Do you want to discuss boring politics? (23 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

I


yeah, would rather have some more ‘normal’ people in the HofL…rather than just packed with politicians.

ps



Bizarre timing but an interesting article below kind of covering some of this stuff. It’s not really about Johnson so much as how as a voting public we and most of the West, want things without the cost/consequence so end up with people like Johnson

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk

That’s people though. Every PM has done it TBF. Cameron implying we could decimate funding to public services and pay for it with “efficiency savings” (the magic beans of political finance), Blair pretending he could spend on services and not raise taxes with PFI, Thatcher that we could become a service economy and gift people houses with no consequences.

Nuance doesn’t win elections really.

 

---

[Terry Gibson's perm]

The worst thing about this is not the obscene amounts of cash they're asking for, but the fact they're so easily duped into talking to a fake company. Seemingly no vetting process, just whoring themselves out to anyone with the money.

It’s lucky when you see that idiot Kwasi that he has never been involved in any high level financial jobs.

 

[shmmeee]

How can it be a weakening of the law-making process when it can be effectively controlled by the party in government with new appointments. Just gets bigger and bigger and costs more? Plus the government can overrule them and push legislation through anyway, using the excuse they have no mandate as they're unelected.

At least an elected chamber might better reflect the overall mood of the population and thus have a mandate.

Obviously it would depend on how it was implemented but I can't see how having an unelected upper chamber chosen by the parties in power is better. Why not just go back to making it controlled by the crown and landowners?

Its not though. The point of the Lords is that they can challenge without the pressures of voters. Which means they can be a bit more sensible than the commons and it’s populism.

What system do you want? FPTP? Just another commons. PR? You’re handing power to the parties to choose appointments and it’ll follow the GE result. Local areas? Basically PR.

If you want a second chamber to do what the Lords does (and I do), then you need a wide range of expertise and experience not another load of leaflet pushers and party donors.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But the elected chamber would just be a reflection of the other elected chamber, so completely pointless?

No, because HoC is constituency based and could very conceivably be ruled by a party that actually didn't receive the highest number of votes. Basing it on vote percentage leads to a significant change.

Had a look at the last few elections. These are what would happen if the upper chamber had the same number of seats as the Commons. Tell me it's not more reflective of the mood of the population and not significantly different.

2019	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	365​	283​	-82​
Lab	202​	209​	7​
Lib	11​	75​	64​
SNP	48​	25​	-23​
DUP	8​	5​	-3​
SF	7​	4​	-3​
PC	4​	3​	-1​
SDLP	2​	3​	1​
Green	1​	17​	16​
Alliance	1​	3​	2​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	22​	22​
	650​	650​	0​

2017	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	317​	276​	-41​
Lab	262​	260​	-2​
Lib	12​	48​	36​
SNP	35​	20​	-16​
DUP	10​	6​	-4​
SF	7​	5​	-2​
PC	4​	3​	-1​
Independent	1​	0​	-1​
Green	1​	10​	9​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	22​	22​
	650​	650​	0​

2015	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	330​	239​	-91​
Lab	232​	198​	-34​
Lib	8​	51​	43​
SNP	56​	31​	-25​
DUP	8​	4​	-4​
SF	4​	4​	0​
PC	3​	4​	1​
SDLP	3​	2​	-1​
UUP	2​	3​	1​
UKIP	1​	82​	81​
Independent	1​	0​	-1​
Green	1​	25​	24​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	7​	7​
	650​	650​	0​

2010	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	306​	235​	-71​
Lab	258​	189​	-70​
Lib	57​	150​	93​
SNP	6​	11​	5​
DUP	8​	4​	-4​
SF	5​	4​	-1​
PC	3​	4​	1​
SDLP	3​	3​	0​
Alliance	1​	1​	0​
Independent	1​	0​	-1​
Green	1​	6​	5​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	45​	45​
	650​	650​	0​

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Ah so would want a stalemate system where no legislation gets past a second chamber

Or.... it means that due to no party having overall control legislation has to be more measured and we end up with better laws.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Its not though. The point of the Lords is that they can challenge without the pressures of voters. Which means they can be a bit more sensible than the commons and it’s populism.

What system do you want? FPTP? Just another commons. PR? You’re handing power to the parties to choose appointments and it’ll follow the GE result. Local areas? Basically PR.

If you want a second chamber to do what the Lords does (and I do), then you need a wide range of expertise and experience not another load of leaflet pushers and party donors.

