The Political Thread

[JayzusB.Christ]

I don't care how orchestrated it was or who orchestrated it - I'm just glad the sneaky little bastard was exposed before it was too late.

[Richmond Clements]

I don't care how orchestrated it was or who orchestrated it - I'm just glad the sneaky little bastard was exposed before it was too late.

yeah, is the complaint he was set up or that he should have got in? Probably the latter...

[JOE SOAP]

I don't care how orchestrated it was or who orchestrated it - I'm just glad the sneaky little bastard was exposed before it was too late.

yeah, is the complaint he was set up or that he should have got in? Probably the latter...

I took it he wanted him in either way despite his trangressions. Ideally it's not very Christian to support a corrupt fraud I wouldn't think. Ye shall know them by their fruits* an' all that.



*The old type of fruit.

[maryanddavid]

I dont think he would have got in, he had nowhere to go for transfers, and Michael D mopped up second preferences. Dosent matter now anyway.
Best description of him I heard was a thumb with a face!

[JOE SOAP]

Whereas Cowen is an arse with a face.

[Beaky Smoochies]

Ye shall know them by their fruits*

Ah, King James Version man, are ya ?

I dont think he would have got in, he had nowhere to go for transfers, and Michael D mopped up second preferences.

Now THIS is a very good point, never thought of that...

[Emperor]

All this talk of reforming the House of Lords seems like rearranging deckchairs. Why can't we have a true House of Representatives or a House of Peers, with a second house made up of ordinary people, as opposed to nobs, political flunkies and the like? Perhaps run it like a form of jury service (although possibly with a opt-out option) with people draw at random from the population and doing say a shift of 6 months. Make use of tele-conferencing and the like for any debates (which might lead to suggestions for amendments) and electronic or postal votes on whether to pass laws, so people don't have to actual go to London and it doesn't turn into a chore.

OK one reason would be that none of the politicians would want it, but other than that?

[Beaky Smoochies]

I'm all for comprehensive House of Lords reform me, and whilst they should have reformed it back in the 1950's or the 1980's (when a stable and strong Conservative majority government was in place), it's better late than never, the only trouble is this whole 'primacy of the Commons' crap that gets batted about, who says one chamber has to be subordinate to the other, or that there would be political gridlock if a mostly-or-entirely elected Lords had the power to veto legislation passed in the Commons, was there gridlock when the Lords had veto powers for nearly a millennium, is there gridlock in the Australian federal Parliament where their Senate can effectively veto legislation passed in the House of Representatives, the answer of course is a resounding "NO", the MP's in the Commons just don't want to give up power and compete with a second co-equal competing chamber, which every proper parliamentary democracy should have...

My own personal opinion on a reformed Lords would consist of 150 elected Senators (50 elected by STV across a single UK-wide constituency to single, non-renewable 12-year terms every four years), 150 appointed non-party-affiliated Peers (chosen by an independent commission upon nomination by MPs and Peers, and based on their knowledge and experience of important matters), 150 hereditary Lords (there is value to retaining a remnant of the ancient and noble aristocracy), and 25 Lords Spiritual (consisting of bishops from the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish national churches), all in all a total of 475 members of an upper chamber with the power to revise, amend, and block indefinitely (but not initiate) legislation, if so voted upon by members...

[Frank]

All this talk of reforming the House of Lords seems like rearranging deckchairs. Why can't we have a true House of Representatives or a House of Peers, with a second house made up of ordinary people, as opposed to nobs, political flunkies and the like? Perhaps run it like a form of jury service (although possibly with a opt-out option) with people draw at random from the population and doing say a shift of 6 months. Make use of tele-conferencing and the like for any debates (which might lead to suggestions for amendments) and electronic or postal votes on whether to pass laws, so people don't have to actual go to London and it doesn't turn into a chore.

OK one reason would be that none of the politicians would want it, but other than that?

Good idea, and it's basically how Athenean democracy operated. Taking your turn serving on the legislature was just one of those dull chores you had to accept and wanted to get over with as soon as possible, rather than the cushy life-long sinecure we've turned it into.


