Conquer Club

Looks like Labour are proposing some actual changes to the way that the British government operates. Most are just Lib Dem policies repackaged, but what do you think?

1) A possible change in voting methods from first past the post to alternative vote. If you're not sure what that means- first past the post just asks that you get more votes than anyone else. Alternative vote asks that you put candidates in order of preference. When one is removed from the running, votes count for the next preferred candidate until someone has more than 50%.

2) At long last, the removal of all hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

3) The ability for voters to remove MPs from office outside of standard elections.

4) The ability for voters to petition the House to start debates on certain topics (I think this is a good thing, but in practice I guess it'll be business as usual)

5) A ban on MPs working for lobbying organisations. This one made sense when I first looked at it, but might have some issues when it comes to what constitutes a lobby. Either way- MPs shouldn't be paid for work done for any kind of lobby.

Any thoughts, or ideas on ideas that haven't been mentioned.

just a quick one - why would you want all hereditary peers removed? sure it's profoundly undemocratic but f*ck, can you see a business lackey blocking 90 day detention out of contention? nu-uh.

khazalid wrote:just a quick one - why would you want all hereditary peers removed? sure it's profoundly undemocratic but f*ck, can you see a business lackey blocking 90 day detention out of contention? nu-uh.

I've got pretty mixed feelings about it too, and mainly over the way that the new Lords are appointed. The undemocratic element is kind of a trump card for me, along with just how ridiculous it actually is.

Symmetry wrote:

khazalid wrote:just a quick one - why would you want all hereditary peers removed? sure it's profoundly undemocratic but f*ck, can you see a business lackey blocking 90 day detention out of contention? nu-uh.

I've got pretty mixed feelings about it too, and mainly over the way that the new Lords are appointed. The undemocratic element is kind of a trump card for me, along with just how ridiculous it actually is.

The discarded, early-on proposal by the Tories of a House of Lots - a legislative jury - was the best floated.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

khazalid wrote:just a quick one - why would you want all hereditary peers removed? sure it's profoundly undemocratic but f*ck, can you see a business lackey blocking 90 day detention out of contention? nu-uh.

I've got pretty mixed feelings about it too, and mainly over the way that the new Lords are appointed. The undemocratic element is kind of a trump card for me, along with just how ridiculous it actually is.

The discarded, early-on proposal by the Tories of a House of Lots - a legislative jury - was the best floated.

The Tories are pretty bad on both fronts for this election- they oppose most reform measures, but also have a major donor that they helped appoint who turned out to be avoiding tax in the UK. I can't say I'd be happy to let them too near reform of the House of Lords.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

khazalid wrote:just a quick one - why would you want all hereditary peers removed? sure it's profoundly undemocratic but f*ck, can you see a business lackey blocking 90 day detention out of contention? nu-uh.

I've got pretty mixed feelings about it too, and mainly over the way that the new Lords are appointed. The undemocratic element is kind of a trump card for me, along with just how ridiculous it actually is.

The discarded, early-on proposal by the Tories of a House of Lots - a legislative jury - was the best floated.

The Tories are pretty bad on both fronts for this election- they oppose most reform measures, but also have a major donor that they helped appoint who turned out to be avoiding tax in the UK. I can't say I'd be happy to let them too near reform of the House of Lords.

The Lord Ashcroft red herring is a desperate rock outcropping to which GB is desperately hanging as he dangles, helplessly, over the chasm of despair.

These reforms were all promised way back in 1997 by a young Tony Blair, but unfortunately most of these promises ended up famously being described as 'half-baked.' Hopefully, they can deliver on these promised key reforms this time round. I'd like to see future elections run by a more proportional Additional Member System as the First Past The Post system is highly outdated and unfair to minority parties. I've also campaigned for a long time for a fully elected House of Lords but unfortunately, this seems highly unlikely to actually occur in the near future although getting rid of the hereditaries was a good first step.

nagerous wrote:These reforms were all promised way back in 1997 by a young Tony Blair, but unfortunately most of these promises ended up famously being described as 'half-baked.' Hopefully, they can deliver on these promised key reforms this time round. I'd like to see future elections run by a more proportional Additional Member System as the First Past The Post system is highly outdated and unfair to minority parties. I've also campaigned for a long time for a fully elected House of Lords but unfortunately, this seems highly unlikely to actually occur in the near future although getting rid of the hereditaries was a good first step.

