Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Dec 14, 2023 14:03:02 GMT
The Salisbury convention only applies to policies that are in the manifesto of an elected Government. But note it is a convention. Its no law at all. Either in acquiescing or refusing to do so, its actually a free choice for the house of lords. Why not? The intention of the founders of the USA was to prevent an autocratic central government arising and ensure the powers of the states were protected against the central government. A system where the senate, house and president are endlessly at war with each other is EXACTLY what they wanted. One of our big problems is precisely because the commons pretty much can do what it wants. In my book the king SHOULD veto bills he doesnt like, and so should the lords. Unless they are willing to do that they are totally meaningless and should be abolished. If they were abolished, it would highlight to voters just how unprotected they are from a tyrancial elected commons, which is why they havnt been abolished. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Dec 14, 2023 14:34:21 GMT
LL, re second chamber imo the first thing to decide is what powers it should have then the composition and any elective element should aim to be appropriate to those powers.
How the nations of the UK are represented will be tricky and for me losing our theocratic component a priority.
Problem with written constitutions is that they can be a break on progress; and, as the US, Russia, Hungary and many other countries demonstrate, no guarantee of preventing 'subversion' at the highest level of Government.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Dec 14, 2023 14:41:02 GMT
Re: Sunak’s evidence to the enquiry, and the reliability of the data at the time… “ At the Covid Inquiry this week, Rishi Sunak made a striking admission. The Prime Minister pointed out that, based on analysis by Imperial College and Manchester University, the costs of lockdown are likely to be greater than the benefits.
The research was based on ‘quality-adjusted life years’ – the measure used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) to determine whether any health intervention is worth the price.
Sunak pointed to the report from August 2020, which warned that ‘treating possible future Covid-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.’
One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)
The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…
…Sunak’s witness statement also proved eye-opening, showing that the country may have been locked down for too long because of bad science, data issues and poor modelling. It’s worth exploring his points…” Telegraph We locked down to long because we locked down late. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 14:52:22 GMT
The election is definitely won already is it? I hope so, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that it is a nailed on certainty. It has to be worked for. I like you as a poster, but if Labour do win it will be because millions of us got off our arses and voted for them and got this rankest, most horrible of governments out whilst allowing you the luxury of keeping your political purism. In addition, it appears that this line of yours I've quoted seems to be or come close to encouraging people who would otherwise vote Labour, to not vote for them. Such a call repeated often enough in the right places, by those with similar opinions as yours will not have an iota of effect on the Tory vote but would surely suppress the Labour vote. That means in effect such calls are doing the Tories' job for them and helping increase their chances of staying in power. Genuine question: would you be happy with that outcome? By all means encourage others to vote for who they actually want to vote for, but please own the potential consequences of that call. Labour are the only alternative government to the Tories. It's either them, or the Tories. End of. They will only win if millions of us do get of our aforementioned arses. You'd better hope that we do that otherwise we will have another Tory government and if we do, then not that it matters, but I'd not be interested in hearing any moaning about them from those who have in effect helped their cause. This post might seem strong in tone, but it merely reflects the frustration I have at seeing a chance after 13 long years, of getting rid of this mob, and being absolutely determined to play my part in doing that to see others talk as you talk. Another genuine question: how much do you want them out? Well I like your posts too apart from the West Ham propaganda obviously (smiley). If the polls do narrow considerably then it becomes a different discussion (but as I say my vote and people in 80% of the constituencies in the country doesn't matter what they do even if the 20% that do changes over time). A Green or alternative vote in a Labour stronghold won't let a Tory in and if Labour is on for a 200 seats majority then a Green vote in any of the Bristol seats, for example, has a pecking order of Bristol West (now Central) not going to let in a Tory candidate under any circumstances and, although boundary changes and a Lib Dem presence make it hard to calculate with any accuracy, it feels like the remaining seats would have to be pretty much 50:50 between Greens and Labour for a Tory to come through the middle. Even if they did that would be a 199 Lab majority instead of 200. So were you to tell everyone in Bristol to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories then you'd be perpetuating the two party system and not giving alternative viewpoints and opinions the chance to express themselves. I know the electorate doesn't tend to be that sophisticated and it's only brexit that has produced significant variations in swings across the country but as individuals there's perhaps little more than 100 seats where not voting Labour and voting for a Green/Left alternative is letting the Tories in and on current polling those 100 seats will be a totally different 100 seats from the marginal ones that Labour needs to win to form a government. I think a lot of LOC on this forum want to see significant change be it improvements to public services, Green agenda, wealth inequality reversed and in my humble opinion Starmer is more likely to sit up and take note if there is a strong Green vote that he can't just ignore when another election might be closer. Pednat alert : In your example, would not a LAB loss result in a 198 LAB majority, i.e. one less LAB, one more CON? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Dec 14, 2023 14:55:27 GMT
Re: Sunak’s evidence to the enquiry, and the reliability of the data at the time… “ At the Covid Inquiry this week, Rishi Sunak made a striking admission. The Prime Minister pointed out that, based on analysis by Imperial College and Manchester University, the costs of lockdown are likely to be greater than the benefits.