Beaky; in any bi-cameral assembly, one house is generally afforded primacy- otherwise you see the sort of legislative deadlock and factionalism that paralyses US democracy. The modern gloss on the function of the Lords is that it's a Chamber of Review', which scrutinises legislation that's already been passed by the Commons for anomalies and inconsistencies. Might be hard to get people to stand for election to such a house, or imagine how you'd campaign for election to that kind of body. If those sitting in the Lords have the same democratic mandate as their colleagues in the Commons, what's to stop them challenging their legislation in the same way as the US Senate does?

[Beaky Smoochies]

Beaky; in any bi-cameral assembly, one house is generally afforded primacy- otherwise you see the sort of legislative deadlock and factionalism that paralyses US democracy.

The Aussie Parliament isn't riven with perpetual gridlock, whilst the U.S. political tensions between White House/House/Senate is because of the 60-vote filibuster rule, a rule designed to ensure a simple majority doesn't trample the rights and liberty of the minority, and a very good rule it is too, wish we had it in the UK...

The modern gloss on the function of the Lords is that it's a Chamber of Review', which scrutinises legislation that's already been passed by the Commons for anomalies and inconsistencies.

I'm aware of the Lords' current constitutional duties and limitations, I just think the upper chamber should be able to challenge the power of the executive and legislative branch of government the way the pre-1911 Lords was able to, and there was no political paralysis in British politics before the 1911 Parliament Act was brought in, so the straw-man argument of political gridlock doesn't hold, in my humble opinion...

Might be hard to get people to stand for election to such a house, or imagine how you'd campaign for election to that kind of body.

Why would it be hard to get people to stand for election to such a chamber, they'd campaign like any other elected representative on a party or independent manifesto?

If those sitting in the Lords have the same democratic mandate as their colleagues in the Commons, what's to stop them challenging their legislation in the same way as the US Senate does?

Nothing, as it should be, who says the lower chamber absolutely, positively, must have supremacy, that particular mantra was brought in by liberals/progressives who wanted to eviscerate the Lords because the Lords was the ultimate check-and-balance on the power of an executive that was intent on turning imperial Britannia into socialist Britannia... and because of Lords 'reform' in 1911, 1949, and 1999, they've largely succeeded, alas...

Sorry for the long answer, bikini sir, just wanted to give a decent response to your fine rebuttal...

[JOE SOAP]

I think we should give Sortition a try.

[Emperor]

All this talk of reforming the House of Lords seems like rearranging deckchairs. Why can't we have a true House of Representatives or a House of Peers, with a second house made up of ordinary people, as opposed to nobs, political flunkies and the like? Perhaps run it like a form of jury service (although possibly with a opt-out option) with people draw at random from the population and doing say a shift of 6 months. Make use of tele-conferencing and the like for any debates (which might lead to suggestions for amendments) and electronic or postal votes on whether to pass laws, so people don't have to actual go to London and it doesn't turn into a chore.

OK one reason would be that none of the politicians would want it, but other than that?

Good idea, and it's basically how Athenean democracy operated. Taking your turn serving on the legislature was just one of those dull chores you had to accept and wanted to get over with as soon as possible, rather than the cushy life-long sinecure we've turned it into.

Good historical precedent there.

It'd also fit with the idea of the House of Lords as a House of Review - Parliament would propose laws and vote them up to the House of Peers who would look it over with an eye to how it would impact everyone's lives and open it up to scrutiny by people with recent working knowledge in the relevant field, like doctors, soldiers, teachers, binmen, etc. Which is better than it'd get in the Commons now filled with career politicians (and quite a few lawyers) or the Lords crammed with hereditary numpties and political appointees.

I think we should give Sortition a try.

Now I know it has a name, I will drop this into relevant conversation from now on. In fact, thanks to Wikipedia, I am apparently not the first to think this (as if I'd ever be so original):

Some contemporary thinkers have advocated a greater use of selection by lot in today's political systems for example reform of the British House of Lords

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Today

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_House_of_Lords#Allotment_.28sortition.29

Which says:

Opposition is based either on the practical need for some expertise amongst members of the upper chamber or on a belief that "Democracy means an elected second chamber".

Surely, as touched on above, sortition would supply people with expertise - in fact it is rare the House of Parliament has a debate on something like defence or the police where there is a member there with practical experience. Although checking the source for that it is Tony Benn, who I have a lot of respect for. Anyway it needn't be 100% sortition, you could also have appointed experts who could help explain the technical points and provide valuable insight into areas that might be overlooked.

