Do you want to discuss boring politics? (170 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

I've only seen the headlines, so how do things like more local control over education work? I always thought that should be a national thing in terms of policy and strategy, but down to local areas to implement it. Is that about where they're heading, or in danger of a mish-mash of different plans across the country?

Bringing academies back under LA purview I believe.

 

---

[shmmeee]

I too, haven't deep dived the proposals, but the minimum should be to get rid of cronies and clergy having a say in lawmaking for the rest of their lives/careers without democratic accountancy.

PR is the obvious way to go.

It won't be ideal to begin with, but it's absolutely the right thing to do.

Why have two elected chambers? What’s the point? And why remove the ability to get rid of shit politicians? Voters won’t matter, just brown nosing party leadership to get on the list. All so 6% of people can vote for the Very Specific Issue Party and get one MP who achieves fuck all.

 

[JAM See]

Why have two elected chambers? What’s the point? And why remove the ability to get rid of shit politicians? Voters won’t matter, just brown nosing party leadership to get on the list. All so 6% of people can vote for the Very Specific Issue Party and get one MP who achieves fuck all.

What's the alternative?

A single chamber or a second chamber of cronies and clerics?

 

[shmmeee]

What's the alternative?

A single chamber or a second chamber of cronies and clerics?

Change the selection criteria for HoL to not be something politicians give their mates but something closer to an MBE. A reward for actually having achieved something in a field. Sure we need some law making experiencing there, but not this crap. Maybe limit political ones to the major offices of state at least so you don’t get Lady fucking Fox and Dorries. Let the Royal Society or the unions or major charities have nominations.

I like the theory of the Lords: get some expertise in to critique bills without the populairst pressures of election breathing down their neck. But at the moment it’s a cronies club and not much else.

 

[JAM See]

Change the selection criteria for HoL to not be something politicians give their mates but something closer to an MBE. A reward for actually having achieved something in a field. Sure we need some law making experiencing there, but not this crap. Maybe limit political ones to the major offices of state at least so you don’t get Lady fucking Fox and Dorries. Let the Royal Society or the unions or major charities have nominations.

I like the theory of the Lords: get some expertise in to critique bills without the populairst pressures of election breathing down their neck. But at the moment it’s a cronies club and not much else.

Or how about the most popular poster on SBT?

It's all bollocks and is cronyism by the back door.

This is a supposed democracy, lawmakers should be answerable to the electorate.

 

[shmmeee]

Or how about the most popular poster on SBT?

It's all bollocks and is cronyism by the back door.

This is a supposed democracy, lawmakers should be answerable to the electorate.

They’re not lawmakers though. They’re law scrutinisers.

Do you want the civil service elected too? The heads of quangos? How far does it go?

 

[JAM See]

They’re not lawmakers though. They’re law scrutinisers.

Do you want the civil service elected too? The heads of quangos? How far does it go?

The HoL votes on laws sent up from the HoC.

They are lawmakers.

Other branches of government are advisers/experts. and are on a period of notice (normal employment terms). Not so with the HoL.

An appointed second chamber is something that doesn't sit right with me.

 

[shmmeee]

The HoL votes on laws sent up from the HoC.

They are lawmakers.

Other branches of government are advisers/experts. and are on a period of notice (normal employment terms). Not so with the HoL.

An appointed second chamber is something that doesn't sit right with me.

Id be open to a fixed term. But HoL can’t create law, their job is to scrutinise the laws the HoC creates as you say. So why do we need them if not for expertise? Just scrap them entirely if that’s what you want.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Mark Pawsey stepping down too. Who's actually going to be left?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Id be open to a fixed term. But HoL can’t create law, their job is to scrutinise the laws the HoC creates as you say. So why do we need them if not for expertise? Just scrap them entirely if that’s what you want.

It’s often easier to do it in steps isn’t it?

 

[shmmeee]

This is up there with the dumbest policy ideas ever. There’s a bit of the Labour Party that is hell bent on making the internet “safe” and all logic and reason flies out the window, same as Tories and terrorists.

No polticians, you can’t ban basic technology. Make better laws.

 

[shmmeee]

This:

 

[Sick Boy]

what are they going to do? Ban VPNs?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

what are they going to do? Ban VPNs?

No more city games under Labour

 

[clint van damme]

No more city games under Labour

Might not be any by the time of the next GE

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Don't fall ill on 21st or 28th December then.

 

[shmmeee]

Don't fall ill on 21st or 28th December then.

Or if you do make it life threatening, I believe critical care is carrying on.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Why have two elected chambers? What’s the point?...

It could stop Governments raging invasions on other countries when there are other mechanisms that could sort this out like the UN?

 

[shmmeee]

It could stop Governments raging invasions on other countries when there are other mechanisms that could sort this out like the UN?

How would it do that?

Armed forces come under the royal prerogative authorised by the PM.

 

[Philosoraptor]

How would it do that?

Armed forces come under the royal prerogative authorised by the PM.

Oh, come on Shmmee, you can't be that stupid?

 

[shmmeee]

Oh, come on Shmmee, you can't be that stupid?

You’d be surprised how stupid I can be. Humour me.

 

[Philosoraptor]

You’d be surprised how stupid I can be. Humour me.