The research was based on ‘quality-adjusted life years’ – the measure used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) to determine whether any health intervention is worth the price.
Sunak pointed to the report from August 2020, which warned that ‘treating possible future Covid-19 deaths as if nothing else matters is going to lead to bad outcomes.’
One might think such a statement – and the science behind it – would be worth exploring, but Hugo Keith KC shut down the comments, telling Sunak that he ‘did not want to get into quality-life assurance models.’ (sic)
The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister…
…Sunak’s witness statement also proved eye-opening, showing that the country may have been locked down for too long because of bad science, data issues and poor modelling. It’s worth exploring his points…” Telegraph We locked down to long because we locked down late. If we hadnt locked down at all, no more would have died, and we would have avoided all that cost and loss of liberty. Johnson said it himself, and he was reporting what the experts told him in autumn 2020. Parts of the UK, the south, achieved herd immunity to the wuhan strain. Once that happened there was no more community disease until the kent strain came along. The disease was continuing inside hospitals, but that was all about how to stop spread within hospitals, which has never been achieved. We did the wrong thing, what was actually done mostly reduced cases amongst those under pension age, who were pretty safe. But the deliberate policy of trying to slow the disease caused it to go on longer and have inevitably more cases amongst the old, who got the serious illness. The mistake was to believe it was a low case number high fatality illness, whereas it was a high case number low fatality illness. A stunnig failure by those experts.
And thats before we get on to the opportunity costs. If instead of halting society and running up those hge bills, we had taken the money and spent it on normal health care, it would have done more good.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Dec 14, 2023 15:13:08 GMT
So it sounds as if you would countenance voting for Labour if the polls narrowed considerably. I wonder what your tipping point for that is. Would the polls have to narrow to 15%, 12%, 10%, 8%, 5% before you'd decide that you might have to vote Labour? Would you take into account the possibility that the opinion polls were out as they've been before? Would you allow for for the possibility of a very-late-in-the-day late swing to the incumbents? Reading that back, some of that looks facetious. It's not meant to be Shevil. I'm just wondering about the calculations that may unfold as an election nears. Hopefully, Labour will be 25% ahead and we can all do as we want  I'll still be voting Labour of course. I think that you and I pretty much want the same things for the peoples of our nations. It's how we get there that causes minor differences. And I suppose that first phrase in your post that I reacted to last night is what 'separates' us - you called getting rid of the Tories a priority whereas as I said, I think it's the priority. Might seem quite technical but that difference for me is the biggie and my focus. Good post by you on PR/ FPTP by the way. It's only its last line that I disagree with. I think PR in whatever form will come. Most likely with a sitting Labour government struggling before a GE and playing that card. It wouldn't be the nicest way of it coming about, but as with me voting for a centrist Starmer, it's a means to a (gradualist) end as far as I'm concerned. Barbara - got to say, those posts of yours a couple of pages back smashed it out of the park. As for 40 year old Tories. A neighbour of mine is apparently in the Tory party (he told my wife not me). He's a decent lad for a Gooner. 