There is a good overview of the issues here, which mentions British Columbia's experience with it:

The news media were initially skeptical about the ability of 'ordinary people' to become familiar with the complexities of electoral rules and their parliamentary consequences but, as the Assembly's meetings progressed, the tone of media reporting moved from mild condescension to admiration both for the substance and the tone of the Assembly's discussions.

The faith in 'ordinary people' being able to make decisions on complex political issues had been overwhelmingly endorsed. The public goodwill towards the Citizens' Assembly process was perhaps its most important achievement.

www.southsearepublic.org/article/556/read/sortition_for_the_house_of_lords_in_britain

Looking around I found this which tracks the idea of sortition for the House of Lords:

http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/category/house-of-lords/

There is even a book on it from 1998 (republished in 2008), The Athenian Option: Radical Reform for the House of Lords:

Before New Labour came to power and when even the prospect of reform of Britain s House of Lords was regarded with scepticism, Anthony Barnett and Peter Carty developed the idea of selecting part of a new upper house by lot: creating a jury or juries, that are representative of the population as a whole while being selected at random, to assess legislation. This new edition of the original proposal includes an account of the reception of the idea, their evidence before the Commission on the Lords established by Tony Blair, and a response to the great advances in citizen-based deliberation that have taken place since the mid-1990s. It concludes with a new appeal to adopt their approach as efforts to reform the Lords continue.

www.amazon.co.uk/The-Athenian-Option-Radical-Sortition/dp/1845401395

There is a bit more background on how that came about at the Society for Democracy including Random Selection:

http://constitution.org/elec/sortition.htm

Constitution.org has a selection of writings on the subject, the first on the list being the intriguingly titled "Let's Toss For It" which is one way of doing it, but I fear all the public schoolboys would win, due to their years of playing Soggy Biscuit:

http://constitution.org/elec/sortition.htm

So it is encouraging that a random idea I had, has already been proposed and debated. So I feel much more confident in this.

[Frank]

Constitution.org has a selection of writings on the subject, the first on the list being the intriguingly titled "Let's Toss For It" which is one way of doing it, but I fear all the public schoolboys would win, due to their years of playing Soggy Biscuit:

http://constitution.org/elec/sortition.htm

So it is encouraging that a random idea I had, has already been proposed and debated. So I feel much more confident in this.

Soggy Biscuit must be an urban legend; you wouldn't want to lose, but winning isn't any great testament to your sexual prowess either. The analogy of jury service is interesting; not just in terms of how members are selected, but because (as indicated above) jurors aren't expected to become instant authorities on the facts they're asked to assess- they're offered testimony from experts and given guidance by the presiding Judge.

Sortition (thanks Soap) has one final thing going for it; it finds a solution to Billy Connolly's decree that the desire to become a politician should automatically bar you from ever becoming one.

[Emperor]

Constitution.org has a selection of writings on the subject, the first on the list being the intriguingly titled "Let's Toss For It" which is one way of doing it, but I fear all the public schoolboys would win, due to their years of playing Soggy Biscuit:

http://constitution.org/elec/sortition.htm

So it is encouraging that a random idea I had, has already been proposed and debated. So I feel much more confident in this.

Soggy Biscuit must be an urban legend; you wouldn't want to lose, but winning isn't any great testament to your sexual prowess either. The analogy of jury service is interesting; not just in terms of how members are selected, but because (as indicated above) jurors aren't expected to become instant authorities on the facts they're asked to assess- they're offered testimony from experts and given guidance by the presiding Judge.

I refer you to the great organ of truth that is Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soggy_biscuit

Thing is though, once it is out there as an idea someone will have given it a go and let's be honest, rugby players have done worse. There are definitely people online who have been present when a game was player - although no one ever admits to having been involved (no, tell a lie).

Sortition (thanks Soap) has one final thing going for it; it finds a solution to Billy Connolly's decree that the desire to become a politician should automatically bar you from ever becoming one.

Indeed. It is a mental aberration that should lead long-term incarceration.

[Frank]

BUZZ ALDRIN PUNCHES MOON LANDING DENIER IN HIS STUPID FACE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFO8AGMwic

Having the same point repeatedly put to you by an annoying man with horrible hair? If only Chloe Smith (advisor to the Treasury) had seen Aldrin's response before this Paxman ambush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqiFr0uppVk

The look on her face at 6m 15s almost made me feel sorry for her.