UK Politics

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.

**Whirlwind**

Herzlos wrote:
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 this assumption then none of the Lords would have any particular leanings/influence on the parties and that isn't true. Many are donors and such like. The influence goes both ways. Additionally if you only fill the HoL with the rich then they are going to prioritise those bills and laws that keep them (and their future) where they are. That's why a more independent populace house of peers would be more useful (however it is implemented). If they must meet certain criteria (Chartered status, Doctors etc etc) the principle is that they have worked/educated to a point where they can articulate and be critical of proposals enough then they become more difficult to influence. But if they do then having them replaced after a relatively short period of time automatically should result in it being less worthwhile to try (because it would take time to build up the trust and once they have done that they are leaving).

Whenever you have a selection process is determined by the Government they are always going to be 'fixed' in some ways.

**Herzlos**

The criteria isn't itself that they are rich, otherwise you could let any old celebrity in.

The rationale is that, inbreeding aside, hereditary peers tend to have been well educated (oxbridge), since the title normally confers some responsibility, and they usually end off in a chartered position with some sort of "professional" trade anyway, and will have grown up with some exposure to this stuff.

Just grabbing someone at random because they are chartered or rich doesn't necessarily even give you that.

As you said, it's going to be done to the benefit of whoever makes the decisions anyway, I just trust Lords to have a better long-term view than an MP who's only interested in making it through the next election cycle. I've seen Lords tear into their own parties proposals in a way that'd be the end of an MP's career, because they have tenure and can get away with it.

I can see there being a place for some jury-duty style lords, potentially plucked from a cross section of university graduates (i.e. give them a 2-year placement between university and a career, rather than pulling them out mid-career). You don't get the life experience, but you should get well educated people who would be willing to do the work and have a fresh approach (and aren't completely jaded and cycnical old fethers).

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Whirlwind wrote:
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's a big difference between countries coming together for a common defence alliance such as NATO, and an EU army under the control of Field Marshal Juncker!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Here's a radical idea for Lords reform: scrap the blighters! ~8

Send these parasites packing and replace them with an elected Senate.

Follow the American model and give our senate some teeth by giving it powers unique to them alone, like what the American Senate gets.

That would be a good thing IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
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...

The Lords is a boil on the rear of British Democracy and like all boils needs to be lanced!

Short term pain, long term gain.

**welshhoppo**

I think the only thing worse than having the Lords as it is is giving the positions to University graduates. You'd still have the same issues, because each university would send off a person or 2 every other year, or they would all come from Oxbridge. And the kind of people they would send would probably come from a similar background to the lords anyway.

Plus, most graduates don't know Jack about Jack anyway.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Anyway, I nearly forgot to mention the continuation of Britain's treatment of the Chagos Islanders

The government tried to slip this under the radar the other day.

No surprises there from these

Very rarely do I say that I'm ashamed to be British, but this is one of those occasions: I am ashamed to be British. The treatment of these islanders has to be one of the most shameful episodes in British history, and we can't blame it on the Empire, because this happened in living memory

Craig Murray pretty much sums it up:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/11/chagossians-no-right-self-determination/

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There's a big difference between countries coming together for a common defence alliance such as NATO, and an EU army under the control of Field Marshal Juncker!

Except the former idea was only ever the idea for the EU army in the first place, just with a centralised command and control. It is effectively the same as what happens already apart from the co-ordination between different armies is sketchy at times.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

welshhoppo wrote:
I think the only thing worse than having the Lords as it is is giving the positions to University graduates. You'd still have the same issues, because each university would send off a person or 2 every other year, or they would all come from Oxbridge. And the kind of people they would send would probably come from a similar background to the lords anyway.

Plus, most graduates don't know Jack about Jack anyway.

It shouldn't just be University graduates. It should be anyone that meets a certain criteria (being just a graduate is not one of them). Hence the idea of chartered members, doctors and so on. You don't want a system that could be charged with elitism. You want a group of people that have shown considerable skills in one field or another from the populace with minimal intrinsic bias. The group then challenges the government and it's actions (but doesn't have any law enforcing powers in it's own right).

**Magister**

Quite frankly any one seconded or elected to an upper house will some sort of vested interest regardless of their social or economic position. Personally I agree that an American style elected second chamber would be the best of the bunch, but in order to do that Parliament would have to agree to legislation that gave it the power to check parliamentary power.

And that ain't ever gonna happen.