Parties already have the power to choose appointments. That's why it's so bloated. Every time there's a change in party the new party elect a load of new Lords to have some sort of control of it. At least PR based on the public vote limits how many they can appoint. And there's no requirement to choose expertise or experience when making appointments. If you want that then make it so departments have to get the relevant professional bodies to elect someone from the profession to run it.

It's not perfect, but it'd be a lot better.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No, because HoC is constituency based and could very conceivably be ruled by a party that actually didn't receive the highest number of votes. Basing it on vote percentage leads to a significant change.

Had a look at the last few elections. These are what would happen if the upper chamber had the same number of seats as the Commons. Tell me it's not more reflective of the mood of the population and not significantly different.

2019	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	365​	283​	-82​
Lab	202​	209​	7​
Lib	11​	75​	64​
SNP	48​	25​	-23​
DUP	8​	5​	-3​
SF	7​	4​	-3​
PC	4​	3​	-1​
SDLP	2​	3​	1​
Green	1​	17​	16​
Alliance	1​	3​	2​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	22​	22​
	650​	650​	0​

2017	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	317​	276​	-41​
Lab	262​	260​	-2​
Lib	12​	48​	36​
SNP	35​	20​	-16​
DUP	10​	6​	-4​
SF	7​	5​	-2​
PC	4​	3​	-1​
Independent	1​	0​	-1​
Green	1​	10​	9​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	22​	22​
	650​	650​	0​

2015	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	330​	239​	-91​
Lab	232​	198​	-34​
Lib	8​	51​	43​
SNP	56​	31​	-25​
DUP	8​	4​	-4​
SF	4​	4​	0​
PC	3​	4​	1​
SDLP	3​	2​	-1​
UUP	2​	3​	1​
UKIP	1​	82​	81​
Independent	1​	0​	-1​
Green	1​	25​	24​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	7​	7​
	650​	650​	0​

2010	FPTP	PR	Diff
Con	306​	235​	-71​
Lab	258​	189​	-70​
Lib	57​	150​	93​
SNP	6​	11​	5​
DUP	8​	4​	-4​
SF	5​	4​	-1​
PC	3​	4​	1​
SDLP	3​	3​	0​
Alliance	1​	1​	0​
Independent	1​	0​	-1​
Green	1​	6​	5​
Speaker	1​	1​	0​
Other	0	45​	45​
	650​	650​	0​

Sinn Fein in the House of Lords?

 

[JAM See]

I'm as lefty as a pinko, liberal, Guardian reading bedwetter can get, but even I recognise that the 10ish percent of people who voted UKIP in 2015 should have had a voice in a legislative chamber.

It's not going to happen in the HoC anytime soon.

The second chamber is the ideal place to sound out new methods of representation in our democracy that are actually, y'know, democratic.

 

[Grendel]

Maybe King Charles could get off his arse and write some legislation himself. Of course he might have to lift his own pen to do it

You’d rather he behaved like macron and ignored his parliament?

 

[shmmeee]

Parties already have the power to choose appointments. That's why it's so bloated. Every time there's a change in party the new party elect a load of new Lords to have some sort of control of it. At least PR based on the public vote limits how many they can appoint. And there's no requirement to choose expertise or experience when making appointments. If you want that then make it so departments have to get the relevant professional bodies to elect someone from the profession to run it.

It's not perfect, but it'd be a lot better.

Sure. But why not just reform the appointments process? Then we don’t just get leaflet pushers and donors as candidates.

 

[Grendel]

Parties already have the power to choose appointments. That's why it's so bloated. Every time there's a change in party the new party elect a load of new Lords to have some sort of control of it. At least PR based on the public vote limits how many they can appoint. And there's no requirement to choose expertise or experience when making appointments. If you want that then make it so departments have to get the relevant professional bodies to elect someone from the profession to run it.

It's not perfect, but it'd be a lot better.

you sound like Nigel Farage

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You’d rather he behaved like macron and ignored his parliament?

I’d rather he dissolved this idiotic Parliament once it had two changes of leader in the space of a year

 

[Grendel]

I’d rather he dissolved this idiotic Parliament once it had two changes of leader in the space of a year

So you’d want someone who can dissolve a parliament without consent if he didn’t like them regardless of constitution

incredible

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So you’d want someone who can dissolve a parliament without consent if he didn’t like them regardless of constitution

incredible

Not quite the same. Two unenforced changes of leader within the space of let's be honest a few months, widespread desire for an election and economic turmoil on top.