Most educated Americans regret making their Senate a directly elected body in 1913.

Britons should learn from America's mistakes rather than tripping over themselves to emulate every possible aspect of that country as fast as humanly possible (see: Supreme Court of the UK, decentralization of police, minimum wage, dismantling of A-levels in favor of universal admissions exams, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).

The model of Canada's Senate represents the best of all worlds.

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:These reforms were all promised way back in 1997 by a young Tony Blair, but unfortunately most of these promises ended up famously being described as 'half-baked.' Hopefully, they can deliver on these promised key reforms this time round. I'd like to see future elections run by a more proportional Additional Member System as the First Past The Post system is highly outdated and unfair to minority parties. I've also campaigned for a long time for a fully elected House of Lords but unfortunately, this seems highly unlikely to actually occur in the near future although getting rid of the hereditaries was a good first step.

Most educated Americans regret making their Senate a directly elected body in 1913.

Britons should learn from America's mistakes rather than tripping over themselves to emulate every possible aspect of that country as fast as humanly possible (see: Supreme Court of the UK, decentralization of police, minimum wage, dismantling of A-levels in favor of universal admissions exams, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).

The model of Canada's Senate represents the best of all worlds.

I don't think we are trying to emulate the States at all, there is a lot of problems with the American way of things, mainly that of the fact that there is a written constitution resulting in it being very hard to push forward reforms having to go through an over complicated system of amendments. Britain has a free-flowing unwritten constitution allowing us to much more easily introduce new rules whenever we want. Now, I know with my proposals there is always the threat of an elective dictatorship forming and many have viewed the HoL as an effective check in the past from preventing this from happening but if HoL elections are staggered at different times to those of the HoC this can be prevented. Also, through the all appointed system that is being suggested surely the threat of an elective dictatorship is just as high with the executive just placing all of their allies and cronies in there.

Also, where have you got this most Americans statistic from? Citations please before just making broad generalised statements about what citizens of the United States do or do not want.

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:These reforms were all promised way back in 1997 by a young Tony Blair, but unfortunately most of these promises ended up famously being described as 'half-baked.' Hopefully, they can deliver on these promised key reforms this time round. I'd like to see future elections run by a more proportional Additional Member System as the First Past The Post system is highly outdated and unfair to minority parties. I've also campaigned for a long time for a fully elected House of Lords but unfortunately, this seems highly unlikely to actually occur in the near future although getting rid of the hereditaries was a good first step.

Most educated Americans regret making their Senate a directly elected body in 1913.

Britons should learn from America's mistakes rather than tripping over themselves to emulate every possible aspect of that country as fast as humanly possible (see: Supreme Court of the UK, decentralization of police, minimum wage, dismantling of A-levels in favor of universal admissions exams, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).

The model of Canada's Senate represents the best of all worlds.

I don't think we are trying to emulate the States at all, there is a lot of problems with the American way of things, mainly that of the fact that there is a written constitution resulting in it being very hard to push forward reforms having to go through an over complicated system of amendments. Britain has a free-flowing unwritten constitution allowing us to much more easily introduce new rules whenever we want. Now, I know with my proposals there is always the threat of an elective dictatorship forming and many have viewed the HoL as an effective check in the past from preventing this from happening but if HoL elections are staggered at different times to those of the HoC this can be prevented. Also, through the all appointed system that is being suggested surely the threat of an elective dictatorship is just as high with the executive just placing all of their allies and cronies in there.

incorrect

What kind of response is that 'incorrect.' A weak response with no substance is what that is because you have no evidence to back up any of your vague assertions.

nagerous wrote:What kind of response is that 'incorrect.' A weak response with no substance is what that is because you have no evidence to back up any of your vague assertions.

incorrect

Oh, how very droll of you.

saxitoxin wrote:Most educated Americans regret making their Senate a directly elected body in 1913.

