Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Michael Crick is right about appointments to the House of Lord

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Michael Crick is right about appointments to the House of Lords

All this speculation about who might or might not be on the imminent new peers list is silly. Appointments to our legislature – FOR LIFE – ought to be an open process, subject to proper public and media scrutiny

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,675
    First like Leave, and 'abolish' in the referendum we ought to have on the Lords asap.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 919
    This thread is the PB equivalent of clickbait. Will enjoy the replies as they come in!

    Happy new year everyone - may your 2018 be pineapple-topped, full of caustic wit and may your nuclear buttons be large and close at hand.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    edited January 5
    Even if only 42% voted Tory, 52% voted Leave so Brexit still has to be delivered by the Lords and let us not forget either given Labour also committed to ultimately leave the single market and end free movement 82% voted for parties endorsing that position.

    So while the Lords may be able to block other elements of May's programme as a result of the hung Parliament (though most of the manifesto has been dumped anyway), Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,675
    HYUFD said:

    Even if only 42% voted Tory, 52% voted Leave so Brexit still has to be delivered by the Lords and let us not forget either given Labour also committed to ultimately leave the single market and end free movement 82% voted for parties endorsing that position.

    So while the Lords may be able to block other elements of May's programme as a result of the hung Parliament (though most of the manifesto has been dumped anyway), Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block.

    This is common knowledge, including to Mike. He'd rather just troll Leavers in the header.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,066
    edited January 5
    HYUFD said:

    Even if only 42% voted Tory, 52% voted Leave so Brexit still has to be delivered by the Lords and let us not forget either given Labour also committed to ultimately leave the single market and end free movement 82% voted for parties endorsing that position.

    So while the Lords may be able to block other elements of May's programme as a result of the hung Parliament (though most of the manifesto has been dumped anyway), Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block.

    "Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block"

    Do you mean Brexit itself is not something the Lords ought to block (in your opinion) or do you think there is an actual legal impediment?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    FPT I think that some of the polls, giving 20%+ leads to the Conservatives, were froth.

    But I think that a lead of 10-15% was perfectly feasible, given a competent campaign.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    edited January 5
    Was surprised to see that the HoL has about 800 members.

    http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-types/

    Am surprised that a precise figure isn't given.

    However another link gives a total of 794.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    (Replying to @NickPalmer on the earlier thread)

    Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.

    1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country

    2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

    3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.

    Take back control – renationalise the railways!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    dr_spyn said:

    What an absolute chump he is.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    dr_spyn said:
    Maybe Twitter could revisit their decision on characters? It doesn't seem to be adding to the quality.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,749
    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    edited January 5
    794 Lords.

    http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/

    100 LD.
    248 Con.
    198 Lab.
    182 Cross Bench.
    28 non affiliated.
    14 other.
    24 Bishops.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,962
    There does need to be reform. Sadly, the HoL reform proposed in the 2010-15 parliament was - as Mike knows - withdrawn by the LD ministers. Yes, there was a Tory backbench rebellion on the program motion but that of itself was not fatal. The LDs, had they chosen to, could have battled on and with enough perseverance, would have delivered. It'd have been hard work, would have taken time and the bill would have been substantially amended (which was in any case necessary) but they'd have got there in the end. Instead, they took the opportunity to use that defeat as a justification to vote against the boundary review proposals on a tit-for-tat basis. This is now out in the open, although someone told me at the time about that link between the two issues.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    Anazina said:

    (Replying to @NickPalmer on the earlier thread)

    Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.

    1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country

    2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

    3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.

    Take back control – renationalise the railways!

    Even Germany has some private rail companies even if the main company is state owned
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    Essexit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even if only 42% voted Tory, 52% voted Leave so Brexit still has to be delivered by the Lords and let us not forget either given Labour also committed to ultimately leave the single market and end free movement 82% voted for parties endorsing that position.

    So while the Lords may be able to block other elements of May's programme as a result of the hung Parliament (though most of the manifesto has been dumped anyway), Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block.

    This is common knowledge, including to Mike. He'd rather just troll Leavers in the header.
    I think the pro Remain LD general election vote also needs consideration
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,962
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even if only 42% voted Tory, 52% voted Leave so Brexit still has to be delivered by the Lords and let us not forget either given Labour also committed to ultimately leave the single market and end free movement 82% voted for parties endorsing that position.

    So while the Lords may be able to block other elements of May's programme as a result of the hung Parliament (though most of the manifesto has been dumped anyway), Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block.

    "Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block"

    Do you mean Brexit itself is not something the Lords ought to block (in your opinion) or do you think there is an actual legal impediment?
    They shouldn't and they can't. What the Lords can do is prevent the EU withdrawal bill from reaching the statute books before the end of March 2019, which would create all sorts of serious problems. They can't prevent Brexit itself, which is now not only out of parliament's hands but out of the UK's hands. If Brexit can be stopped at all - which is itself uncertain - it could only be by the UK government requesting it be so to the other EU members.

    But even if the Lords could block it, they most certainly shouldn't. When you refer a decision to the people, you have to implement what they say. If you don't like an option, don't put it on the paper. It isn't for either House to block Brexit, still less the unelected one.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    Anazina said:

    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!

