• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

DOOM: House of Lords

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    Exactly same number of seats as the Commons. Whoever comes second in a constituency automatically goes to the upper house. The new chamber to have the same powers and function as the existing one. This will result in there being no chance of a tyranny of the majority, but still allow the government to function.

    For the last general election, the Commons was:
    Con 365
    Lab 202
    SNP 48
    LD 11
    DUP 8
    SF 7
    PC 4
    SDLP 2
    Alliance 1
    Green 1
    Ashfield Independents 0
    Birkenhead Social Justice Party 0
    Brexit 0
    Ind 0
    PBPA 0
    Spk 0
    UUP 0
    Under this system, the second chamber would have been:
    Lab 303
    Con 216
    LD 91
    SNP 11
    DUP 6
    Alliance 4
    Ind 4
    Brexit 3
    UUP 3
    Green 2
    SDLP 2
    SF 2
    Ashfield Independents 1
    Birkenhead Social Justice Party 1
    PBPA 1
    Spk 1
    PC 0
    You miss the point that the Upper chamber is supposed to be a repository of experience and wisdom to guide the Lower house. For that reason, the old House of Lords populated with bishops and peers worked quite well, it was only the creation of life Peers that buggered it up by adding lots of politically-inspired dunderheads and losers to the pile. Replacing life Peers with a buggins turn mechanism would bugger it up all over again.

    Also any mechanism that enshrines party loyalty, as yours does, would be worse than what we have now.

    Set a fixed number of seats - 200 is probably too many. Turf out those who don't contribute in a meaningful way, starting the few hundred who only turn up to collect the money. Replace empty seats by election from the whole House as needed. Simples...
    Blog? What blog...?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
      Exactly same number of seats as the Commons. Whoever comes second in a constituency automatically goes to the upper house. The new chamber to have the same powers and function as the existing one. This will result in there being no chance of a tyranny of the majority, but still allow the government to function.
      What exactly is the point if that? To ensure no legislation ever gets passed? Sounds like the USA.
      Originally posted by MaryPoppins
      I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
      Originally posted by vetran
      Urine is quite nourishing

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by malvolio View Post

        You miss the point that the Upper chamber is supposed to be a repository of experience and wisdom to guide the Lower house. For that reason, the old House of Lords populated with bishops and peers worked quite well, it was only the creation of life Peers that buggered it up by adding lots of politically-inspired dunderheads and losers to the pile. Replacing life Peers with a buggins turn mechanism would bugger it up all over again.
        Also any mechanism that enshrines party loyalty, as yours does, would be worse than what we have now.

        Set a fixed number of seats - 200 is probably too many. Turf out those who don't contribute in a meaningful way, starting the few hundred who only turn up to collect the money. Replace empty seats by election from the whole House as needed. Simples...
        wE are in a rare moment of agreement over a political question! Well I'm not sure about your proposed reforms but the first part I totally agree with.

        Originally posted by MaryPoppins
        I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
        Originally posted by vetran
        Urine is quite nourishing

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by d000hg View Post
          What exactly is the point if that? To ensure no legislation ever gets passed? Sounds like the USA.
          Never heard of the Parliament Act then? The Lord's can only veto a very few laws. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/...arliamentacts/
          Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post

            Never heard of the Parliament Act then? The Lord's can only veto a very few laws. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/...arliamentacts/
            So again, what's the point of your suggestion? Instead of an unelected group of people we get a group of people we explicitly voted NOT to be in power.
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              #36
              The AI suggests the following:

              There are several potential systems that could replace the House of Lords in the UK. One option would be to establish a new, democratically elected body to serve as a second chamber of Parliament. This could be done through a popular vote, with members of the new chamber being chosen by the people. Another option would be to give more power to the existing House of Commons, which is already democratically elected. This could involve changing the rules of Parliament to give the Commons more authority to pass legislation and make decisions on its own.
              First Law of Contracting: Only the strong survive

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by _V_ View Post
                The AI suggests the following:

                There are several potential systems that could replace the House of Lords in the UK. One option would be to establish a new, democratically elected body to serve as a second chamber of Parliament. This could be done through a popular vote, with members of the new chamber being chosen by the people. Another option would be to give more power to the existing House of Commons, which is already democratically elected. This could involve changing the rules of Parliament to give the Commons more authority to pass legislation and make decisions on its own.
                The AI needs to go back to the drawing board. Neither of those satisfy the purpose of the second chamber.
                Blog? What blog...?

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by malvolio View Post

                  The AI needs to go back to the drawing board. Neither of those satisfy the purpose of the second chamber.
                  Like many regular people, the AI is just regurgitating things it heard once
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by d000hg View Post

                    So again, what's the point of your suggestion? Instead of an unelected group of people we get a group of people we explicitly voted NOT to be in power.
                    Well, first of all, unless you're tactically voting, you're not voting explicitly for someone to not be in power.

                    It solves the problem of the tyranny of the majority.
                    It means that your vote isn't wasted in safe seats.
                    It means the second chamber is minority elected - but with FPP that's also true.

                    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                      Well, first of all, unless you're tactically voting, you're not voting explicitly for someone to not be in power.

                      It solves the problem of the tyranny of the majority.
                      It means that your vote isn't wasted in safe seats.
                      It means the second chamber is minority elected - but with FPP that's also true.
                      It means the second chamber is full of rejects and, what is worse, set up to vote along party lines, which will almost certainly be a reverse of the make-up of the House. So what is the benefit?

                      If you want to escape the tyranny of the majority (aka democratic process) then make a good, sensible and workable case for PR in the main House. Then, and only then, would your proposal for the second chamber make any kind of sense. But not much even then.
                      Blog? What blog...?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X