This is true and while there may be reasons to compare the two, (that was actually my first gut reaction) the fact is that they really are not the same.

There is a lot of vertical separation in the hierarchy of the federal government of the US. In one sense you can’t compare the US to the UK. The US was founded by a dozen fiercely independent states. It is probably better to compare the US with the EU.

The senate was, therefore, a way for the states to have a direct say at the Federal level. Senators were elected by state governments (who were elected by the people, so the first case of comparing them to hereditary members of the House of Lords does fail somewhat) and so generally kept the needs of the state first and foremost in their minds.

Once they were directly elected by the people, the “needs” of the states was forgotten. The result was the increasing power of the federal level over the state level.

One has to ask, therefore, just who do the hereditary members of the House of Lords represent? Well no one really. But is that really a bad thing?

tzor wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Most educated Americans regret making their Senate a directly elected body in 1913.

This is true and while there may be reasons to compare the two, (that was actually my first gut reaction) the fact is that they really are not the same.

There is a lot of vertical separation in the hierarchy of the federal government of the US. In one sense you can’t compare the US to the UK. The US was founded by a dozen fiercely independent states. It is probably better to compare the US with the EU.

The senate was, therefore, a way for the states to have a direct say at the Federal level. Senators were elected by state governments (who were elected by the people, so the first case of comparing them to hereditary members of the House of Lords does fail somewhat) and so generally kept the needs of the state first and foremost in their minds.

Once they were directly elected by the people, the “needs” of the states was forgotten. The result was the increasing power of the federal level over the state level.

One has to ask, therefore, just who do the hereditary members of the House of Lords represent? Well no one really. But is that really a bad thing?

Your post illustrates only the sophistry British political leaders perpetrate when they attempt to pick-and-choose, a la carte style, various elements of the American political and social system to stamp across the EU North Sea Province in a bizarrely frantic - almost manic - effort (e.g. Senate, Supreme Court, minimum wage, decentralized policing, universal admissions exams, etc.). Two different countries with different experiences can not replicate each other in piecemeal fashion and except to achieve similar results, whatever may be those results.

A deep search, using your favorite search engine, for the terms "US-style" or "American-style" + "reform" + "UK" will reveal the fundamental truism of this.

As I stated, the Canadian Senate (or, frankly, the Irish Senate for that matter - though most racist Britons would be loathe to see such a replica introduced) is a much better model for the UK.

This would be the Canadian senate that frequently gets prorogued by the Prime Minister? Perhaps, and I speak carefully here, not the best model for participatory democracy in the western world.

Symmetry wrote:This would be the Canadian senate that frequently gets prorogued by the Prime Minister? Perhaps, and I speak carefully here, not the best model for participatory democracy in the western world.

Perhaps the opinions of a Briton - a people with a deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians - isn't the best judge of the merits or demerits of Canadian constitutional law? I'll note it was the former British High Commissioner to Ottawa, the Baron Moran, who bombastically proclaimed: "Canadians have limited talents and are deeply unimpressive. Anyone who is even moderately good at what they do - in literature, the theater, skiing of whatever - tends to become a national figure. And anyone who stands out at all from the crowd tends to be praised to the skies and given the Order of Canada at once."

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:This would be the Canadian senate that frequently gets prorogued by the Prime Minister? Perhaps, and I speak carefully here, not the best model for participatory democracy in the western world.

Perhaps the opinions of a Briton - a people with a deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians - isn't the best judge of the merits or demerits of Canadian constitutional law? I'll note it was the former British High Commissioner to Ottawa, the Baron Moran, who bombastically proclaimed: "Canadians have limited talents and are deeply unimpressive. Anyone who is even moderately good at what they do - in literature, the theater, skiing of whatever - tends to become a national figure. And anyone who stands out at all from the crowd tends to be praised to the skies and given the Order of Canada at once."

