more cost effective ways. As for the monarchy which sits at the top of the privilege pyramid, that has to either go or significantly change. The only reservation I have in binning it is what you replace it with.
The first past the post system for the HoC has to go too. The disaster of the past 12 years is evidence enough for that. Time for this country to shamble into the 21c in my view. |
Dear god, how to reply to stuff I did not say.
Where did I defend having 790 Lords. i didn't. In fact I talked of cutting it down to around 200, and having those elected. So far, on here, I yet to see anyone post anything about how that would happen
The idea that you could have unelected specialist bodies ignores that there already are ie Quangos.
The monarchy. I think change is happening there already. Though due more to external pressure than any realisation from the palace that they live a priviliged life well out of keeping with the 21st century
Still no discussion would be complete were it not some idiotic bleat about PR (there are others?). You replace a system where local democracy chooses its candidates with one where candidates are chosen from Head Office. One where you don't even know who you are voting for on the day and as no party has received over 50% in living memory that would give a coalition every time.
The decision then, is not of the 30million odd voters but a half a dozen or so 'men in suits' (as 2010) to decide. That means, as with the Libdems, policies they were elected on are dumped. Even when they do try to implement them as with their reform of the Lords they were outvoted by the larger party (Tories).
The only way then would be to vote against the government......that's why countries with PR often have short term governments. You either let the bigger party rule, or bring down the government. So harshly exposing the idiocy behind PR.
I wrote earlier of the need to inform voters, and yet here we have someone demonstrating that even when it is explained to them, they still don't have a clue. | | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 12:37 - Nov 20 with 1970 views | Darth_Koont |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:22 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
The issue I have replacing the HoL with a second elected chamber is that it will merely produce a shadow House of Commons, with all the same party political bollox we currently have in that place. I can't think of any effective way of excluding that party alignment and ensuring it becomes some sort of neutral scrutiny forum.
Can't quite see what the point of having it at all would be, really. Especially if it still (post 1911) has no actual power to assert influence upon legislation in the face of government insistence. Might as well go unicameral. |
Indeed.
Duplicating the party political bollox, as you say, would be counter-productive. But also it’ll be adding another layer/complication towards holding politicians and parties to account, which along with the dearth of policy alternatives and genuine debate seems to be a constant problem nowadays. |  |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 12:59 - Nov 20 with 1931 views | Churchman |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 12:05 - Nov 20 by HARRY10 |
Dear god, how to reply to stuff I did not say.
Where did I defend having 790 Lords. i didn't. In fact I talked of cutting it down to around 200, and having those elected. So far, on here, I yet to see anyone post anything about how that would happen
The idea that you could have unelected specialist bodies ignores that there already are ie Quangos.
The monarchy. I think change is happening there already. Though due more to external pressure than any realisation from the palace that they live a priviliged life well out of keeping with the 21st century
Still no discussion would be complete were it not some idiotic bleat about PR (there are others?). You replace a system where local democracy chooses its candidates with one where candidates are chosen from Head Office. One where you don't even know who you are voting for on the day and as no party has received over 50% in living memory that would give a coalition every time.
The decision then, is not of the 30million odd voters but a half a dozen or so 'men in suits' (as 2010) to decide. That means, as with the Libdems, policies they were elected on are dumped. Even when they do try to implement them as with their reform of the Lords they were outvoted by the larger party (Tories).
The only way then would be to vote against the government......that's why countries with PR often have short term governments. You either let the bigger party rule, or bring down the government. So harshly exposing the idiocy behind PR.
I wrote earlier of the need to inform voters, and yet here we have someone demonstrating that even when it is explained to them, they still don't have a clue. |
On a forum, the idea is that people express their views. It should be about opinions. I usually find it best to post as I would if I was talking to them face to face. I don’t do rudeness, other than to the odd person trolling from other clubs.
Quangos or ALBs as they’re also known include the DVLA, HSA and NHS. This is not the same as the House of Lords.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/
Thea are not elected and should not ‘share the task of making laws and questioning the government’ in my view.
