UK General Discussion

[True Federalist]

Just nationalize all the schools... far easier solution.

Wouldn't privatizing the state-sun schools also be easy?

[bore]

No. If I want to make money by setting up a better-quality school than the government does and charging students to enter, who's to stop me from making money?

The government and the voting public who don't want you to make money from schooling?

Meh...private schools are a bad idea in general, but the government really shouldn't be allowed to stop me from making money in a way that doesn't hurt anybody.

But it does, people don't exist in a vacumn and there is only a limited amount of anything, so private schools give an advantage to the already rich over everyone else.

[YL]

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17815769

Unfortunately, I think that not only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others - and that is their real crime.

[Senator MaxQue]

Well, she is right on that, but that's rather strange to attack your own leaders.

[You kip if you want to...]

Well, she is right on that, but that's rather strange to attack your own leaders.

It's not too rare for the Tories really. And she's just fuming that her seats probably going to be abolished.

[Leftbehind]

Well that and his (perceived) slight against her in PMQs.

In response, Cameron replied that he "does a lot of his own shopping".

[You kip if you want to...]

Well that and his (perceived) slight against her in PMQs.

In response, Cameron replied that he "does a lot of his own shopping".

Sainsbury's Chipping Norton.

He rightly didn't say Waitrose, he wrongly didn't realise that Sainsbury's is for posh folk these days.

[London Man]

Right, how long before Mr. Hunt stands down?

[bore]

Right, how long before Mr. Hunt stands down?

Well, David Cameron has expressed his full support for him...







I give him a week

[You kip if you want to...]

Right, how long before Mr. Hunt stands down?

Well, David Cameron has expressed his full support for him...







I give him a week

Well, atleast he'll known for something more than just being called Jeremy Cunt (that's in context, mods) once.

[You kip if you want to...]

A Daily Mail front page praising Labour! What is this sourcery!?!?

[dialectical fetishist]

Only because they want to interfere in people's personal lives, apparently.

[afleitch]

I take it the Mail is trying to start a moral panic again?

[bore]

Why won't someone think of the children?

[afleitch]

Why won't someone think of the children?

Well obviously parents don't. It's up to them to look out for what their teenage son is getting up to, whether it's restricting internet access in 2012 or throwing dirty mags in the bin in 1992. Teenagers will always find it though

[You kip if you want to...]

Dave certainly bungled that statement today. Difficult to watch.

[You kip if you want to...]

Just for some perspective on Lord Reform, if we had the Clegg plan, Senators elected during the 1997 Labour landslide would only just be leaving office today.

[afleitch]

Just for some perspective on Lord Reform, if we had the Clegg plan, Senators elected during the 1997 Labour landslide would only just be leaving office today.

At least we're doing something about it, rather than stuffing the Lords with peers

[afleitch]

I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.

The Lords is to be elected in 3rds, every 5 years with members having one 15 year term. As a result, it will probably not be a place in which to build a career. The problem is though, if it becomes a carehome for old politicians the number of by-elections would be enormous. Given that the proposals suggest large STV constituencies so that Scotland for example would be one constituency, that means setting up polling stations nationwide to fill one seat.

Having 5-7 elected per seat every 5 years means that smaller (read: crazy) parties would have a chance to get in. 3-4 per seat would mean smaller more manageable seats and less crazies.

[Vasall des Midas]

I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.

Britain already has a neutered upper house, so a reform that recreates one makes no sense. Not that I'd expect the current government - or a Labour majority government for that matter - to come up with anything else.

[afleitch]

I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.

Britain already has a neutered upper house, so a reform that recreates one makes no sense. Not that I'd expect the current government - or a Labour majority government for that matter - to come up with anything else.

I would agree with you. However the Lords could be kept down by the Commons in the era of suffrage on the basis that it was illegitimate and unelected. If you start electing members to a body then the balance of power can shift. So you just make sure you set out the ground rules for what the Lords can do (and more importantly what it can never do) before you then consider trivial matters like how to populate it.

[You kip if you want to...]

Just for some perspective on Lord Reform, if we had the Clegg plan, Senators elected during the 1997 Labour landslide would only just be leaving office today.

At least we're doing something about it, rather than stuffing the Lords with peers

Oh no, I'd support the proposals in any referendum, don't get me wrong. We just deserve better really, like with AV.

[True Federalist]

I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.

The Lords is to be elected in 3rds, every 5 years with members having one 15 year term. As a result, it will probably not be a place in which to build a career. The problem is though, if it becomes a carehome for old politicians the number of by-elections would be enormous. Given that the proposals suggest large STV constituencies so that Scotland for example would be one constituency, that means setting up polling stations nationwide to fill one seat.

Having 5-7 elected per seat every 5 years means that smaller (read: crazy) parties would have a chance to get in. 3-4 per seat would mean smaller more manageable seats and less crazies.

Why bother with by-elections for a toothless body?  If the voters (or the parties) pick people who die in office, tough luck.  If the Lords would actually have some power then I could see the need for by-elections, but as it is, there is no need, or at least none that could not be put off until the next nationwide vote.

[Pilchard]

Why bother with by-elections for a toothless body?  If the voters (or the parties) pick people who die in office, tough luck.  If the Lords would actually have some power then I could see the need for by-elections, but as it is, there is no need, or at least none that could not be put off until the next nationwide vote.

The draft bill and the joint committee report propose filling vacancies with substitute members until the next election (unless it's close to the next election - the committee recommends 1 year - in which case it would be left vacant). For some reason they propose filling the vacancy with the first unsuccessful candidate for the party at the previous election, which could involve going back to election results that may be more than 10 years old.

[Χahar]

Why not just get rid of the Lords and be done with it? The current legislative system doesn't seem to be crying out for an effective second house.