(NB: The following is something from a damn American; take with a grain of salt.)
There is something romantically quaint about the notion of a deliberate legislative body being above the normal fray of political parties by virtue of their tenure and method of election. The problem is that basing that position on the basis of heredity is flat out dumb. (Perhaps this is because I’ve seen too many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas.) The ideal solution would be a meritocracy; one where ones experience and achievement is the criteria and not who your parents were. Perhaps if new members were “elected” by the HOC but with a 2/3 majority so you would need a coalition of several parties approval to get in the upper house.
I mean if we had the same thing in the US, Al Gore would probably be in it.
tzor wrote:(NB: The following is something from a damn American; take with a grain of salt.)
There is something romantically quaint about the notion of a deliberate legislative body being above the normal fray of political parties by virtue of their tenure and method of election. The problem is that basing that position on the basis of heredity is flat out dumb. (Perhaps this is because I’ve seen too many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas.) The ideal solution would be a meritocracy; one where ones experience and achievement is the criteria and not who your parents were. Perhaps if new members were “elected” by the HOC but with a 2/3 majority so you would need a coalition of several parties approval to get in the upper house.
I mean if we had the same thing in the US, Al Gore would probably be in it.
Not dumb at all, it gets to the heart of the problem with the House of Lords. They actually do a very good job on the whole, which is a point that firmly goes against reform. However, the issue of hereditary peers seems pretty archaic, and there are perhaps better ways to create the second chamber. Meritocratic selection would be best, but the problem is who decides the people with merit. The worry is that it will favour business people, but there are members of the House of Lords selected for merit for other reasons. Sebastian Coe, a former Olympian who went into politics, is an appointed Lord who does a lot of good work promoting sports in the UK. Baron Adonis does good work too, and comes from an academic and journalism background into politics.
tzor wrote:(NB: The following is something from a damn American; take with a grain of salt.)
There is something romantically quaint about the notion of a deliberate legislative body being above the normal fray of political parties by virtue of their tenure and method of election. The problem is that basing that position on the basis of heredity is flat out dumb. (Perhaps this is because I’ve seen too many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas.) The ideal solution would be a meritocracy; one where ones experience and achievement is the criteria and not who your parents were. Perhaps if new members were “elected” by the HOC but with a 2/3 majority so you would need a coalition of several parties approval to get in the upper house.
I mean if we had the same thing in the US, Al Gore would probably be in it.
Not dumb at all, it gets to the heart of the problem with the House of Lords. They actually do a very good job on the whole, which is a point that firmly goes against reform. However, the issue of hereditary peers seems pretty archaic, and there are perhaps better ways to create the second chamber. Meritocratic selection would be best, but the problem is who decides the people with merit. The worry is that it will favour business people, but there are members of the House of Lords selected for merit for other reasons. Sebastian Coe, a former Olympian who went into politics, is an appointed Lord who does a lot of good work promoting sports in the UK. Baron Adonis does good work too, and comes from an academic and journalism background into politics.
once again, the Irish Senate is meritocratic
Britons, with their racist views of the Irish, will be incapable of actually even reading this post - this will just show up as a blank message on their computer monitors. Just how their brains are wired.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
I dont get the animosity towards hereditary peers. If I understand all the 'reformers' correctly you want to replace hereditary peers with an elected body. Well you already elect one body and you do f*ck all but complain about them, so why do you need something else to complain about? And if the body is not elected, it will be appointed, which will result in replacing hereditary peers with political peers. And you want to tell me thats better?
Archaic it may be but that dont make it wrong.
And for the record I am working class, the company I worked for went bust on Jan 6th and I still havnt found a job and that aint any peers fault.
I've also just been to the pub so apologies for any shit I've just written.
saxitoxin wrote:once again, the Irish Senate is meritocratic
Britons, with their racist views of the Irish, will be incapable of actually even reading this post - this will just show up as a blank message on their computer monitors. Just how their brains are wired.
The dumb American even had to look it up; thank goodness for Wikipedia. Forget race, this is too complicated for Brits.
Seanad Éireann consists of sixty senators:
Eleven appointed by the Taoiseach (prime minister), see Senator nominated by the Taoiseach.
Six elected by the graduates of certain Irish universities:
Three by graduates of the University of Dublin.
Three by graduates of the National University of Ireland.