**Kilkrazy**

That isn't necessarily true. A vested interest is a personal reason for involving in an undertaking for the expectation of financial or other gain.

The various ways we are discussing of assembling a House of Lords have no vested interests involved, as far as I can see.

If you mean that everyone is incapable of not looking out for themselves first, and will always tend to vote for their own personal advantage, I deny it. Plenty of people are capable of looking at the bigger picture.

**BaronIveagh**

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38027230

**Silent Puffin?**

BaronIveagh wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38027230

This should surprise absolutely no one although how much good it will do is anyone's guess.

What this does highlight though is just how badly planned Brexit was from its inception.

**SilverMK2**

You used the word "planned" there...

**Yodhrin**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38027230

This should surprise absolutely no one although how much good it will do is anyone's guess.

At this point, the Scottish Government are pretty much making as much trouble as they can in the hope that May & Co stop being such stubborn, inflexible arseholes. There have been plenty of indications from the EU that they'd be willing to consider a special arrangement for Scotland, perhaps EFTA membership, while it remains within the UK but they will only discuss it with the member state ie the UK, and May's Merry Band of Brexiteers just keep mumbling "Brexit means Brexit" and "we voted as a United Kingdom, so we'll leave as one" etc. The SNP have become almost dogmatically gradualist in approach over the years, so Sturgeon won't properly push for a second indyref unless there's no other way to give meaning to Scotland's emphatic Remain vote.

What this does highlight though is just how badly planned Brexit was from its inception.

It's actually been surprising, and I say that as an ardent cynic and particular critic(obviously) of the UK government, both its present occupants and its general construction and efficacy. I mean I get that the whole thing was essentially meant to be a way for the Cameron Tories to silence dissent among backbenchers and they never expected to win, but really? Nothing? Whatever you think of it, the independence White Paper was constructed with the help of a panel of eminient economists and it was hefty enough to beat someone to death with, Leave don't seem to have even jotted down a few notes on the back of a napkin - and now Gove & chums are saying planning and prep doesn't even matter and we should just go for a "quicky divorce" and accept the economic hit. Changed their fething tune since 2014.

**Silent Puffin?**

Yodhrin wrote:

At this point, the Scottish Government are pretty much making as much trouble as they can in the hope that May & Co stop being such stubborn, inflexible arseholes.

Its great from the SNP's point of view but Westminster will simply take any input from Scotland and Wales "under consideration", or in other words completely ignore it.

At this stage I am actually hoping for a 'hard' Brexit so that we can finally leave this shitshow.

**Mr. Burning**

Will this insanity ever end?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38034411

Drop Brexit case appeal, senior Tories urge May

...Theresa May should abandon an appeal against the court ruling that means MPs must vote on the UK leaving the EU, leading Conservatives say.
Sir Oliver Letwin, former head of the government's Brexit preparations, and two former law officers said the case should not go to the Supreme Court.
Instead, they want ministers to bring a bill to Parliament to start the process of Brexit as soon as possible.
The government said it would robustly defend its position at the appeal.
The MPs voiced their concerns after the Supreme Court decided on Friday that the Scottish and Welsh governments should have a say at the appeal hearing in December.
Former minister Sir Oliver, who oversaw a "Brexit Unit" in the Cabinet Office after the referendum, told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme that the Supreme Court hearing could see ministers' powers outside Parliament curbed.
He added that one of the advantages of bringing a "fast and tightly timetabled and constrained bill" to Parliament, giving the government the ability to trigger Brexit without any constraints on its negotiating power, was that it avoided "any risk of the Supreme Court deciding to accord the devolved administrations some rights or even some veto powers".
Lead claimant Gina Miller addresses the media outside the High CourtImage copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
The government is appealing against a High Court ruling in a case led by Gina Miller
Former Solicitor General Sir Edward Garnier said Mrs May should drop the appeal to avoid expense and a row about judges' powers, while former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said he could not see the point of continuing with the case.
All three said ministers should bring a bill allowing the government to begin leaving the European Union - triggering Article 50 - as soon as possible....

I can actually see a plan formulated now. Brexit will be dragged on indefinitely. We'll still be in the union but can pacify the leavers specifically euro skeptic MP's with the 'process of exit'.
Nobody wins and everyone is ground down, brilliant!

**Kilkrazy**

May daren't drop the case because there is a not insignificant chance that Parliament will vote against her if allowed the opportunity.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yodhrin wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38027230

This should surprise absolutely no one although how much good it will do is anyone's guess.

