Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is that supposed to be a parody?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is that supposed to be a parody?

No, that is how the tories think.

Of course it certainly won't mean that they'll lead by example and abolish their own holiday pay, sick pay and pensions. No, they'll probably vote to increase them.

Nah they'll drop down to gig shifts themselves, barely turning up to work. They'll still claim a generous allowance and stipend, but definitely not a salary.

Herzlos wrote:
Nah they'll drop down to gig shifts themselves, barely turning up to work. They'll still claim a generous allowance and stipend, but definitely not a salary.

You're talking about the House of Lords, right?

I guess so. I like the House of Lords though, they keep most of the governments most stupid ideas at bay.

We can purge the Commons in a GE for fething us over on Brexit but we can't purge the Lords. That definitely needs rectified.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We can purge the Commons in a GE for fething us over on Brexit but we can't purge the Lords. That definitely needs rectified.

We don't need to, surely. Due to the Parliament Act, they can only delay legislation for a year or so at which point the Commons can force it through, right?

Control the Commons, and the Lords becomes an inconvenient speed bump.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We don't need to, surely. Due to the Parliament Act, they can only delay legislation for a year or so at which point the Commons can force it through, right?

Control the Commons, and the Lords becomes an inconvenient speed bump.

That is true but time is of the essence here. The Lords are a disgrace anyway.

The Parliament acts also allow the Commons to completely ignore the HoL, it's how they got the Hunting ban through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Correction, they don't even have to wait either.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
In other news, a recent survey has shown that 80% of the UK is pro cake-having, as well as pro cake-eating.

As somebody once said: "events dear boy, events."

Why do I say that, because from what I've been hearing, Trump might be serious about pulling back from Europe/NATO and European leaders are talking about a European defence force.

The elephant in the room is pretty obvious: no European defence force will ever happen without the UK, the UK and France being Europe's only 2 nuclear armed states....

And the UK is 1 of only 4 European NATO members that hits the 2% of GDP on defence spending....

France and Germany not included in that bracket...

If I were the UK negotiating team, I'd be dropping strong hints about those points. VERY strong hints.

The end result being that the UK might, and I say might, get a better Brexit deal than was originally planned from the EU.

Blackmail? Not at all - it's realpolitik.

Erm...wasn't one of the Brexit arguments posted on these boards for not being in the EU was opposition to an EU army. Now it seems that it is acceptable as part of the negotiation package...this could probably do with explaining

There is a big difference between a joint task force of European Countries. And a single armed force composed of different nationals.

Actually, we should just ask the Austro-Hungarians how well that went back in WW1.....

 loki old fart wrote:
Jobs of the future may not have stable hours, holiday pay, sick pay, or pensions, DWP secretary says[/size] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-gig-economy-damian-green-speech-holiday-minimum-wage-sick-pay-hours-a7421071.html

Hmm, where do I not sign up? There is only one group of people this benefits - those operating businesses (that's not all) that want to exploit staff to the maximum; though those that don't will find themselves undercut. It's really an extension of the zero hours contracts to everything which is bad news. I know someone in the restaurant business on zero hours contracts. They are effectively bullied into working any hours the company wants because if you say 'no' can't make it today not only do you lose the money for those hours but then they put you on the bottom of the queue for all future hours as well.

Can you imagine trying to get a mortgage where you have no guaranteed income because it is subject to the whims of the employer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
There is a big difference between a joint task force of European Countries. And a single armed force composed of different nationals.

Actually, we should just ask the Austro-Hungarians how well that went back in WW1.....

Except there was never going to be single armed force. They were creating a joint HQ to co-ordinate actions rather than have British/German/Hungarian/and so on all operating independently and in a disjointed manner as what happens now (despite all EU countries all providing forces to the EU). And to point out the conversation did include comments about EU usage of nukes, which again was highlighted as a reason to leave the EU!

Don't talk to me about the gig economy. Why do you think Uber and Deliveroo drivers have been suing their so-called employers?

Viz did a searing strip about it a couple of issues ago, but Desperate Business in Private Eye nailed it in one frame, showing a tympanist waiting to do a drum roll:

"Yeah, it's been quiet so far but I reckon I can get a couple of seconds work in the third movement."

These elite guys just don't get it, do they? For years I have been saying that the elite shouldn't push people too far because French Revolution. Brexit and Trump are the democratic clues that we are getting closer to that point.