43 elected from five special panels of nominees (known as Vocational Panels) by an electorate consisting of TDs (member of Dáil Éireann), senators and local councillors. Nomination is restrictive for the panel seats with only Oireachtas members and designated 'nominating bodies' entitled to nominate. Each of the five panels consists, in theory, of individuals possessing special knowledge of, or experience in, one of five specific fields. In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates:
Administrative Panel: Public administration and social services (including the voluntary sector).
Agricultural Panel: Agriculture and the fisheries.
Cultural and Educational Panel: Education, the arts, the Irish language and Irish culture and literature.
Industrial and Commercial Panel: Industry and commerce (including engineering and architecture).
tzor wrote:(NB: The following is something from a damn American; take with a grain of salt.)
There is something romantically quaint about the notion of a deliberate legislative body being above the normal fray of political parties by virtue of their tenure and method of election. The problem is that basing that position on the basis of heredity is flat out dumb. (Perhaps this is because I’ve seen too many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas.) The ideal solution would be a meritocracy; one where ones experience and achievement is the criteria and not who your parents were. Perhaps if new members were “elected” by the HOC but with a 2/3 majority so you would need a coalition of several parties approval to get in the upper house.
I mean if we had the same thing in the US, Al Gore would probably be in it.
Not dumb at all, it gets to the heart of the problem with the House of Lords. They actually do a very good job on the whole, which is a point that firmly goes against reform. However, the issue of hereditary peers seems pretty archaic, and there are perhaps better ways to create the second chamber. Meritocratic selection would be best, but the problem is who decides the people with merit. The worry is that it will favour business people, but there are members of the House of Lords selected for merit for other reasons. Sebastian Coe, a former Olympian who went into politics, is an appointed Lord who does a lot of good work promoting sports in the UK. Baron Adonis does good work too, and comes from an academic and journalism background into politics.
...
Tzor raises some good points about the Irish senate actually. Seems like a good way of relying on a country's other major institutions to build an effective second house.
One of the other issues with the House of Lords at the moment is the representation of religious bodies. Basically, at the moment certain high officials in the Church of England have seats. I'm pretty torn about that issue too. They certainly represent an important institution, and they are largely there through merit and expertise, but I'm also generally in favour of secularism in government. If they're there as representatives of a religious body, then other religious bodies in the UK should have representation to.
Edit: a quick check indicates that the Chief Rabbi also has a seat by appointment.
Symmetry wrote:
Tzor raises some good points about the Irish senate actually. Seems like a good way of relying on a country's other major institutions to build an effective second house.
Ridiculous. The Irish Senate is an anachronism that could only be dreamed up by an insular people on an insular island. It rewards the power elite and suppresses the freedom of popular expression. The Irish Senate is an abomination, possibly the worst upper-chamber model in the world.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Symmetry wrote:
Tzor raises some good points about the Irish senate actually. Seems like a good way of relying on a country's other major institutions to build an effective second house.
Ridiculous. The Irish Senate is an anachronism that could only be dreamed up by an insular people on an insular island. It rewards the power elite and suppresses the freedom of popular expression. The Irish Senate is an abomination, possibly the worst upper-chamber model in the world.
Perhaps one of the nastier anti Irish posts I've seen from a US based poster. I thought this wasn't an issue after the early 20th century. It's a shame that while Anglo-Irish relations have advanced impressively in the last two decades, we still have foreigners calling Irish culture dreamily anachronistic, and it's politics an abomination. Where the UK and Ireland have advanced, it seems that some in the US have regressed to the bad old days.
Symmetry wrote:
Tzor raises some good points about the Irish senate actually. Seems like a good way of relying on a country's other major institutions to build an effective second house.
Ridiculous. The Irish Senate is an anachronism that could only be dreamed up by an insular people on an insular island. It rewards the power elite and suppresses the freedom of popular expression. The Irish Senate is an abomination, possibly the worst upper-chamber model in the world.
Perhaps one of the nastier anti Irish posts I've seen from a US based poster. I thought this wasn't an issue after the early 20th century. It's a shame that while Anglo-Irish relations have advanced impressively in the last two decades, we still have foreigners calling Irish culture dreamily anachronistic, and it's politics an abomination. Where the UK and Ireland have advanced, it seems that some in the US have regressed to the bad old days.
And what was wrong with Tzor's post?