So, not that Canadian senate?

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:This would be the Canadian senate that frequently gets prorogued by the Prime Minister? Perhaps, and I speak carefully here, not the best model for participatory democracy in the western world.

Perhaps the opinions of a Briton - a people with a deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians - isn't the best judge of the merits or demerits of Canadian constitutional law? I'll note it was the former British High Commissioner to Ottawa, the Baron Moran, who bombastically proclaimed: "Canadians have limited talents and are deeply unimpressive. Anyone who is even moderately good at what they do - in literature, the theater, skiing of whatever - tends to become a national figure. And anyone who stands out at all from the crowd tends to be praised to the skies and given the Order of Canada at once."

So, not that Canadian senate?

Your decision to perpetrate an air of intolerance and racism has forced me to report you to the valued mods for corrective/educational-informative action.

Thanks, Symmetry!
Saxitoxin
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:This would be the Canadian senate that frequently gets prorogued by the Prime Minister? Perhaps, and I speak carefully here, not the best model for participatory democracy in the western world.

Perhaps the opinions of a Briton - a people with a deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians - isn't the best judge of the merits or demerits of Canadian constitutional law? I'll note it was the former British High Commissioner to Ottawa, the Baron Moran, who bombastically proclaimed: "Canadians have limited talents and are deeply unimpressive. Anyone who is even moderately good at what they do - in literature, the theater, skiing of whatever - tends to become a national figure. And anyone who stands out at all from the crowd tends to be praised to the skies and given the Order of Canada at once."

So, not that Canadian senate?

Your decision to perpetrate an air of intolerance and racism has forced me to report you to the valued mods for corrective/educational-informative action.

Thanks, Symmetry!
Saxitoxin
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

And your comments that British people have a 'deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians', an accusation which is completely new to me and alarms me especially since Canada is part of the Commonwealth was not a complete value judgement on British people stinking of stereotyping and xenophobia?

nagerous wrote:
And your comments that British people have a 'deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians', an accusation which is completely new to me and alarms me especially since Canada is part of the Commonwealth was not a complete value judgement on British people stinking of stereotyping and xenophobia?

incorrect

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:
And your comments that British people have a 'deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians', an accusation which is completely new to me and alarms me especially since Canada is part of the Commonwealth was not a complete value judgement on British people stinking of stereotyping and xenophobia?

incorrect

Consider yourself reported for trolling. Have a nice day!

nagerous wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nagerous wrote:
And your comments that British people have a 'deep-seated, irrational and jingoistic hatred for Canadians', an accusation which is completely new to me and alarms me especially since Canada is part of the Commonwealth was not a complete value judgement on British people stinking of stereotyping and xenophobia?

incorrect

Consider yourself reported for trolling. Have a nice day!

'k, thx 4 fyi

Symmetry wrote:This would be the Canadian senate that frequently gets prorogued by the Prime Minister? Perhaps, and I speak carefully here, not the best model for participatory democracy in the western world.

Technically, it's the House of Commons that the Prime Minister has prorogued, not the senate. The senate is a bunch of old dudes, appointed for life by their elected friends. They don't really do anything worth proroguing.

Doesn't the HoC have the ability to overrule the HoL anyway? I think they did that for the Fox Hunting ban, when the peers, being upper class and all, refused to pass the bill.

I think the removal of hereditary peers can only be good, as it can only make our government more democratic. That said, I don't think a fully elected HoL would have much point, as the most likely outcomes would be either a government HoC and a government HoL, which would be pointless, or a government HoC and an opposition HoL, where there is the potential for the opposition to block everything that comes for the HoC on principle. An appointed HoL wouldn't be much use either.

Personally, what I would advocate is the removal of the HoL entirely, coupled with the introduction of proportional voting of the type seen in Scotland, which will lead to a fairer representation of the will of the people, and far more hung parliaments.