The gig economy only makes sense for people like Bozza who can pull down a handy £250,000 a year for writing one column a week.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We don't need to, surely. Due to the Parliament Act, they can only delay legislation for a year or so at which point the Commons can force it through, right?

Control the Commons, and the Lords becomes an inconvenient speed bump.

That is true but time is of the essence here. The Lords are a disgrace anyway.

It does need to change, but to what. If you just have a voted in Lords then you will only have two parliaments that are pretty similar in proportions. The Lords as they stand is simply whichever government in power putting up those that erh..."support"... each party the most. Maybe it should be like jury duty. People are randomly (but split proportionally by age/gender/ethnic background) chosen from society that have obtained certain credentials (Scientists, doctors, chartered people etc) to work in a house of peers where their job is to ensure oversight of what the government is doing. They are replaced automatically after two years and a new group is selected.

I feel that the gig economy has come about partialy from big companys and the reasons all ready said but one thing has been missing and that is the flexable working which is popular with those "liberal ideas" of companys doing as the worker wants (in hours) and not what the bosses want, so the bosses have had enough and are now saying if you want flexable then you dont get the 'benifits' which from there point of view i can understand to a degree.

It seems that its back to be careful what you wish for as you might just get more than you bargained for.

Skullhammer wrote:
I feel that the gig economy has come about partialy from big companys and the reasons all ready said but one thing has been missing and that is the flexable working which is popular with those "liberal ideas" of companys doing as the worker wants (in hours) and not what the bosses want, so the bosses have had enough and are now saying if you want flexable then you dont get the 'benifits' which from there point of view i can understand to a degree.

It seems that its back to be careful what you wish for as you might just get more than you bargained for.

Flexible working is different. An employee can't force an employer to let them have it. They just have to give it reasonable consideration. The idea is that a happy workforce is a productive one. So working 4/5 days but doing the same hours, so it helps with child minding and so on. You still get the benefits (so pensions, holidays and so on). This 'gig' means that employers don't have to support pensions or pay for holiday leave or can give your job to someone else because they like their tie, or they are their mates offspring and so on without having to consider employment laws, redundancy payments and so on.

Flexible working is just that and so that both sides are 'happy'. Gigging just means exploitation of workers (which I suppose the Tory party is all about anyway!)

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
We don't need to, surely. Due to the Parliament Act, they can only delay legislation for a year or so at which point the Commons can force it through, right?

Control the Commons, and the Lords becomes an inconvenient speed bump.

That is true but time is of the essence here. The Lords are a disgrace anyway.

It does need to change, but to what. If you just have a voted in Lords then you will only have two parliaments that are pretty similar in proportions. The Lords as they stand is simply whichever government in power putting up those that erh..."support"... each party the most. Maybe it should be like jury duty. People are randomly (but split proportionally by age/gender/ethnic background) chosen from society that have obtained certain credentials (Scientists, doctors, chartered people etc) to work in a house of peers where their job is to ensure oversight of what the government is doing. They are replaced automatically after two years and a new group is selected.

Wow, that is...actually a good idea. A great idea even!

Jury Duty is an interesting model for filling the Lords. For one thing it avoids the party basis of selection.

You would have to give a jolly high rate of pay and benefits, since people hate being ripped away from their normal jobs to do two weeks' jury service, let alone two years' HoL service.

It might actually be necessary to offer people 10 years pay or something. There certainly would be people who would never regain their position in their normal line of work.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Jury Duty is an interesting model for filling the Lords. For one thing it avoids the party basis of selection.

You would have to give a jolly high rate of pay and benefits, since people hate being ripped away from their normal jobs to do two weeks' jury service, let alone two years' HoL service.

It might actually be necessary to offer people 10 years pay or something. There certainly would be people who would never regain their position in their normal line of work.

This. Scientists, for example, are not going to want to drop whatever research they're doing for two years to go and sit in a room with a load of other people who don't want to be there and have to put up with and kick back whatever idiotic law Parliament is trying to push through today.

Whilst getting more expert input on our laws would be a good thing (especially scientific input when it comes to our drug laws), forcing specialised people into a second house and therefore taking them away from their actual work is not the way to do it.

Yeah now that I think about it, the involuntary nature of it wouldn't work.