42 I think. I don't make out I know he's a party member but occasionally when he's complaining about this and that I will throw in a nonchalant, give-it-a-year-,-better-times-are-coming comment. He doesn't argue back. I'm afraid there's too many hypotheticals for me to tell you the answer. None of this applies to my vote anyway. As I said, Wigan will always be Labour if it didn't go Tory under "Get Brexit Done" like Leigh did, and if Labour loses Wigan that will be the least of Labour's problems (not dissimilar to Man United's problems when they lose to Wigan in the FA Cup 3rd Round by the way). If I was in a marginal where I thought there was any chance of this Tory government getting back I would probably hold my nose and would take into account polls being wrong to some degree but I doubt a Lab lead of 5% in the polls would prevent me voting Green/TUSC (TUSC would be protest vote) as the worst case scenario is a hung parliament which is probably my preferred outcome anyway. Plus it would still depend how I felt on the day which was helped in 1997 by not having a Green candidate when I got to the polling booth. I think poll watchers would be quite good at working out the chances of a surprise. Like I expect, although not a definite at all, that Labour's lead could potentially fall back to 10% if Tory don't knows and RefUK go back in the fold and Labour have to be factoring this in anyway hence their modest targeting list. The crossbreaks are likely to give us a clue to any "danger" if Labour starts dropping below 10% during the campaign itself and especially if the direct Con to Lab starts dropping showing a potentially exponential direction of travel like the Corbyn surge in 2017. Yes I think most LOC on here want roughly the same thing and most people in the country, including Tories, probably do but where we differ is that some think rejecting the current Labour offering is "purist" while I look at the current Labour offering and think there's nothing there that Cameron wouldn't be saying. Purist to me would be nationalising the energy companies at massive expense. Pragmatic would be giving a realistic proposal that goes towards fixing one thing out of education, NHS or Green agenda. I look at the logic of Reeve's fiscal rules and the statements behind them and I don't see these as just political positioning to not scare Tories but her actual neolib thinking on these issues. Streeting is a disaster waiting to happen and even nuanced Lab loyalists like pjw1961 can see this and are placing their hopes on an early sacking (I think). With Blair I could be more pragmatic. He inherited a relatively strong economy with a choice being more tax cuts or spending. It was very clear that short term he was going to and did make a difference to Health, Education, social issues etc and people's lives were changed for the better. I don't think he did any long term good as he left legacies on PFI, broke the link between wages and housing costs, left the economic system entirely at the mercy of globalisation. Hence, with a bit of a nudge from the Tories, energy, Water, public transport are all disasters that didn't need to happen and the spiv low wage, low skill economy continues unabated. Probably the difference between us is that you think there is a fair chance Labour will do the same as Blair early years, if on a smaller scale because of the economic inheritance, and change their positioning when they get into power whereas I honestly don't think they have any hope of this because of those fiscal rules and Apps and efficiencies being the answer to the NHS problems. I want a Green/LOC challenge to Labour with lots of Green 2nd places for Labour to have to consider. I don't think that will happen in many places but I think it would be helpful if they did. As the Lib Dems proved in the distance past these things happen over several election cycles so best to start now rather than wasting your vote on a Labour Party that is going to get in anyway and use that as a justification for moving rightwards. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Dec 14, 2023 15:14:08 GMT
We locked down to long because we locked down late. All the european countries comparable to the Uk failed to keep covid out. There are some possible exceptions, like the channel Islands. But if they did, its fairly clear to see how they had advantages. The UK as a whole has maybe x1000 the population, and x1000 the annual visitors of such an island. Which means x1000 more chance of someone infected being missed in any attempt at quarantine, and it only takes one. And then the population density of those islands is way down compared to the Uk. No even small towns by mainland standards. A huge moat.