It's a pity Gordon Brown didn't drag it out until 2012

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It’s not really about Johnson so much as how as a voting public we and most of the West, want things without the cost/consequence so end up with people like Johnson

Been the way for ages mind. Raising taxes has been a dirty word, so we end up with Blair and PFI. Elect consecutive Tory governments (until the present!) who reduce taxes and cut services, then complain about that, blame an enigmatic 'the council' for not delivering what they want on fourpence.

Somebody has to pay for a health service and schools, and it's really very simple to improve them as we all want... if we're all prepared to pay a bit.

 

[Grendel]

Not quite the same. Two unenforced changes of leader within the space of let's be honest a few months, widespread desire for an election and economic turmoil on top.

It's a pity Gordon Brown didn't drag it out until 2012

Yes it’s the same actually worse - what you are suggesting is one person could dissolve a parliament if they wished to

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not quite the same. Two unenforced changes of leader within the space of let's be honest a few months, widespread desire for an election and economic turmoil on top.

It's a pity Gordon Brown didn't drag it out until 2012

It's not so much the change of leader that bothers me, as we vote for a party not the leader, but when that new leader just ignores the manifesto on which the party were elected and just do whatever they want, like Truss. In that instance there is no mandate from the people for what they are proposing and so it should be an election.

Then you can argue can you ever be sure a new leader will keep to the old manifesto and so should we just have an election anyway?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Sinn Fein in the House of Lords?

Why would it have to be called the House Of Lords?

They have seats in the lower chamber but choose not to attend. They could do exactly the same in the upper house.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Ah so would want a stalemate system where no legislation gets past a second chamber

Modifying and delaying, but not able to ultimately stop legislation. Which is what we have already, surely?

 

[JAM See]

I


yeah, would rather have some more ‘normal’ people in the HofL…rather than just packed with politicians.

ps



Bizarre timing but an interesting article below kind of covering some of this stuff. It’s not really about Johnson so much as how as a voting public we and most of the West, want things without the cost/consequence so end up with people like Johnson

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk

I generally like Syed, but that is complete bollocks.

Following that argument, slavery should still be a thing, because we, the public, want cheap cotton.

Absolute nonsense, and belittles the voter to boot.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I


yeah, would rather have some more ‘normal’ people in the HofL…rather than just packed with politicians.

ps



Bizarre timing but an interesting article below kind of covering some of this stuff. It’s not really about Johnson so much as how as a voting public we and most of the West, want things without the cost/consequence so end up with people like Johnson

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk

Don’t tar us all with the short termist lazy voter brush. There were quite a few of us who called him out at the time as a snake oil charlatan.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Don’t tar us all with the short termist lazy voter brush. There were quite a few of us who called him out at the time as a snake oil charlatan.

I think Syed was just talking about the public in general/western society (doubt he reads SBT )

I generally like Syed, but that is complete bollocks.

Following that argument, slavery should still be a thing, because we, the public, want cheap cotton.

Absolute nonsense, and belittles the voter to boot.

The examples he provides are obviously researched. Add to them the France situation where voters don’t want to accept the reality that we’re all living longer. Difficult choices need to be made but many don’t want to hear/accept them

‘Consistent surveys show, for example, that the British people are strongly in favour of cheap energy but also against onshore wind, fracking and anything else that might provide it. We are in favour of cheaper housing but against the reform of planning restrictions necessary to achieve it. Or take the polls that say we want better healthcare but not the higher taxes or reform of the NHS that would make it possible’

Not sure any of that is nonsense whether people agree with the overarching point or not

 

[skybluetony176]

I think Syed was just talking about the public in general/western society (doubt he reads SBT )



The examples he provides are obviously researched. Add to them the France situation where voters don’t want to accept the reality that we’re all living longer. Difficult choices need to be made but many don’t want to hear/accept them

‘Consistent surveys show, for example, that the British people are strongly in favour of cheap energy but also against onshore wind, fracking and anything else that might provide it. We are in favour of cheaper housing but against the reform of planning restrictions necessary to achieve it. Or take the polls that say we want better healthcare but not the higher taxes or reform of the NHS that would make it possible’

Not sure any of that is nonsense whether people agree with the overarching point or not

Fracking won’t provide cheap energy.