As for PR there are plenty of countries that seem to operate a version of it such as Norway and Germany and seem to do reasonably ok. Certainly none have got through three leaders in a year or are creating policy they were not elected to do. | | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 13:11 - Nov 20 with 1915 views | Darth_Koont |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 12:59 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
On a forum, the idea is that people express their views. It should be about opinions. I usually find it best to post as I would if I was talking to them face to face. I don’t do rudeness, other than to the odd person trolling from other clubs.
Quangos or ALBs as they’re also known include the DVLA, HSA and NHS. This is not the same as the House of Lords.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/
Thea are not elected and should not ‘share the task of making laws and questioning the government’ in my view.
As for PR there are plenty of countries that seem to operate a version of it such as Norway and Germany and seem to do reasonably ok. Certainly none have got through three leaders in a year or are creating policy they were not elected to do. |
I think the inherent democratic deficit in our system is catching up with us, as the world and the UK’s place in it becomes a lot more complicated and challenging.
PR would give us more stability not less. That would encourage a genuine representation of the population, the real issues and different solutions. As opposed to FPTP’s largely superficial and irrelevant party posturing around a small percentage of marginal battlegrounds.
It was often aimed at Italian politics, but it’s now us that look the basket case. | |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:14 - Nov 20 with 1844 views | HARRY10 |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 13:11 - Nov 20 by Darth_Koont |
I think the inherent democratic deficit in our system is catching up with us, as the world and the UK’s place in it becomes a lot more complicated and challenging.
PR would give us more stability not less. That would encourage a genuine representation of the population, the real issues and different solutions. As opposed to FPTP’s largely superficial and irrelevant party posturing around a small percentage of marginal battlegrounds.
It was often aimed at Italian politics, but it’s now us that look the basket case. |
Utter nonsense.
PR gives less stability due to its inherent need for going back on previous promised policies. As with the tosh about representation. Politics is binary NOT some naive colour mixing.
If labour form a coalition with the Libdems the policies are not some variation of orange. They will be red, as they will out vote the libdens every time. 10 Tories 6 Lindems in cabinet. the Tory vote will always win.
it matters little what the composition is of Parliament it is who has the deciding vote. PR does not change that.
Therein lies the danger. Peddling lies to voters will undoubtedly lead to further disillusionment. Much as the twaddle peddled to simple minded brexiteers, did seem like they were being promised a trouble free Eldorado. It was almost impossible to shatter their dreams with reality (some might refer to Of Mice and Men).
What PR amounts to is an illusion, untroubled by facts, that the problems with politics is not of their making, but of how it is organised. Remove the annoying choice of who you vote for, and who decides who is in power and it will all be fine they say.
Removing a couple of fundemental layers of democracy will NOT improve things, or even solve anything. The current policies and malaise are not due to FPPT, nor would they be solved with PR. Until that is understood we will have the witless staring like rabbits caught in the headlights .... bleating ...PR...PR
The assumption is that all the opposition in 2019 would form some super coalition and whilst sitting round a camp fire singing Kum By yah me lord would bring about peace and goodwill to all men.
Whereas in reality the Tories would have offered enough inducements to the various minority righties and formed the government. Nothing would be different. That those said rightie voters may not wish to prop up the Tories in government matters little. PR is about removing voters wishes and handing power to a half dozen who decide.
Try explaining what difference the Libdems made to the Tory government of 2010. As they now acknowledge, they didn't. They just acted as the whipping boys and suffered in 2015. Did all LibDem voters put a mark on their ballot paper that they wished to prop up the Tories? No.
Much can and should be done in the name of reform. But PR is as close as you can get to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as it is a false narrative that does nothing to change voters disengagement. But lies to voters that it can, until it is put to the test. | | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:16 - Nov 20 with 1844 views | Darth_Koont |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:14 - Nov 20 by HARRY10 |
Utter nonsense.
PR gives less stability due to its inherent need for going back on previous promised policies. As with the tosh about representation. Politics is binary NOT some naive colour mixing.
If labour form a coalition with the Libdems the policies are not some variation of orange. They will be red, as they will out vote the libdens every time. 10 Tories 6 Lindems in cabinet. the Tory vote will always win.
it matters little what the composition is of Parliament it is who has the deciding vote. PR does not change that.