But I also explained at length how Hastings had covid early starting nov 2019. Again thats a numbers thing, the same logic applies, with x1000 more visitors than the island thats x1000 more likely we would get a vist from an early infectee. We certainly werent alone, various other european countries got early infections, and the official explanation how it arrived in the UK is from our people visiting places in Europe which had themselves got early infections. But the actual evidence suggests otherwise, the geographical spread across the UK, the sudden discovery of huge numbers of cases, the immunity which prevented Hastings getting cases in the general spring wave.
So yes, way too late. To prevent covid entering the Uk you needed to have introduced border controls and strict quarantine in the last quarter of 2019. Thats a good six months of restrictions before any really began. Just imagine the cost of all that. But obviously, the only way to really do it would have been permanent quarantine and restrictions of travel between all nations at all times, because we never will know when a new disease is about to appear.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 15:16:12 GMT
athena ’s comments elucidate my point well. I share all his well-argued concerns. But in the balance of things, I am certain that Starmer will bring us closer to what we want. Just a point of clarification; didn't athena tell us only the other day that she is a woman? Even if I have misremembered this, can you please explain why you assume they are male? Obviously because she made sensible points.  [Just a little quip. No offence intended] |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Dec 14, 2023 15:20:18 GMT
If I was in a marginal where I thought there was any chance of this Tory government getting back I would probably hold my nose and would take into account polls being wrong to some degree but I doubt a Lab lead of 5% in the polls would prevent me voting Green/TUSC (TUSC would be protest vote) as the worst case scenario is a hung parliament which is probably my preferred outcome anyway Its true that if lab have a big lead then voters everywhere will worry less about the risk of letting in con so feel freer to vote with their heart. (or more worried if they want a con government, of course). However, as the lead varies, then the specific constituencies which are marginal will change, so its different places faced with the issue of whether to vote safe or vote choice. Complicated by uncertainty just where their constituency is on the scale at the day of the election. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 15:30:02 GMT
The specific issues which weigh most heavily for me are; Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves flirting with charging for healthcare at the point of need, Of course this has been the reality for many years in some areas. If you're in work you pay for prescriptions, now I'm retired I still have to pay my NHS dentist. Not sure about opticians because I usually buy non-NHS specs. These costs may be subsidised but I can't see any reason in principle why a small charge could not be made for repeat visits to GPs or A&E for non-urgent cases. There are people who abuse the system. I remember doing some analysis of A&E attendances while at the NHS and was amazed to find that a few people attended the local A&E over 100 times in a year! I was told to stop because of the Data Protection Act. Would there be any harm in charging people a small amount per visit for going to A&E more than say 10 times a year? Obviously exceptions if the hospital asked them back for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 15:44:34 GMT
At the risk of straying into Van-Tam-esque sporting metaphor territory, I've always felt that voting in UK elections, encumbered as they are by a first of past the post voting system, and the huge monolithic and unwieldy/internally contradictory coalitions cum political parties produced and sustained by that system, is akin to a game of snooker. Very rarely are clean and straightforward pots available. You have to think two or three shots ahead and much of the strategy is devoted to making things impossible for your opponent. Cue ball positioning is the key art, although the overall objective is to pot the ball. But you may well have to accept that it's a long game, the balls break the way they break and routes to winning the frame are convoluted