I was speaking in the U.S. Politics thread, and if the UK was to go federal, the future House of Lords could represent the rights of the nations at the top level, just as the U.S. Senate represents the states at federal level. There's around a hundred counties in the UK, and funnily enough there's only 48 in England. Maybe each countie could elect a Lord who serves one long term.

I accept all the points. It's not meant to be a comprehensive policy document

The one thing that many democracy's across the world seem to have forgotten is that they are voted in by the people to serve them but I get the distinct impression is that for many now the public is an inconvenient hurdle. The idea is to bring people back to making governments accountable. I wasnt thinking it would be unpaid - I'd probably jump the minimum mp wages and 'peer' wages to £120-130k as a minimum but all the expenses would be scrapped apart from travel back and forward from meeting locations. For those that live an unreasonable travel distance then there would be mp 'halls'. Basically make expenses like everyone else. No funky second mortgage offsets etc. As for the jobs it's only two years, employers would have to guarantuee the jobs were still there for them. It's not actually that much longer than the maximum maternity/paternity leave once annual leave is taken into account.

As for involuntary I wasn't thinking quite like that, but more of a register of those whom would accept such duty over that period of time. In some ways society has paid for people to get where they are so it's unreasonable that those skills can be used to ensure proper governance. Hence scientists if they were tied up with projects could except themselves for a period and so on. Given the number of people trained to the appropriate level I'm not sure we should find too much difficulty finding a couple of hundred every two years. The only people I would exclude are those that have donated or registered to support a political party - it is meant to be as independent as possible.

The issue I have with elections for the lords is that we will just end up with the same as the commons and then it is particularly pointless.

But again this isn't fully drafted policy! Apologies for the typos, damn iPads!

My concept for the Lords (as I've bandied about before), was that it should be comprised of the professionals of the country and those with a vested interest in it, in a workable limited format, which would be refreshed alongside every general election. So for example;

Six seats set aside for the Military (two from each service).
Six seats set aside for the Judiciary (two judges, two lawyers, two policemen)
Six seats set aside for the Academics (one economist, one historian, etc)
Six seats set aside for the Healthcare professionals (two doctors, two NHS administrators, a nurse and a chemist)
Ten seats set aside for representatives of the largest firms on the FTSE
Six seats set aside for the highest net worth individuals
Four seats set aside for representatives of Utility companies (gas, electricity, water, sewage)
Four seats set aside for Transportation representatives (Rail, Plane, Bus & other)
Six seats set aside for the banking representatives (pension funds, commercial banking, etc)
Fifteen seats set aside for representatives from the most populous places in the UK
A seat each for the Crown Dependencies (Gibraltar, St Helena, etc)

And so on. Once you hit a hundred to a hundred and fifty members, you'd be sorted. Set out a selection process for each type of seat, there's no need for an academic to be selected in the same way as for a crown dependency, after all, and be sure to leave room to modify it in the future if necessary. Then voila. Done. A House of Lords of the people which doesn't rely on grabbing people off the street, but remains representative and impartial.

That's better. Much more workable. Would they be retired memenbers of their respective fields?

Also, rather than just fifteen representatives form the most populous places, I'd still have one for every county in the UK. Even then, there would still be far less lords than there are now. There's what, 800+ of the gits? Even getting that down to 200 would be a massive improvement.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yeah now that I think about it, the involuntary nature of it wouldn't work.

I was speaking in the U.S. Politics thread, and if the UK was to go federal, the future House of Lords could represent the rights of the nations at the top level, just as the U.S. Senate represents the states at federal level. There's around a hundred counties in the UK, and funnily enough there's only 48 in England. Maybe each countie could elect a Lord who serves one long term.

Forgive me, I have a few clarifications and questions...

1) The U.S. Senate do *NOT* represent the states at the federal level. Ever since the 17th Amendment, Senators are directly elected by the voters. WHich is why I've been banging that drum to repeal the 17th, so that the STATE INTERESTS would be reflected better, as there would be a direct line of communication between the Senator and his/her state's governance.

2) How do you get elected into the House of Lords... my google-fu didn't really turn up anything definitive. It seems... weird to me.

3) IN a hypothetical... A "jury duty" like nomination has merits, but as ya'll said, you'd lose your career if the nature of these positions don't change. (don't they campaign/ advocate like regulary politicians??).