Therein lies the danger. Peddling lies to voters will undoubtedly lead to further disillusionment. Much as the twaddle peddled to simple minded brexiteers, did seem like they were being promised a trouble free Eldorado. It was almost impossible to shatter their dreams with reality (some might refer to Of Mice and Men).
What PR amounts to is an illusion, untroubled by facts, that the problems with politics is not of their making, but of how it is organised. Remove the annoying choice of who you vote for, and who decides who is in power and it will all be fine they say.
Removing a couple of fundemental layers of democracy will NOT improve things, or even solve anything. The current policies and malaise are not due to FPPT, nor would they be solved with PR. Until that is understood we will have the witless staring like rabbits caught in the headlights .... bleating ...PR...PR
The assumption is that all the opposition in 2019 would form some super coalition and whilst sitting round a camp fire singing Kum By yah me lord would bring about peace and goodwill to all men.
Whereas in reality the Tories would have offered enough inducements to the various minority righties and formed the government. Nothing would be different. That those said rightie voters may not wish to prop up the Tories in government matters little. PR is about removing voters wishes and handing power to a half dozen who decide.
Try explaining what difference the Libdems made to the Tory government of 2010. As they now acknowledge, they didn't. They just acted as the whipping boys and suffered in 2015. Did all LibDem voters put a mark on their ballot paper that they wished to prop up the Tories? No.
Much can and should be done in the name of reform. But PR is as close as you can get to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as it is a false narrative that does nothing to change voters disengagement. But lies to voters that it can, until it is put to the test. |
Back at you, Harry.
You’ve created a version of PR in your head that’s pretty delusional. Compared to what we have now which effectively forces a two-party system, PR would widen the democratic representation massively and the political debate too. [Post edited 20 Nov 2022 14:18]
| |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:17 - Nov 20 with 1841 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 20:22 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
The issue I have replacing the HoL with a second elected chamber is that it will merely produce a shadow House of Commons, with all the same party political bollox we currently have in that place. I can't think of any effective way of excluding that party alignment and ensuring it becomes some sort of neutral scrutiny forum.
Can't quite see what the point of having it at all would be, really. Especially if it still (post 1911) has no actual power to assert influence upon legislation in the face of government insistence. Might as well go unicameral. |
The better option would be a chamber where there is proportional representation and is elected midway through a parliamentary term. Knowing there was an important election 2.5 years into a parliament would provide a lot more accountability to the Government than there currently is. To have a proportionally elected chamber would mean more voice to different parties that represent the electorate.
Couple all of this with an increase in power. Allow the second chamber to amend bills and send them back to the Commons. Only once the Commons has then amended them back can they then be forced through the second chamber. Quite how that last part works I am less sure, but isn't it something like that at the moment? |  |
| |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:39 - Nov 20 with 1805 views | HARRY10 |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:16 - Nov 20 by Darth_Koont |
Back at you, Harry.
You’ve created a version of PR in your head that’s pretty delusional. Compared to what we have now which effectively forces a two-party system, PR would widen the democratic representation massively and the political debate too. [Post edited 20 Nov 2022 14:18]
|
No
I have merely pointed out that PR would not deliver the la la land you imagine, by pointing out it's obvious failings.
I have yet to read anything that denies those failings, nor any explanation of how voting in the lower chamber would be changed.
Still, why deal in reality when vacuous cliches better fit your narrative ? | | | |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:44 - Nov 20 with 1790 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Go Keir...love him...xx on 14:39 - Nov 20 by HARRY10 |
No
I have merely pointed out that PR would not deliver the la la land you imagine, by pointing out it's obvious failings.
I have yet to read anything that denies those failings, nor any explanation of how voting in the lower chamber would be changed.
Still, why deal in reality when vacuous cliches better fit your narrative ? |
Your argument is the same as the argument against having coalition Governments.
Do you believe that the ConDem coalition was no different than a Conservative Government would have been?
Your ramblings against PR hold no water, Harry. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