and fiendishly complex. You may end up playing a few tactical shots and find yourself having to pot some balls you'd ideally like to have avoided. The black isn't always available on its spot and maximum breaks are very rare. But you have to play. Not only is it quite good fun, but you often arrive at your preferable, though not ideal, destination without quite knowing how you got there. Seven reds and seven yellows is worth three blacks in terms of points. I quit before my beize metaphor disappears into the Eoin Clarke hall of fame!! Very good metaphor. One question though - do you think the political parties have some clever people behind the scenes who are capable of planning like that? I ask because very few front-line politicians seem to be that bright. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 15:54:57 GMT
Actually imo it's for those who want the 'tranformation' to get off their arses and make the revolution happen. We'll then see how the Brtish people respond. If you consider my suggestions for transformation (a fairer and more secure world where everyone is decently accommodated, healthy, educated, able to work and generally cared for) to be “revolutionary”, you should have a word with neilj who considers them excessively bland. I have no time for revolution. Romantic nonsense. Dangerous radicalism! You'll be saying we shouldn't be sending 7-year-olds down the mines next! |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 14, 2023 16:00:05 GMT
With Blair I could be more pragmatic. He inherited a relatively strong economy with a choice being more tax cuts or spending. It was very clear that short term he was going to and did make a difference to Health, Education, social issues etc and people's lives were changed for the better. I don't think he did any long term good as he left legacies on PFI, broke the link between wages and housing costs, left the economic system entirely at the mercy of globalisation. Hence, with a bit of a nudge from the Tories, energy, Water, public transport are all disasters that didn't need to happen and the spiv low wage, low skill economy continues unabated. Probably the difference between us is that you think there is a fair chance Labour will do the same as Blair early years, if on a smaller scale because of the economic inheritance, and change their positioning when they get into power whereas I honestly don't think they have any hope of this because of those fiscal rules and Apps and efficiencies being the answer to the NHS problems. I want a Green/LOC challenge to Labour with lots of Green 2nd places for Labour to have to consider. I don't think that will happen in many places but I think it would be helpful if they did. As the Lib Dems proved in the distance past these things happen over several election cycles so best to start now rather than wasting your vote on a Labour Party that is going to get in anyway and use that as a justification for moving rightwards. , I tend to agree with you on this one. The Tories over the past 14 years, have not hesitated to put right-wing policies in their manifestos (many moving increasingly rightwards). This gives them justification for their agenda, even if many who voted for them may have done so for other reasons (fear of Corbyn, get Brexit done, fear of SNP influence) and not agreed with other aspects of the Tory manifesto. My concern is that Starmer will actually govern in line with what will be his mandate - a continuation of the policies of the past 14 years, but with a more competent team. In 2010, the Tories ruthlessly acted quickly to undo any positive changes that had been implemented under Labour (many driven by Brown) as they feared they wouldn't be in power for too long.
Given the economic forecast, and the position this country finds itself in after 14 years of Tory misrule, graft and incompetence, I do think a Starmer govt will take a drastic hit to its popularity. Lacking charisma and appeal as leader, without some noticeable 'gains' to offer voters who do want to see change, he will struggle to rally support at the following election. Its not like 97-01, when Labour inherited a favourable economic position. I cant see one landslide followed by another one. We are more likely to see something more akin to 45-51. I also think the failure of 'middle politics' will further fuel the the populist right, and as we have seen in US, it wont be one GE that acts as a silver bullet.