4) Probably a better idea is to form up a "House of Repeals". Where it's only power is to cut programs that are:
-not applicable anymore
-not working as intended, thus forcing the Parliamnet to try again
-this entity could recall politicians based on some sot of super majority? (4/5th vote)
-just spit ball'n.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yeah now that I think about it, the involuntary nature of it wouldn't work.

I was speaking in the U.S. Politics thread, and if the UK was to go federal, the future House of Lords could represent the rights of the nations at the top level, just as the U.S. Senate represents the states at federal level. There's around a hundred counties in the UK, and funnily enough there's only 48 in England. Maybe each countie could elect a Lord who serves one long term.

The UK will not go federal. Labour have been claiming they're in favour of "home rule" for a hundred years(Lords reform too, actually) yet the best they've been able to manage when in power was the half-arsed(for both "sides") devolution system, a system based primarily on naked political calculation rather than to create an enduring new constitutional settlement - they wanted to "kill nationalism stone-dead" as Lord Robertson put it, and they wanted an extra layer of salaries and expenses to be used as part of their patronage system; somewhere to put loyal party members who weren't good enough for Westminster that gave greater rewards than local councils, and somewhere to keep their donors engaged and their activist base occupied even when the Tories were in power. It didn't quite work out as they planned of course

The big problem, though, is the present structure of the UK doesn't permit a functional federal structure - it's just not possible when one of the four parts has about half the landmass and 80% of the population as well as the capital city AND the bulk of the finance industry AND most of the international commercial infrastructure - and neither of the ways it could be reconstituted will be accepted. You're not going to persuade a majority of Scots to give up Holyrood(as devolution would have to go under a properly federal structure) and with it the idea(albeit a pretty flimsy one at this point given how the UK works in practice, but still powerful emotionally) that the UK is a union of nations rather than, as some Unionists argued during the indyref, a unitary state that amounts to "Greater England" into which everyone else was absorbed - which is what you'd have to do if you wanted to construct a federal UK at the county/local authority level. And you're not going to persuade the English that they have to be split up into five or six federal regions of roughly equal population - which is what you'd have to do if you wanted to construct a federal UK that keeps Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as distinct entities but isn't manifestly unfair to England.

UK politicians don't want federalism. The UK civil service doesn't want federalism. The Lords certainly don't want to be replaced with an elected chamber of any sort, but given how traditional they are I'd say particularly not a federal one. But the deathblow is and always will be England, the populace of which largely either; consider England and the UK as synonymous, consider England a nation within the UK and don't want it broken up, or simply don't give a gak for whatever reason.

I spent years believing a federal UK was the best solution for almost everybody, I only started supporting Scottish independence when I realised federalism is a comfortable fantasy that lets people avoid addressing the UK's constitutional problems, not a realistic prospect.

 whembly wrote:

2) How do you get elected into the House of Lords... my google-fu didn't really turn up anything definitive. It seems... weird to me.

Elected is a bit of a stretch. Basically they are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the House of Lords Appointment Commission. Once you're in, you're basically in for life with no requirements to turn up or even live in the UK.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

2) How do you get elected into the House of Lords... my google-fu didn't really turn up anything definitive. It seems... weird to me.

Elected is a bit of a stretch. Basically they are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the House of Lords Appointment Commission. Once you're in, you're basically in for life with no requirements to turn up or even live in the UK.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

Thanks! Interesting read!

Very strange system...

Originaly the lords were there to check the commons and was full of people who didnt need money/influence and were supposed to be independant of partys so give an overview without attachment, to laws etc, of course this never really worked and these days its stocked with party members and (it seems) vested intrests.

Its totaly bloated and needs thinning out but that wont happen as the plp's will feel it would deminsh there power. How to fix it. who knows though i like the idea of professionals from various subjects having seats.

Skullhammer wrote:
Originaly the lords were there to check the commons and was full of people who didnt need money/influence and were supposed to be independant of partys so give an overview without attachment, to laws etc, of course this never really worked and these days its stocked with party members and (it seems) vested intrests.

That's why I think it works (to an extent); if you bring in random people, they'll be easier to influence, than someone who owns half of Scotland and isn't relying on government favor to keep their job.

The big problem seems to be the way current governments seem to appoint as many dodgy lords as possible who'll vote their way. Fix the selection process to include some additional checks, and it should be alright.

On the flip side, why are we assuming that anyone knows anything at all about sensible politics just because he or she is rich?