Any action needs the consent of Parliament, across the two chambers.



Edit-

Actually, I just checked. No, Government doesn't but in reality you would expect explicit consent from Parliament to go to war. Unless it was an emergency. Iraq War was no emergency.

Edit II- I guess these are things to be worked out if you are going to have an elected second chamber. You just can't force a vote through/ignore an elected chamber like you can when one is unelected.

 

[shmmeee]

Any action needs the consent of Parliament, across the two chambers.



Edit-

Actually, I just checked. No, Government doesn't but in reality you would expect explicit consent from Parliament to go to war. Unless it was an emergency. Iraq War was no emergency.

Edit II- I guess these are things to be worked out if you are going to have an elected second chamber. You just can't force a vote through an elected chamber like you can when one is unelected.

Constitutionally the Commons doesn’t need to be involved but precedent is that they have a debate.

Iraq had explicit parliamentary consent anyway so wouldn’t have been affected by your proposal.

 

[fernandopartridge]

This is up there with the dumbest policy ideas ever. There’s a bit of the Labour Party that is hell bent on making the internet “safe” and all logic and reason flies out the window, same as Tories and terrorists.

No polticians, you can’t ban basic technology. Make better laws.

Can't see the twitter as I'm at work but was reading some tweets about it earlier. There is a very hard authoritarian streak in the Labour party, it seems to assume that people like that kind of thing

 

[shmmeee]

Can't see the twitter as I'm at work but was reading some tweets about it earlier. There is a very hard authoritarian streak in the Labour party, it seems to assume that people like that kind of thing

I mean that’s the left for you, I don’t think it’s focus groups or whatever though. It seems to be lead by a lot of older women so I’m guessing either “think of the children” or experiences of online abuse. Those that push it hard seem to be the type that overblow a few comments on their SM. It’s not just since Starmer either, here’s Diane Abbott talking about it:

Diane Abbott calls for less online anonymity amid abuse of MPs

DIANE ABBOTT has called for social media companies to tackle anonymity of their users as...

www.voice-online.co.uk

And here’s Corbyn:

Jeremy Corbyn vows to bring in “digital citizen passport” if elected PM

Labour leader vows voluntary “secure and portable identity” online scheme for Brits.

arstechnica.com

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

That's what I was heading for in an upper chamber!

As for counterbalance, it'd be madness to hold it at the same time. What you maybe need is a bit like local authorities, where a set percentage of seats become up for election at staggered intervals.

But it'd also be easiest to hold it at the same time, as you just take the overall nationwide percetnage figures for votes and give each party that percentage of seats in the upper chamber. Also makes it so if you live in a safe seat your vote doesn't feel like it's wasted and therefore could improve turnout.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Why have two elected chambers? What’s the point? And why remove the ability to get rid of shit politicians? Voters won’t matter, just brown nosing party leadership to get on the list. All so 6% of people can vote for the Very Specific Issue Party and get one MP who achieves fuck all.

Trouble with having experts in the upper chamber is who chooses the experts?

You could end up with a bunch of experts who wanted huge deregulation and reduced working rights along with more privatised healthcare and other public services, or another bunch of experts that wanted increased regulation and more nationalised services.

Give 100 experts a question and you'll end up with 100 different answers.

It's still have political ideology behind the decisions, just people who would sound more convincing that they know what they're talking about.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Trouble with having experts in the upper chamber is who chooses the experts?

And what constitutes an expert?

 

[Sick Boy]

No more city games under Labour

At least the coverage for us abroad might improve then!

 

[shmmeee]

And what constitutes an expert?

If you’ve had enough of them they’re an expert.

I know this is SBT and we’re all experts but are people really saying that say a teacher with 30 years experience or a scientists with a significant amount of published papers doesn’t have more insight than Nadine Dorries or Clare Fox?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If you’ve had enough of them they’re an expert.

I know this is SBT and we’re all experts but are people really saying that say a teacher with 30 years experience or a scientists with a significant amount of published papers doesn’t have more insight than Nadine Dorries or Clare Fox?

I bet your definition of experts would differ from mine... I've got a number of peer reviewed published papers. Do I count?

 

[shmmeee]

I bet your definition of experts would differ from mine... I've got a number of peer reviewed published papers. Do I count?

Maybe, in a particular field. Would an organisation of your peers elect you as such?

Are you really claiming there are no experts? That Gary from the pub/golf club has us much expertise to offer as someone elected by say the Royal Society or the NEU?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Are you really claiming there are no experts?

Nope. I'm suggesting that there are experts in more than science, technology, finance.

So who picks the balance? Who decides the priorities? Experts? In which case, I refer you back to my previous answer.

A priest is an expert in theology after all, and does have a place somewhere in a chamber of experts!

 

[shmmeee]

Nope. I'm suggesting that there are experts in more than science, technology, finance.

So who picks the balance? Who decides the priorities? Experts? In which case, I refer you back to my previous answer.

A priest is an expert in theology after all, and does have a place somewhere in a chamber of experts!

He does. And I’d want a full range of opinions rather than just politicians which is all you’d get from an elected chamber. Is much rather take a few major industries, state sectors, charities and the like. I don’t think it’s insurmountable.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

On a side note, Kevin Maton alone could turn me Tory(!)