I find myself in a different position to you in seat terms - I now live in a wealthy area of SW London where Lab don't stand a chance of winning and its between the LDs and Tories. I will never vote LD (sorry steve ), as mentioned a number of times before I personally don't believe in tactical voting (I don't judge those who do, that's their choice its just not for me). For me its currently genuinely 40/60 if I vote Green or Labour. Out of habit it will probably be the latter - but its nowhere near the automatic decision it used to be for me. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 14, 2023 16:00:19 GMT
LL, re second chamber imo the first thing to decide is what powers it should have then the composition and any elective element should aim to be appropriate to those powers. How the nations of the UK are represented will be tricky and for me losing our theocratic component a priority. Problem with written constitutions is that they can be a break on progress; and, as the US, Russia, Hungary and many other countries demonstrate no guarantee of preventing 'subversion' at the highest level of Government. @jimjam I have no difficulty with taking the Bishops out of the Lords (although they tend to be a progressive voice there), because I also want to see an end to the Prime Minister selecting our CofE bishops. Although most of them have been reasonable in listening to the Church Appointments Commission, Thatcher was notorious for blocking the promotion of Jim Thompson (because he persistently attacked what she was doing on Thought for the Day). More importantly, I want to see an end to hereditary Peers in the Lords. It is a strange paradox that the only elected peers are hereditaries and you can get by-elections there with more candidates than electors. I'm reasonably comfortable with the idea of the Lords as a revising chamber, as long as the Commons takes their amendments seriously. So something like a fixed second chamber size (around 400 would be sufficient), a small number of cross-benchers (say, 50) who would be non-party and chosen by the Lords Appointments Commission for their expertise, with the remainder allocated to the various parties according to each Party's votes at the previous General Election. Each Party leader[1] would nominate their voting members at the beginning of each Parliament (with substitution for extended illness or death). It's not perfect, but I think it is practical. You can add regional/national quotas if required. [1] Party as in registered with the Electoral Commission, so a small Party like, say, the Yorkshire party might gain enough votes in the region to be entitled to have member(s) in the Lords. As we are doing away with hereditaries we might rename the Lords as the Senate and drop the whole business of people having to have titles to be there. At the same time all Peers (excluding the Royal family) would have the right to vote for and to stand for election to the Commons. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 16:02:49 GMT
To the well-educated. (Blush)
If I remember, on the old site there was someone with the user name Artemis - a number of people didn't pick up that she was a women either if I recall.They must have been ignorami |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 16:05:15 GMT
Just a point of clarification; didn't athena tell us only the other day that she is a woman? Even if I have misremembered this, can you please explain why you assume they are male? I am indeed a woman (although obviously you've only got my word for that) and I chose an explicitly female username so that the appropriate singular pronoun would be obvious. crossbat11 makes the same mistake and I've never been sure whether it's deliberate rudeness, ignorance of my mythological namesake or just carelessness/casual sexism. In crossbat11 's case it's probably all 3 EDIT: Beaten to it by the man himself. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 16:07:41 GMT
I have longed to see PR in my lifetime and it is becoming less and less likely as time slips by like a very fast, slippery thing. My only caveat is with regard to the Cameron/Clegg coalition which demonstrated just how powerful the influence of a leader could be and how attractive it was to the rank and file. That does seem to demonstrate how we, the voters, might not get what we expected from the people voted into power - in terms of expected partnerships. Ah, fill the cup What boots it to repeat How time is slipping Underneath our feet |
|
|
|
Post by kay9 on Dec 14, 2023 16:11:18 GMT
leftieliberalWhile I agree - in part - with what you say, I must add one amendment to your final comment. … (excluding the Royal family) … I would phrase this as …(excluding working Royals) …
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 16:12:45 GMT
I don't doubt there will be a bit of 'ping-pong' with the Lords amending it and the Commons reversing the amendments, but in the end the Lords will fold on the grounds the unelected house shouldn't block the will of the elected house, even though in this case they could. This is another reason why the HoL needs to be replaced by something else. The Salisbury convention only applies to policies that are in the manifesto of an elected Government. As this Bill has serious constitutional implications, it would be quite reasonable for the Lords to say to the Government that they need to show that they have the support of the electorate for this. The difficulty in replacing the HoL with any elected house is that it is not clear which takes precedence. We don't want a system like the USA. Whilst I too favour replacing the Lords, it is not clear to me what its replacement should be, nor what the relative powers of the two houses should be. How about making it elected by PR but enshrining in the Act that creates it that the Commons should have primacy? A bit awkward I suppose because in many eyes (including mine) a House elected by PR would have the better mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 14, 2023 16:13:18 GMT