Your hatemongering distracts no one. Obviously I was calling the elite among the imperialist drafters of the Irish constitution insular, not the freedom and peace-loving working people of Ireland who exhibit socialist solidarity behind the red banner of Sinn Fein.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Symmetry wrote:
Tzor raises some good points about the Irish senate actually. Seems like a good way of relying on a country's other major institutions to build an effective second house.
Ridiculous. The Irish Senate is an anachronism that could only be dreamed up by an insular people on an insular island. It rewards the power elite and suppresses the freedom of popular expression. The Irish Senate is an abomination, possibly the worst upper-chamber model in the world.
Perhaps one of the nastier anti Irish posts I've seen from a US based poster. I thought this wasn't an issue after the early 20th century. It's a shame that while Anglo-Irish relations have advanced impressively in the last two decades, we still have foreigners calling Irish culture dreamily anachronistic, and it's politics an abomination. Where the UK and Ireland have advanced, it seems that some in the US have regressed to the bad old days.
And what was wrong with Tzor's post?
Your hatemongering distracts no one. Obviously I was calling the elite among the imperialist drafters of the Irish constitution insular, not the freedom and peace-loving working people of Ireland who exhibit socialist solidarity behind the red banner of Sinn Fein.
Your continual use of the word insular as an insult to members of island nations just shows how deeply ingrained your hatred for the populations of insular and, by extension, peninsular nations actually runs. You seem unable to separate the crude slur of ignorance from the geographical term for an island.
I note that you still call the Irish constitution insular, but argue that those who love freedom, love peace, and work hard hate it.
In reality, the Irish electorate are brilliantly educated, free, peaceful, and have some of the greatest entrepreneurs in the EU. I don't understand why you feel the need to insult Ireland.
I also think it's time you dropped some of the old prejudices. It's time to drop the old hate and embrace change.
saxitoxin wrote:Ridiculous. The Irish Senate is an anachronism that could only be dreamed up by an insular people on an insular island. It rewards the power elite and suppresses the freedom of popular expression. The Irish Senate is an abomination, possibly the worst upper-chamber model in the world.
I think the only thing "insular" is your own primitive mind.
Symmetry wrote:
Tzor raises some good points about the Irish senate actually. Seems like a good way of relying on a country's other major institutions to build an effective second house.
Ridiculous. The Irish Senate is an anachronism that could only be dreamed up by an insular people on an insular island. It rewards the power elite and suppresses the freedom of popular expression. The Irish Senate is an abomination, possibly the worst upper-chamber model in the world.
Perhaps one of the nastier anti Irish posts I've seen from a US based poster. I thought this wasn't an issue after the early 20th century. It's a shame that while Anglo-Irish relations have advanced impressively in the last two decades, we still have foreigners calling Irish culture dreamily anachronistic, and it's politics an abomination. Where the UK and Ireland have advanced, it seems that some in the US have regressed to the bad old days.
And what was wrong with Tzor's post?
Your hatemongering distracts no one. Obviously I was calling the elite among the imperialist drafters of the Irish constitution insular, not the freedom and peace-loving working people of Ireland who exhibit socialist solidarity behind the red banner of Sinn Fein.
Your continual use of the word insular as an insult to members of island nations just shows how deeply ingrained your hatred for the populations of insular and, by extension, peninsular nations actually runs. You seem unable to separate the crude slur of ignorance from the geographical term for an island.
I note that you still call the Irish constitution insular, but argue that those who love freedom, love peace, and work hard hate it.
In reality, the Irish electorate are brilliantly educated, free, peaceful, and have some of the greatest entrepreneurs in the EU. I don't understand why you feel the need to insult Ireland.
I also think it's time you dropped some of the old prejudices. It's time to drop the old hate and embrace change.
I have reported you for racism.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Thanks, Symmetry!
- Saxitoxin Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman
Thanks Saxi:
Symmetry's final thoughts:
Hi- have you ever felt that your electoral system touched you in the wrong place? Or didn't represent your feelings? Have you had people from other countries recommend foreign methods to help you deal with problems at home? Even when those methods forced you into situations you'd rather not participate in?
If so- feel free to build a better tomorrow.
Vote "tomorrow" at your next election.
Sym
Or, I guess, we can have a bit of a chat about what we can do now about electoral reform.
Hi- have you ever felt that your electoral system touched you in the wrong place?
no, jefjef does, though - like, all the time
Have you had people from other countries recommend foreign methods to help you deal with problems at home?
honey, as a citizen of the former DDR I can tell you that you don't know how bad it can get
Or, I guess, we can have a bit of a chat about what we can do now about electoral reform.
