Toepoke Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Lord Fooks on Scotland Tonight trying to put the boot into the SNP over this! John MacKay kept having to stop him saying it wasn't relevant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErsatzThistle Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Lord Fooks on Scotland Tonight trying to put the boot into the SNP over this! John MacKay kept having to stop him saying it wasn't relevant... How in the name of sanity could the SNP possibly be blamed for this ??? The only reason I can think of for Foulkes' insane ramblings is ........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Lord Fooks on Scotland Tonight trying to put the boot into the SNP over this! John MacKay kept having to stop him saying it wasn't relevant... What dry-cleaners was he broadcasting from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 How in the name of sanity could the SNP possibly be blamed for this ??? The only reason I can think of for Foulkes' insane ramblings is ........... The angle of attack on the SNP on this one is that the HoL has actually made a difference for once in politics. They're attacking the SNP's position of not taking seats in the Lords, criticising the chamber as useless and so on. At least, that was the angle of attack on Sunday Politics. Anyone know how Lady Mone voted? Do you get to see individual voting results/record anywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibelieve!!! Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) The angle of attack on the SNP on this one is that the HoL has actually made a difference for once in politics. They're attacking the SNP's position of not taking seats in the Lords, criticising the chamber as useless and so on. At least, that was the angle of attack on Sunday Politics. Anyone know how Lady Mone voted? Do you get to see individual voting results/record anywhere? http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2015-Oct-26&itemId=3&session=2015-May-18Needless to say she voted with the government on all 3! Edited October 27, 2015 by ibelieve!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Bizarrely a completely undemocratic 2nd chamber has don't the right thing regarding an unpopular and unnecessary ideologically driven bill. It's a shame our elected representatives couldn't do the same. J Not really 'bizarre'; I suspect the Lords manage to achieve quite a bit for the general good through scrutiny and proposed amendment in the passage of legislation. I see nothing at all wrong in having an unelected second chamber provided its powers are sensibly framed, which I think is more or less the case with the HoL. Placing the entire political process in the hands of elected representatives leads to partisan gridlock and the tyranny of the majority. I like many things about the US (now that they've sorted out their brewing industry), but their political culture is appalling - and that's in part because they have turned 'democracy' into a cultural fetish, as they have with their flag and their constitution. Hence no chance of effective gun control and their ####ed-up use of capital punishment. The problem (and it's a massive one) with the second chamber at Westminster is its use as a reward for party funders and hacks. The appointment process needs to be taken out of the hands of the parties altogether - which won't happen because they'll claim it would be undemocratic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernscum Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Not really 'bizarre'; I suspect the Lords manage to achieve quite a bit for the general good through scrutiny and proposed amendment in the passage of legislation. I see nothing at all wrong in having an unelected second chamber provided its powers are sensibly framed, which I think is more or less the case with the HoL. Placing the entire political process in the hands of elected representatives leads to partisan gridlock and the tyranny of the majority. I like many things about the US (now that they've sorted out their brewing industry), but their political culture is appalling - and that's in part because they have turned 'democracy' into a cultural fetish, as they have with their flag and their constitution. Hence no chance of effective gun control and their ####ed-up use of capital punishment. The problem (and it's a massive one) with the second chamber at Westminster is its use as a reward for party funders and hacks. The appointment process needs to be taken out of the hands of the parties altogether - which won't happen because they'll claim it would be undemocratic... So in short, the second chamber does not work and this defeat for the government may just prove it. As they have threatened, they will now flood the place with extra lapdogs to ensure this doesn't happen again. How very democratic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 So in short, the second chamber does not work and this defeat for the government may just prove it. As they have threatened, they will now flood the place with extra lapdogs to ensure this doesn't happen again. How very democratic! Weeell, I'm not sure how that could be construed as being a summary of my post; I was musing on the principle of an unelected house being necessarily a bad thing and 'more democracy' being a cure-all for a political culture's ills. As for flooding the house with lapdogs - that's happened regularly over the years, particularly in the 19th / early 20th century over much more important issues than this when the Lords really were a block to reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Weeell, I'm not sure how that could be construed as being a summary of my post; I was musing on the principle of an unelected house being necessarily a bad thing and 'more democracy' being a cure-all for a political culture's ills. As for flooding the house with lapdogs - that's happened regularly over the years, particularly in the 19th / early 20th century over much more important issues than this when the Lords really were a block to reform. I don't have a problem with the fact that the members of the House of Lords are appointed per se. The problem is two-fold though, firstly that they almost exclusively appointed by political parties - I think the only exceptions are the CoE bishops. Secondly, the fact that once appointed, they are there for life. The Tories recently appointed someone - the guy allegedly responsible for the Poll Tax - as they did not have enough MPs to have as ministers in the Scottish Office. Whether or not you agree with that or not, the fact is the guy is there to solve a problem for this parliament but he'll be in the Lords forever more even if he's no longer required by subsequent governments. A second, truly proportional, revising chamber would a great thing. I'd welcome a chamber that was 50% elected - on a regional PR system and 50% appointed. However I'd like to see the appointed half coming from the whole of civic society, so groups like trades unions, the GMC, the legal profession, academia, third sector, *all* major religions, etc., etc. That way, I think you get a good mix of people with the practical real life experience that reflects the political balance of the country. Stick them on fixed terms, maybe 4 years for the elected part and 6 years for the appointees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Sounds good; very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 If it is democracy we are after, what about an upper chamber filled with randomly chosen punters, kind of like jury service? