EU Referendum - Page 94 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Interesting comments at the bottom :blink: 

FormerProudScot is probably the same Proud Scot yoon nutcase thats on twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Not something I say too often but well played the Lords....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39133400

 

Did you hear kunto Tebbitt? How tae fuk is that auld fuker still allowed to have some influence on how our laws work. Mind you, at least he was elected once (about 40 years ago) which is more than can be said for a lot of these fukin parasites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Did you hear kunto Tebbitt? How tae fuk is that auld fuker still allowed to have some influence on how our laws work. Mind you, at least he was elected once (about 40 years ago) which is more than can be said for a lot of these fukin parasites.

Ah, the fetishization of democracy.

This isn't a popular stance, nor one that I'll bother trying to defend for long, but there is no necessary correlation between being a member of an unelected scrutineering chamber and 'fukin parasitism'.

Once again, the Lords has told the government to think again. Would this happen if it were an elected house, owing some form of allegiance to those that elected them? There is nothing wrong with an unelected, fundamentally apolitical chamber (which doesn't mean that many of its members should not have a political affiliation). The House of Lords is far from perfect unfortunately, but in principle an unelected chamber of experts is a perfectly reasonable idea.

Most people who know a lot of stuff would never want, or are now too past it, to deal in the dirty business of electoral politics, but that shouldn't mean that they are barred from having a say in the legislative process and make life as difficult as they are constitutionally able for the government. Gawd bless 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonnyTJS said:

Ah, the fetishization of democracy.

This isn't a popular stance, nor one that I'll bother trying to defend for long, but there is no necessary correlation between being a member of an unelected scrutineering chamber and 'fukin parasitism'.

Once again, the Lords has told the government to think again. Would this happen if it were an elected house, owing some form of allegiance to those that elected them? There is nothing wrong with an unelected, fundamentally apolitical chamber (which doesn't mean that many of its members should not have a political affiliation). The House of Lords is far from perfect unfortunately, but in principle an unelected chamber of experts is a perfectly reasonable idea.

Most people who know a lot of stuff would never want, or are now too past it, to deal in the dirty business of electoral politics, but that shouldn't mean that they are barred from having a say in the legislative process and make life as difficult as they are constitutionally able for the government. Gawd bless 'em.

I'd tend to agree with a lot of that.  The problem with the HoL is not that they're unelected per-se but how they are appointed, the sheer number and the fact it's a lifetime appointment.  The hereditary method is less of an issue these days but it's been replaced by something equally unfair with political donors and cronies.

The other thing is that the HoL plays two roles, one is as a secondary revising chamber, the other is as means of the government of the day bringing in outside "experts" to form part of government.  There' nothing wrong with that IMHO, the problem is they are enobled and then they are there forever more.  

I personally like the idea of the Irish senate which is a mix of appointed and elected senators.  There, a minority of senators are appointed by the government, the rest are elected by various "panels" representing wider aspects of civic society.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'd tend to agree with a lot of that.  The problem with the HoL is not that they're unelected per-se but how they are appointed, the sheer number and the fact it's a lifetime appointment.  The hereditary method is less of an issue these days but it's been replaced by something equally unfair with political donors and cronies.

The other thing is that the HoL plays two roles, one is as a secondary revising chamber, the other is as means of the government of the day bringing in outside "experts" to form part of government.  There' nothing wrong with that IMHO, the problem is they are enobled and then they are there forever more.  

I personally like the idea of the Irish senate which is a mix of appointed and elected senators.  There, a minority of senators are appointed by the government, the rest are elected by various "panels" representing wider aspects of civic society.  

Yes, in the case of the HoL (and honours generally), cronyism is indefensible and all too common (hence the Baroness of Moan).

I don't see a reason to have any element of it elected though. Like the 'ceremonial' yet elected Irish presidency, it just has potential to set up a democratic tussle between the truly democratic branch of government (which has constitutional sovereignty on behalf of those whom elected it) and other branches that have a lesser claim to sovereign power, except in clearly defined and rarely exercised circumstances.

There's a case for renomination after fixed terms to the HoL, and for the lynching of all those whose ermine was paid for by political donations, but some of the alternatives (an elected 'senate') would be way worse, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Yes, in the case of the HoL (and honours generally), cronyism is indefensible and all too common (hence the Baroness of Moan).

I don't see a reason to have any element of it elected though. Like the 'ceremonial' yet elected Irish presidency, it just has potential to set up a democratic tussle between the truly democratic branch of government (which has constitutional sovereignty on behalf of those whom elected it) and other branches that have a lesser claim to sovereign power, except in clearly defined and rarely exercised circumstances.

There's a case for renomination after fixed terms to the HoL, and for the lynching of all those whose ermine was paid for by political donations, but some of the alternatives (an elected 'senate') would be way worse, imho.

Could we maybe bring back a version of the Krypton Factor for selecting the Lords? Political general knowledge round, then a mental agility test and finish it with a trip to the assault course...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

Could we maybe bring back a version of the Krypton Factor for selecting the Lords? Political general knowledge round, then a mental agility test and finish it with a trip to the assault course...

 

Part of the selection procedure should be having to live for two years on benefits followed by two weeks on a trolley in a hospital corridor. And then, the hardest part for a lot of them, they have to hold down a job as a supermarket delivery driver on a zero hours contract for five years, without punching their boss in the pus.

Let them get a taste of real life in modern Britain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, aaid said:

I'd tend to agree with a lot of that.  The problem with the HoL is not that they're unelected per-se but how they are appointed, the sheer number and the fact it's a lifetime appointment.

I think the problem with being unelected is complicated.  I don't necessarily have anything against the idea that people with experience and expertise form a second chamber.  What gets me is how some of them have not only been 'unelected' but are only there because they have been actually rejected by the electorate (eg Danny Alexander), that seems wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

I think the problem with being unelected is complicated.  I don't necessarily have anything against the idea that people with experience and expertise form a second chamber.  What gets me is how some of them have not only been 'unelected' but are only there because they have been actually rejected by the electorate (eg Danny Alexander), that seems wrong.

While i agree with you, Danny Alexander is not a Lord.......yet

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hertsscot said:

BBC has story about Theresa May not being drawn on whether she would give permission for Scotland to have another referendum.  How patronising can you get.

And the Guardian reported it as the prime minister taking a "hard line" - by refusing to confirm. So making May's indecision a strength. Guardian doublethink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, exile said:

And the Guardian reported it as the prime minister taking a "hard line" - by refusing to confirm. So making May's indecision a strength. Guardian doublethink.

That's it, when it comes down to it the guardian will always side with the government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hertsscot said:

BBC has story about Theresa May not being drawn on whether she would give permission for Scotland to have another referendum.  How patronising can you get.

Aye, the interview was on TV last night. She just refused to answer the question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People often say the UK voted as a whole to leave the EU, as if Scotland irrelevant as an electoral unit. Technically correct, not so politically.

Imagine if there was an EU-wide vote on, say, greater integration, where all other countries' citizens by majority voted to go one way, but the UK voted the other, so was in danger of being dragged into a position against its will. Does anyone imagine for a second, that the UK would accept that result?

The point being that the UK would never allow itself to get into a position where its will as a nation/state would not be expressed. The EU for all its faults does allow its constituent nations that right, the UK does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Haggis_trap said:

I laughed out loud at Theresa May telling the SNP to "get on with their day job".

The entire UK is going to be consumed by Brexit for at least a decade!

I wonder if she has got Mundle writing her speeches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...