Fine, here's a solution to all your problems:
1. The monarchy will be maintained but the throne will pass into permanent abeyance following the demise of ERII.
2. The head-of-state will, in perpetuity, be a Regent elected to an indefinite term in a joint session of Parliament by 2/3'rds concurrence with ballots cast in secret, the Regent only removable in the same manner as his election. The Regent may not have held elective office, nor a position of trust in a recognized political party, within ten years preceding his election. The reserve powers of the monarch, including the granting of royal assent, will be held in trust by the Regent and exercised on advice of a 9-member Council of State. The Council of State shall consist of the Prime Minister's proxy, the Leader of the Opposition, the senior benchers of each of the four Inns of Court and three members serving at the pleasure of the Regent, at least one of whom shall be fluent in Gaelic and a resident of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It shall appoint an officer to apportion parliamentary constituencies, administer elections and organize the civil service. The Chairman of the Council of State will serve as Regent Pro Tempore during periods of interregnum. The offices of the Great Officers of State will be abolished.
3. The first chamber of Parliament will be the House of Lectors. It will have 600 seats, with 3 members elected from each of 200 constituencies via single-transferable-vote method. The Government will be answerable to this House.
4. The second chamber will be the House of Lots. It will have 600 seats, with 3 members selected at random from the voting rolls in each of the 200 constituencies. Legislation will not be able to originate in the House of Lots but will require a vote of their majority to be enacted.
5. Supreme judicial power, except in the matter of Scottish criminal cases, will be vested in a 7-member Court of Cassation, whose judges will be appointed from among judges currently sitting in lesser courts to serve overlapping and non-renewable terms of 14-years, so that one is appointed every second year, by the Regent on the advice of the Council of State.
6. The House of Lords will be incorporated as a private, non-profit, non-governmental association that is self-regulating in matters of its own membership and unfunded by the state. The properties of Cornwall and Lancaster will be transferred to "the House of Lords, Ltd." in the form of a bank-held trust to finance its operations. Titles of nobility will be protected in use by simple trademark, mark rights being held by the "the House of Lords, Ltd." as a private corporation. The College of Arms will come under the ownership of "the House of Lords, Ltd."
I have solved all of your problems. The thread is concluded.
If anyone else has a little country whose problems they want me to sort out, LMK. KTHXBAI.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:Hi- have you ever felt that your electoral system touched you in the wrong place?
no, jefjef does, though - like, all the time
Have you had people from other countries recommend foreign methods to help you deal with problems at home?
honey, as a citizen of the former DDR I can tell you that you don't know how bad it can get
Or, I guess, we can have a bit of a chat about what we can do now about electoral reform.
Fine, here's a solution to all your problems:
1. The monarchy will be maintained but the throne will pass into permanent abeyance following the demise of ERII.
2. The head-of-state will, in perpetuity, be a Regent elected to an indefinite term in a joint session of Parliament by 2/3'rds concurrence with ballots cast in secret, the Regent only removable in the same manner as his election. The Regent may not have held elective office, nor a position of trust in a recognized political party, within ten years preceding his election. The reserve powers of the monarch, including the granting of royal assent, will be held in trust by the Regent and exercised on advice of a 9-member Council of State. The Council of State shall consist of the Prime Minister's proxy, the Leader of the Opposition, the senior benchers of each of the four Inns of Court and three members serving at the pleasure of the Regent, at least one of whom shall be fluent in Gaelic and a resident of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It shall appoint an officer to apportion parliamentary constituencies, administer elections and organize the civil service. The Chairman of the Council of State will serve as Regent Pro Tempore during periods of interregnum. The offices of the Great Officers of State will be abolished.
3. The first chamber of Parliament will be the House of Lectors. It will have 600 seats, with 3 members elected from each of 200 constituencies via single-transferable-vote method. The Government will be answerable to this House.
4. The second chamber will be the House of Lots. It will have 600 seats, with 3 members selected at random from the voting rolls in each of the 200 constituencies. Legislation will not be able to originate in the House of Lots but will require a vote of their majority to be enacted.
5. Supreme judicial power, except in the matter of Scottish criminal cases, will be vested in a 7-member Court of Cassation, whose judges will be appointed from among judges currently sitting in lesser courts to serve overlapping and non-renewable terms of 14-years, so that one is appointed every second year, by the Regent on the advice of the Council of State.
