horsefly

Start a thread on Commons reform then FFS! This one is about abolition of the Lords.

And which players missing today would those be?

Good interview with Ian Hislop reviewing the year in politics: Here's a link to the brilliant Adam Curtis series of documentaries on Russia to which he refers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0d3hwl1/russia-19851999-traumazone

Splendid start to the day! For some strange reason I now have an urge to brush my teeth with Sensodyne, make a nice cup of Tapal tea, and finish off last night's KFC

In other words you have no evidence whatsoever that the EU wouldn't grant the UK membership to the EEA and access to the SM. The fact that this would massively benefit EU export trade and resolve the interminable NI protocol issue, seems to have passed over your head.

Apparently it told them, "f**k off! I've got standards"

What's ironic about it?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/smallbusiness/don-t-say-gay-florida-lawmaker-indicted-on-fraud-charges/ar-AA151IZY?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6a227383ff9c47e792a071a3d132dfa9 'Don't Say Gay' Florida lawmaker indicted on fraud charges

You seem to have forgotten the current cabinet. I would happily send them down a deep hole in the ground providing there was no prospect of their return above ground (could we also send Hancock down with them to assist with survival techniques).

Nah! "World Beating GB Rail" is a must.

There we have it, the fallacy of "whataboutery" at it's finest. Because Mone didn't actually murder anyone defrauding the NHS of multi millions for personal gain, her corruption is "trivial" by international standards. Not only did Mone aggressively push for contracts to be awarded to a newly set up company that charged the NHS more than double for its PPE, it also provided PPE that was unusable . Unusable and unavailable PPE undoubtedly cost the lives of many health workers during the Covid crisis. The loss of billions of pounds as a result of fraud is the loss of billions of pounds that could have been used to save lives. For the families that grieve the unnecessary loss of loved ones, I expect little comfort will be found in being told that the fraudsters who contributed to their deaths didn't actually fire a bullet into their heart. It is clear that Mone did nothing to check that Medpro was able to supply usable equipment to the NHS; I guess she was too busy conspiring with them about the elaborate system of offshore bank accounts required to launder £29m into her personal bank account. As for the "international" perspective on this fraud, perhaps it's worth a few moments watching this foreign report: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/news/gravitas-michelle-mone-the-baroness-who-made-millions-during-the-pandemic/vi-AA14VNB6?ocid=msedgntp&t=86

Starmer described him as blancmange in PMQs and that seems most apposite. A bland mess that wobbles at the slightest prodding. The Tories are now a party bereft of any principle, scruple, or trace of competence. The next two years will be hellish.

Because it was evident to everybody else that Well b back's words were not to be taken literally but were simple hyperbole making humorous reference to the Tory Party's overused and false claims to be "world beating" at everything they considered to be vote winning. Either you were incapable of seeing what was obvious, or you decided to misrepresent his post in order to start an argument.

The present HOL is fundamentally a revising chamber. As such it doesn't duplicate or dilute existing political bodies. That fundamental function will remain true of a reformed second chamber. The key difference will be that the people doing the revising will be democratically elected representatives of all the regions and nations of the UK. I really don't think your concerns are remotely likely to present a problem. But sure, it's always wise to remain cautious.

Hancock's Suffolk constituency have just posted the following vid to lament their loss:

Perhaps it might be best to wait and see what Labour's detailed plans actually are for the second chamber. It would be naive to think that it is not well aware of the various tiers of government with which a new chamber would need to relate. At this stage Labour has done nothing more than commit to the principle of abolishing the Lords and replacing it with an elected chamber. I fail to see how anyone can genuinely quibble at the abolition of a chamber that is a paradigm of privilege, cronyism, corruption, and orthogonal to every aspect of the democratic ideal which the UK claims to uphold. Perhaps you might consider writing to Labour HQ to express your concerns, that would be a very noble example of the sort of participatory democracy that a reformed second chamber is meant to encourage.

Spot on Herman! Democracies become degenerate when apathetic scepticism prevails in the voting public. You would think that Labour's attempt to restore faith and credibility to our political system by making the second chamber truly representative of the regions and nations of the country would be welcomed by anyone moved enough to take the slightest interest in politics (such as those posting about it on a social forum for example). I suspect the same people shrugging their shoulders are identical with the same set who complain that "they're all the same" when yet another unelected Lord/Lady is exposed as corrupt. But of course, they will happily point out, "There's nothing you can do about it" as they deride Labour's proposal to actually do something about it.

Plenty more episodes to come H, but they are all going to end with the word "Guilty"

Barbe bleu Just because a l9ot of countries (most of which directly or indirectly copied us) have two chambers doesn't mean it is necessary. No one thinks that Sweden, Germany or New Zealand are not fully functioning democracies despite going down the 'one and done' route. I'd maybe keep it for the pomp and expert debate but put what little power it has in the regional bodies. Labour's proposal just duplicates unnecessarily. But if I'm honest. I dont really care. Lords reform is way down my list of 'give a damns'. I'm just posting as I was bored earlier and wanted to catch up with the lyb-horsefly gestalt. Getting rid of an unelected second chamber riddled with corruption and privilege and replacing it with an elected one that that has genuine representation from the regions of the UK "duplicates" what exactly? Take the East Anglian region as an example, just what would be "duplicated" by ensuring a second chamber has genuine elected representatives from this region? It's entirely your prerogative not to care, as it is entirely my prerogative to embrace Labour's attempt to regenerate faith and participation in our political system by making the most fundamental reform to our democracy since women got the vote.

The idea that it is legitimate to discuss House of Lords reform only if one also discusses House of Commons reform is utterly ridiculous. For a start one of those chambers is elected according to democratic principles and the other isn't. The case for reforming the unelected chamber to bring it into line with democratic government is patently obvious. None of that precludes any future discussion of reforms elsewhere.

Perhaps that's because this is a forum and not a private conversation between two posters alone. Best not to post on social media websites if you don't want others to exercise their right to comment.

Sounds a bit like RTB, only more human.

Perhaps I should post the series of violently abusive messages you sent to my personal message box. Would you prefer to be called the kettle or the pot?

Try reading Private Eye

You say that we can get rid of individuals we see as lazy, Inept, corrupt. But that is difficult in practice if the party in question insists on putting them on the list. Any party doing that runs the risk of the member concerned being voted out. As things stand that could never happen to ANY member of the second chamber as they have a position there for life. You have bought into the official Labour line of greater local accountability for the second chamber. That's fine and I dont necessarily disagree but why have a second chamber at all ? Second chambers are present in every democratic country around the world, because rational dialogue is central to the very process of democracy. Our own Lords plays a crucial role in debating and revising proposed government legislation and forcing it to reconsider policies it would otherwise rush through in autocratic haste. Labour's proposal to ensure that debate is representative of the considered opinion of local communities through members accountable to their constituencies is an important advance in promoting a healthy participatory political culture. I would expect the second chamber to be dispersed throughout the country in regional bodies similar to the example of some of those that you mention (There is no reason why it should be centralised in a single location as is the present case). A elected second chamber, with a regional focus is probably going to spend a lot of time butting heads with the existing assemblies and trying to carve out a purpose. Time will tell just what form the reformed second chamber will take and whether that will require reforms in other political bodies. However, I see no reason in principle why it should "butt heads" with other tiers of government in any way different from our present political arrangements (Lords, Commons, councils, regional parliaments etc).