At this point, the Scottish Government are pretty much making as much trouble as they can in the hope that May & Co stop being such stubborn, inflexible arseholes. There have been plenty of indications from the EU that they'd be willing to consider a special arrangement for Scotland, perhaps EFTA membership, while it remains within the UK but they will only discuss it with the member state ie the UK, and May's Merry Band of Brexiteers just keep mumbling "Brexit means Brexit" and "we voted as a United Kingdom, so we'll leave as one" etc. The SNP have become almost dogmatically gradualist in approach over the years, so Sturgeon won't properly push for a second indyref unless there's no other way to give meaning to Scotland's emphatic Remain vote.

What this does highlight though is just how badly planned Brexit was from its inception.

It's actually been surprising, and I say that as an ardent cynic and particular critic(obviously) of the UK government, both its present occupants and its general construction and efficacy. I mean I get that the whole thing was essentially meant to be a way for the Cameron Tories to silence dissent among backbenchers and they never expected to win, but really? Nothing? Whatever you think of it, the independence White Paper was constructed with the help of a panel of eminient economists and it was hefty enough to beat someone to death with, Leave don't seem to have even jotted down a few notes on the back of a napkin - and now Gove & chums are saying planning and prep doesn't even matter and we should just go for a "quicky divorce" and accept the economic hit. Changed their fething tune since 2014.

I agree with your entire post.

**Whirlwind**

Yodhrin wrote:
Leave don't seem to have even jotted down a few notes on the back of a napkin - and now Gove & chums are saying planning and prep doesn't even matter and we should just go for a "quicky divorce" and accept the economic hit. Changed their fething tune since 2014.

There's a reason why they want to leave quickly and that is because they get the benefit the quickest. I don't believe they really care about the damage it causes as long as they come out smelling better (for example if it all turns out to be a cluster**** then you can bet they will be pointing the finger and blaming May for not really having her heart in it" etc).

I also think there is a fear factor. They know that the populace are fickle. Although everyone here are very anti/pro EU (which is why we post) there will be a wide range of pro/anti EU and there likely be a substantial proportion of people on the border. As costs go up and if the economy starts tanking (especially if the EU grows during the same time) then these 'floating voters' may start to change their views on the whole process (or the government continues to show complete incompetence). That could cause significant challenges for their own political careers if opinion starts shifting away from them. Hence they want to get out now, because once we have leave it is then a 20 year battle to rejoin (in the same way Farage *spits out dirty word* started a UKIP movement).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:
Will this insanity ever end?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38034411

Drop Brexit case appeal, senior Tories urge May

I think there may be other reasons as well with regards point of principle. May is obviously very authoritarian in her approach and wants to make all the decisions and not really consult with anyone. If she wins the case then she will be more confidently be able to use Executive powers on other matters as well, pointing to this case. If she loses then that may mean her ability to use Executive powers could be severely curtailed and will need to bring more to parliament. That then exposes her to debate and challenge by the community at large.

**Ketara**

Whirlwind wrote:

I think there may be other reasons as well with regards point of principle. May is obviously very authoritarian in her approach and wants to make all the decisions and not really consult with anyone.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. She's moved back towards cabinet primacy if anything, very much so compared to Blair/Brown/Cameron, who all went for the Presidential governing style. The things that have all pointed to contrary tend to have been clumsy leaks/spin, which I strongly suspect Bojo of fomenting. May has her advisors who I would agree she trusts more than anyone else, but she's hardly unique in that in this day and age. If you look through the press releases and suchlike, she does considerably less of the 'stand at the front and make all the big announcements (and invent one if there isn't anything this week' that Blair and Cameron pushed.

I hear she's a hard nut to crack in terms of talking around to a different viewpoint, she doesn't let on what she's thinking even to her own party, and she likes to stick her nose into all the details of everything. But that's not quite the same thing as being 'authoritarian' or making all the decisions on her own.

**Kilkrazy**

May had a reputation when Home Secretary for keep the cards and reins close to her own chest.

**Compel**

The converse of that I've seen/read/heard, is that she will change her mind if you come to her with a better argument.

**Silent Puffin?**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Will this insanity ever end?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38034411

Drop Brexit case appeal, senior Tories urge May

He added that one of the advantages of bringing a "fast and tightly timetabled and constrained bill" to Parliament, giving the government the ability to trigger Brexit without any constraints on its negotiating power, was that it avoided "any risk of the Supreme Court deciding to accord the devolved administrations some rights or even some veto powers" over triggering Article 50.