6. The House of Lords will be incorporated as a private, non-profit, non-governmental association that is self-regulating in matters of its own membership and unfunded by the state. The properties of Cornwall and Lancaster will be transferred to "the House of Lords, Ltd." in the form of a bank-held trust to finance its operations. Titles of nobility will be protected in use by simple trademark, mark rights being held by the "the House of Lords, Ltd." as a private corporation. The College of Arms will come under the ownership of "the House of Lords, Ltd."
I have solved all of your problems. The thread is concluded.
If anyone else has a little country whose problems they want me to sort out, LMK. KTHXBAI.
saxitoxin wrote:Hi- have you ever felt that your electoral system touched you in the wrong place?
no, jefjef does, though - like, all the time
Have you had people from other countries recommend foreign methods to help you deal with problems at home?
honey, as a citizen of the former DDR I can tell you that you don't know how bad it can get
Or, I guess, we can have a bit of a chat about what we can do now about electoral reform.
Fine, here's a solution to all your problems:
1. The monarchy will be maintained but the throne will pass into permanent abeyance following the demise of ERII.
2. The head-of-state will, in perpetuity, be a Regent elected to an indefinite term in a joint session of Parliament by 2/3'rds concurrence with ballots cast in secret, the Regent only removable in the same manner as his election. The Regent may not have held elective office, nor a position of trust in a recognized political party, within ten years preceding his election. The reserve powers of the monarch, including the granting of royal assent, will be held in trust by the Regent and exercised on advice of a 9-member Council of State. The Council of State shall consist of the Prime Minister's proxy, the Leader of the Opposition, the senior benchers of each of the four Inns of Court and three members serving at the pleasure of the Regent, at least one of whom shall be fluent in Gaelic and a resident of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It shall appoint an officer to apportion parliamentary constituencies, administer elections and organize the civil service. The Chairman of the Council of State will serve as Regent Pro Tempore during periods of interregnum. The offices of the Great Officers of State will be abolished.
3. The first chamber of Parliament will be the House of Lectors. It will have 600 seats, with 3 members elected from each of 200 constituencies via single-transferable-vote method. The Government will be answerable to this House.
4. The second chamber will be the House of Lots. It will have 600 seats, with 3 members selected at random from the voting rolls in each of the 200 constituencies. Legislation will not be able to originate in the House of Lots but will require a vote of their majority to be enacted.
5. Supreme judicial power, except in the matter of Scottish criminal cases, will be vested in a 7-member Court of Cassation, whose judges will be appointed from among judges currently sitting in lesser courts to serve overlapping and non-renewable terms of 14-years, so that one is appointed every second year, by the Regent on the advice of the Council of State.
6. The House of Lords will be incorporated as a private, non-profit, non-governmental association that is self-regulating in matters of its own membership and unfunded by the state. The properties of Cornwall and Lancaster will be transferred to "the House of Lords, Ltd." in the form of a bank-held trust to finance its operations. Titles of nobility will be protected in use by simple trademark, mark rights being held by the "the House of Lords, Ltd." as a private corporation. The College of Arms will come under the ownership of "the House of Lords, Ltd."
I have solved all of your problems. The thread is concluded.
If anyone else has a little country whose problems they want me to sort out, LMK. KTHXBAI.
This just seems incorrect.
no, this is the best model for the UK; there is no effective argument as to why it is not that can be made
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
OK, since we are not going well with the Ireland thing, I propose a modest exchane between the US and the UK
You (the UK) can get the plans to our (the US) Senate (it requires creating "states" ... I think you are up to that challewnge ... and a "VP")
In return we (the US) gets to use the plans for your (the UK) "Question time" in the House of Commons. Can you imagine Obama and his entire cabinet of Progressive loonies having to come to Congress every week to have the Republicans openly question him? Here is a man who held a "healthcare summit" with time divided between one side, the other side and himself, and he took up most of the time pontificating. Here is a man who was asked a simple question by someone about how can he raise taxes when their taxes are already too high and took seventeen minutes to answer everything but the actual question itself!
tzor wrote:
In return we (the US) gets to use the plans for your (the UK) "Question time" in the House of Commons. Can you imagine Obama and his entire cabinet of Progressive loonies having to come to Congress every week to have the Republicans openly question him?
No kidding at all, this is something that I really with the United States did. What an eye-opener it would be for EVERYONE.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I think the only thing "insular" is your own primitive mind.
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman 