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Lord Fooks on Scotland Tonight trying to put the boot into the SNP over this! John MacKay kept having to stop him saying it wasn't relevant... I honestly cannot believe what I've just heard on Call UKaye (Louise White): Lord Pished Strides starts shouting about the SNP and how Nicola Sturgeon told the French Ambassador she wanted a Tory Government He was torn to shreds by a caller from Oban, then conveniently said he had to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark frae Crieff Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Michelle Mone is a waste of spunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I see the TAs favourite Lord Seb Coe was also there supporting the Government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I see the TAs favourite Lord Seb Coe was also there supporting the Government. Former Tory MP so no great surprise there. Lord Lloyd-Webber being flown across the Atlantic to vote to hammer the poor of the UK stuck in the craw a bit more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Watching the (HoL) chamber before the votes was just highlighting the absolute pantomime of the whole thing. You had a stack of tories echoing verbatim the thoughts of Osborne and issuing warning after warning on how undemocratic and wrong it would be if there bill were not to be passed exactly as they wanted. As much as the whole set up of the Lords is a shambles - they have at least always tried to masquerade as being respected peers watching over the commons and using their collective wisdom towards shaping the greater good for the bills being passed for our country. The stooshie caused in this whole debate has just exposed the whole thing for the sham that it is. While we can be grateful that the result (on this occasion) got to the right result - we can look forward with fear to the amendments that Tories will make to flood the chamber or adjust process accordingly to ensure that they can do as they please. The proposal of Aaid above is absolutely spot on and something I would fully support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Lord Lloyd-Webber being flown across the Atlantic to vote to hammer the poor of the UK stuck in the craw a bit more... Utterly disgusting from the handsome one. A guy worth £650m flies all that way to do normal folk out of £1300 - FFS, what sort of country is this? The guy from Next is getting a fair bit of abusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibelieve!!! Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Celtic fans calling for one of their board members to be removed after voting with the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintlyscot Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 That debate to a full H o L cost the taxpayer £170000! Eye watering stuff!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Utterly disgusting from the handsome one. A guy worth £650m flies all that way to do normal folk out of £1300 - FFS, what sort of country is this? The guy from Next is getting a fair bit of abusive. I haven't bought anything from Next for eight years. Wolfson chooses to make remarks about how people it the public sector shouldn't get a pay rise, so I choose not to spend my hard earned money in his store - not sure it's making a massive difference mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I haven't bought anything from Next for eight years. Wolfson chooses to make remarks about how people it the public sector shouldn't get a pay rise, so I choose not to spend my hard earned money in his store - not sure it's making a massive difference mind. I haven't bought anything from Next for about 20 years. Primarily as its all shite gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 In my younger days, I bought the odd tin-flute for work from Next - wouldn't set foot in it now though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khana Lagur Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I haven't bought anything from Next for about 20 years. Primarily as its all shite gear. Me neither. Everything with sleeves seems to have those elasticated cuffs which just stretch out of shape. In saying that, they must be doing something right - 20 years ago their shares were eight pence (now almost £80). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I don't have a problem with the fact that the members of the House of Lords are appointed per se. The problem is two-fold though, firstly that they almost exclusively appointed by political parties - I think the only exceptions are the CoE bishops. Secondly, the fact that once appointed, they are there for life. The Tories recently appointed someone - the guy allegedly responsible for the Poll Tax - as they did not have enough MPs to have as ministers in the Scottish Office. Whether or not you agree with that or not, the fact is the guy is there to solve a problem for this parliament but he'll be in the Lords forever more even if he's no longer required by subsequent governments. A second, truly proportional, revising chamber would a great thing. I'd welcome a chamber that was 50% elected - on a regional PR system and 50% appointed. However I'd like to see the appointed half coming from the whole of civic society, so groups like trades unions, the GMC, the legal profession, academia, third sector, *all* major religions, etc., etc. That way, I think you get a good mix of people with the practical real life experience that reflects the political balance of the country. Stick them on fixed terms, maybe 4 years for the elected part and 6 years for the appointees. That's a great idea. If we ever get independence maybe this is something Scotland could adopt. Have they flogged the old High School building yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.