A poignant little vignette here about the departing Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford and how his quiet and understated political persona will be sorely missed in Welsh politics. It compares and contrasts him with Boris Johnson and reflects on how lucky the Welsh people were that they had Drakeford rather than Johnson during the pandemic. I particularly like the photograph at the top of the article. It was released by Glamorgan County Cricket Club, without Drakeford knowing it had been taken, and shows him and is recently departed wife watching the cricket together. Quietly and, typically for a day watching four day cricket, both are surrounded by a sea of empty seats. I've been there Mark, many a time! But they seem absorbed, as those of us who still attend this ritualistic and ancient pastime usually are, by the white figures on the green sward and the rolling red ball. I thought it illustrates very well his quite, modest and humble personality. A politician of integrity, competence and devotion to public service. We really should treasure those qualities and mourn them when they've gone. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/14/england-chaos-boris-johnson-wales-mark-drayford-wales-legacy |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 14, 2023 16:20:22 GMT
The Salisbury convention only applies to policies that are in the manifesto of an elected Government. As this Bill has serious constitutional implications, it would be quite reasonable for the Lords to say to the Government that they need to show that they have the support of the electorate for this. The difficulty in replacing the HoL with any elected house is that it is not clear which takes precedence. We don't want a system like the USA. Whilst I too favour replacing the Lords, it is not clear to me what its replacement should be, nor what the relative powers of the two houses should be. How about making it elected by PR but enshrining in the Act that creates it that the Commons should have primacy? A bit awkward I suppose because in many eyes (including mine) a House elected by PR would have the better mandate. Exactly. A second chamber that is elected by PR would also require a House of Commons elected by PR (which I would like). But the two PR systems don't have to be the same, you could have STV for the Commons and a regionalised Party List for the Lords. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,622
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 16:21:18 GMT
I thought it might be nice to play a seasonal game of name that town based on its Christmas decorations. Here's one to try Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 14, 2023 16:22:21 GMT
A poignant little vignette here about the departing Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford and how his quiet and understated political persona will be sorely missed in Welsh politics. It compares and contrasts him with Boris Johnson and reflects on how lucky the Welsh people were that they had Drakeford rather than Johnson during the pandemic. I particularly like the photograph at the top of the article. It was released by Glamorgan County Cricket Club, without Drakeford knowing it had been taken, and shows him and is recently departed wife watching the cricket together. Quietly and, typically for a day watching four day cricket, both are surrounded by a sea of empty seats. I've been there Mark, many a time! But they seem absorbed, as those of us who still attend this ritualistic and ancient pastime usually are, by the white figures on the green sward and the rolling red ball. I thought it illustrates very well his quite, modest and humble personality. A politician of integrity, competence and devotion to public service. We really should treasure those qualities and mourn them when they've gone. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/14/england-chaos-boris-johnson-wales-mark-drayford-wales-legacyI liked John Major going to watch Surrey at The Oval on the afternoon he left Downing Street. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 14, 2023 16:26:18 GMT
I thought it might be nice to play a seasonal game of name that town based on its Christmas decorations. Here's one to try Somewhere up north because of the cobblestones? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,622
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 16:27:37 GMT
mercianYes but Lots of countries have a North.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 14, 2023 16:50:21 GMT
On replacing the House of Lords (which I agree with by the way) it is well worth reading Ian Dunt's book How Westminster Works . . . and Why It Doesn't which demonstrates that the House of Lords is, in practical terms, the only part of the legislature which works effectively. Anyone considering on the method of replacing the House of Lords ought to consider maintaining the effective parts of the way it works.
I came up with my own solution 30 odd years ago: it should be a delegate body where not only the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments should send delegates but all local authorities, along with some from the TUC and whatever body represents employers with the Universities sending some with specialist expertise. That would maintain the specialist input into legislation along with balancing national and regional interests. This would also avoid the primacy argument if bodies are elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 14, 2023 16:52:01 GMT
I thought it might be nice to play a seasonal game of name that town based on its Christmas decorations. Here's one to try View Attachmentdoes the copyright watermark give it away? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,622
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 16:53:50 GMT
wb61It might give you a clue to the country
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 14, 2023 17:00:25 GMT
I thought it might be nice to play a seasonal game of name that town based on its Christmas decorations. Here's one to try View Attachment Alexandras Avenue Corfu. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,622
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 17:16:46 GMT
|
|
I'll still be voting Labour of course.