Just another brick in the wall.

**Kilkrazy**

Compel wrote:
The converse of that I've seen/read/heard, is that she will change her mind if you come to her with a better argument.

I don't deny it. However the arguments that seem better often depend on a different perception of your start and end positions.

For example, there are several good arguments for allowing Parliament a vote on the Article 50; constitutional legality, speed, decisiveness and to keep the regional governments out of the process. May is apparently opposed to them, probably because any vote has the risk of going wrong in some way.

To some degree she is right, since using the Royal Prerogative avoids any argument, but the decision to try to do so simply raised another bunch of arguments and delay, and gave the populist press a pretext to lay into the judges who after all were only upholding the law and citizens' legal rights.

**welshhoppo**

Well does parliament have the right to ignore the will of the people? Sure the winning margin was slight, but we've had governments run on less.

**Ketara**

Kilkrazy wrote:

For example, there are several good arguments for allowing Parliament a vote on the Article 50; constitutional legality, speed, decisiveness and to keep the regional governments out of the process. May is apparently opposed to them, probably because any vote has the risk of going wrong in some way.

That's definitely another trait of hers. Cautious. Doesn't like to gamble. Lines her chickens up before shooting them. She might not be a micro-manager or authoritarian necessarily , but she is a control freak. Whilst she can direct the Cabinet and the Party to a large extent, she can't control Parliament, Holyrood, or the Lords. So she doesn't want them involved in the process if she can help it.

**Silent Puffin?**

welshhoppo wrote:
Well does parliament have the right to ignore the will of the people?

Quite frankly, yes. We are a parliamentary democracy.

If the referendum had been properly planned and the legislation properly passed through parliament, namely that the result would be binding, before the vote then none of this would be happening.

**r_squared**

welshhoppo wrote:
Well does parliament have the right to ignore the will of the people? Sure the winning margin was slight, but we've had governments run on less.

Certainly, they often go against the "will of the people", it's just that, this time, they asked the question in the form of the referendum and tied their own hands into doing something they did not want to do and we all get to watch.
In the past there's been no referendum to display what the people think, so you have to look at periods of general unrest and disatisfaction to see the Govt going against the will of the people, the poll tax riots are a good example.
It took mass civil unrest to dispatch that idea. Do you think, without a referendum, that we would ever have seen rioting against the EU? I doubt it myself. Certainly there were a group of people who felt strongly enough about it, and Cameron fell into their trap, but I just don't think that, without the referendum, it would have ever ignited the populace to the extent it did.
It's also become apparent that the vote, amongst other reasons widely discussed on here before, has been used as a tool to stick two fingers up to the Govt and express general anger and disatisfaction with our own politicians and the establishment in general. What better way to stick it to the man than to tell them to tear down their own edifices, regardless of the cost.

The good thing about the referendum is that for the first time in ages it does quantifiably show the "will of the people". The Govt can plainly see that about a third want out, a third want in, and a third we don't know about. So the Govt has to reflect the will of the people by taking us out, because that was the majority, but not so far out as to ignore the will of the other third of the population.

**BaronIveagh**

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38037119

And now, to double down hard on bad ideas....

**A Town Called Malus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38037119

And now, to double down hard on bad ideas....

Yes, truly we will be a beacon of global free trade by removing ourselves from free trade access with the largest trading bloc in the world.

**Future War Cultist**

Being in the single market means accepting their rules but without any say in creating them. If we're going, go all the way.

**Kilkrazy**

It doesn't. At the moment we are in the single market and have a bigger say than anyone in the EU except Germany, due to population adjustments to vote weighting.

Amusingly enough, Germany is one of our natural allies in the EU, because we and they are so similar and have congruent views on many EU related topics. We are also popular with the Nordics and various Eastern EU countries like Poland for the same reasons and in Poland's case because of the amount of Polish immigrants we have living, working and prospering in the UK. This gives the UK a huge amount of soft power in moulding EU policy and decisions.

But let's ignore that and throw our toys out of the pram for sovereignty and immigration controls.

**Future War Cultist**

It does. If we leave, we will no longer be at the table shaping single market policy. But if we stay in the single market it means accepting all of its rules, including free moment of people. We'll be a worse situation than we are now. So again, I say get out of it completely.