 

[Ian1779]

The examples he provides are obviously researched. Add to them the France situation where voters don’t want to accept the reality that we’re all living longer. Difficult choices need to be made but many don’t want to hear/accept them

When you’ve stamped out the corruption and tax evasion done by the richest in society, then the ‘people’ might be more inclined to listen about these so called difficult choices

 

[JAM See]

I think Syed was just talking about the public in general/western society (doubt he reads SBT )



The examples he provides are obviously researched. Add to them the France situation where voters don’t want to accept the reality that we’re all living longer. Difficult choices need to be made but many don’t want to hear/accept them

‘Consistent surveys show, for example, that the British people are strongly in favour of cheap energy but also against onshore wind, fracking and anything else that might provide it. We are in favour of cheaper housing but against the reform of planning restrictions necessary to achieve it. Or take the polls that say we want better healthcare but not the higher taxes or reform of the NHS that would make it possible’

Not sure any of that is nonsense whether people agree with the overarching point or not

Any c**t who quotes surveys is a c**t. ergo, Syed is a c**t.

Surveys alone would bring back hanging and blame Jews/Muslims for everything.

I despair.

 

[PVA]

They just can't help themselves can they

 

[CCFCSteve]

Fracking won’t provide cheap energy.

Hes just throwing stuff out that people are immediately against even if they might provide a solution/partial solution to the major issues being faced. I doubt very much he’s a supporter for fracking or sees that as a solution. The point remains the same, a lot of people don’t want to accept the difficult choices that have to be made and this leads to politicians not seeking to address them/encourages ‘populist’ politicians who are happy to tell the public what they want to hear. From the guardian about French pension reform riots…


‘One likely beneficiary: the far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who has said she would overturn the changes as part of her “de-demonisation” strategy and is viewed as the public figure who best embodies opposition to the proposals.’

 

[shmmeee]

I'm as lefty as a pinko, liberal, Guardian reading bedwetter can get, but even I recognise that the 10ish percent of people who voted UKIP in 2015 should have had a voice in a legislative chamber.

It's not going to happen in the HoC anytime soon.

The second chamber is the ideal place to sound out new methods of representation in our democracy that are actually, y'know, democratic.

Do Lee Anderson and the like not give them a voice? Just like Zarah Sultana and Diane Abbott give the likes of BSB and Ian a voice?

Practically what’s the difference between the SCG and ERG and a couple of Green/NIP/UKIP MPs?

 

[Grendel]

Do Lee Anderson and the like not give them a voice? Just like Zarah Sultana and Diane Abbott give the likes of BSB and Ian a voice?

Practically what’s the difference between the SCG and ERG and a couple of Green/NIP/UKIP MPs?

They are a different party?

 

[shmmeee]

They are a different party?

Yes and practically what difference does this make? They’d be a small group of MPs that make deals with the majority party on their side for their support or they’d be so small as to be irrelevant.

What does Caroline Lucas do but act as basically a really left wing Labour MP?

 

[Grendel]

Yes and practically what difference does this make? They’d be a small group of MPs that make deals with the majority party on their side for their support or they’d be so small as to be irrelevant.

What does Caroline Lucas do but act as basically a really left wing Labour MP?

His point is I assume it’s an argument for PR. The party has 12.6% of the vote. By your argument you should just disband the Lib Dems who do exactly what you describe but due to the system secure safe seats and get a few MPs

In that election they’d have had about 40% of the number of MPS labour would have surely?

 

[JAM See]

The irony...

Daily Mail parent company invokes Human Rights Act to stop naming of journalists

Lawyers working for Associated Newspapers successfully argue there is no justification for naming 73 journalists and executives

www.theguardian.com

 

[skybluetony176]

The irony...

Daily Mail parent company invokes Human Rights Act to stop naming of journalists

Lawyers working for Associated Newspapers successfully argue there is no justification for naming 73 journalists and executives

www.theguardian.com

They must have some of those woke lefty lawyers on the payroll. Either that or the law is the same for woke lefty lawyers as it is for gammon righty lawyers.

 

[clint van damme]

Please Starmer, just fuck off, fuck off as far as you can, and when you think you've fucked off as far as you can, one last push, and fuck off some more.

Currently a tidal wave of reactionary nonsense from the tories and his response is to continue his spat with Cobyn.
Just let him stand in the seat he's represented for decades and get on with actually opposing the government you useless prick.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Please Starmer, just fuck off, fuck off as far as you can, and when you think you've fucked off as far as you can, one last push, and fuck off some more.

Currently a tidal wave of reactionary nonsense from the tories and his response is to continue his spat with Cobyn.
Just let him stand in the seat he's represented for decades and get on with actually opposing the government you useless prick.

Indeed, this is fucking pathetic whether you're a "Corbynista" or otherwise.