    They did return the Conservatives to government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even if only 42% voted Tory, 52% voted Leave so Brexit still has to be delivered by the Lords and let us not forget either given Labour also committed to ultimately leave the single market and end free movement 82% voted for parties endorsing that position.

    So while the Lords may be able to block other elements of May's programme as a result of the hung Parliament (though most of the manifesto has been dumped anyway), Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block.

    "Brexit itself is not something the Lords can block"

    Do you mean Brexit itself is not something the Lords ought to block (in your opinion) or do you think there is an actual legal impediment?
    Given respecting the result of the EU referendum was in both Tory and Labour manifestos, yes
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!

    They did return the Conservatives to government.
    I think you are confusing the electorate with the DUP.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!

    They did return the Conservatives to government.
    I think you are confusing the electorate with the DUP.
    Between them, the Conservatives and the DUP have a Commons majority.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    (Replying to @NickPalmer on the earlier thread)

    Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.

    1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country

    2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

    3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.

    Take back control – renationalise the railways!

    Even Germany has some private rail companies even if the main company is state owned
    The Germans have nationalised fully a quarter of OUR railways (Arriva) – so they more than make up for any private incursions into their own system. Don't feel too sorry for them!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva_UK_Trains
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,262
    I assume that IF there are to be more Tory Peers none of them will be from among the current MP’s!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,362
    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!

    They did return the Conservatives to government.
    I think you are confusing the electorate with the DUP.
    Between them, the Conservatives and the DUP have a Commons majority.
    What a horrific state of affairs – the DUP are complete nutcases!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,675
    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!

    They did return the Conservatives to government.
    I think you are confusing the electorate with the DUP.
    Between them, the Conservatives and the DUP have a Commons majority.
    What a horrific state of affairs – the DUP are complete nutcases!
    Probably not the wisest choice of insult from (I assume) a Corbyn supporter.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637
    edited January 5
    That would be the programme motion that was an attempt to ram through, without proper scrutiny, a disgracefully fixed second house that would have massively favoured the Lib Dems? A reform that they could have got through, on an amended basis, with work and perseverance but which they decided to throw away to use as an excuse to preserve outdated boundaries that favoured their party political interests?

    Reform is important. It needs to be done right and should start with an agreement on what the role of the second house should be.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,262
    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,173
    Good afternoon, my fellow Blackadder enthusiasts.

    The Clegg plan, which was demented, was dropped when he objected to it being scrutinised (an omitted detail which rather sits askew the main thrust of the article).

    F1: Sirotkin still looking very likely to get the second Williams seat:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42579911
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,262
    Essexit said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!

    They did return the Conservatives to government.
    I think you are confusing the electorate with the DUP.
    Between them, the Conservatives and the DUP have a Commons majority.
    What a horrific state of affairs – the DUP are complete nutcases!
    Probably not the wisest choice of insult from (I assume) a Corbyn supporter.
    I don’t think you can reasonably make that assumption.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,675
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    It's an interesting variant on the 'old people voted Leave so they shouldn't be allowed to vote' bigotry from extreme Remainers. Presumably they'd reverse the 19th-century extension of the franchise.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    Essexit said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Great post by Mike Smithson – very astute writing.

    "In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

    Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her."

    Very true!

    They did return the Conservatives to government.
    I think you are confusing the electorate with the DUP.
    Between them, the Conservatives and the DUP have a Commons majority.
    What a horrific state of affairs – the DUP are complete nutcases!
    Probably not the wisest choice of insult from (I assume) a Corbyn supporter.
    You assume wrongly!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    Open is more successful than closed. I'm not sure why you should be surprised about that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    Open is more successful than closed. I'm not sure why you should be surprised about that.
    More probably, people who live in economically depressed parts of the country have simply found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the goods which they used to produce can more cheaply be produced abroad. At the same time, people who work in financial services have found themselves in the right place at the right time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,795
    I see pb.com has become Troll Central this afternoon......
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,580
    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    Leavers would have paid more tax in total.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    Essexit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    It's an interesting variant on the 'old people voted Leave so they shouldn't be allowed to vote' bigotry from extreme Remainers. Presumably they'd reverse the 19th-century extension of the franchise.
    It's fascinating to see very old-fashioned arguments being resurrected.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,387
    edited January 5
    FTPT

    Toby Young's real crime is to be a Conservative who has the audacity to want to work in a regulatory body overseeing the education sector, who see it as rightfully being a wholly-owned possession of the Left.

    It's more he is a professional wind up merchant who is now acting shocked and stunned that there is a social consequences for winding people up.

    He's a Delingpole-a-like who likes to "champion" free speech and abrasiveness right up until the point where someone criticises them and suddenly it's off to the oppression Olympics.

    Being a twat for money doesn't stop you being a twat.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 5
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    Open is more successful than closed. I'm not sure why you should be surprised about that.
    More probably, people who live in economically depressed parts of the country have simply found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the goods which they used to produce can more cheaply be produced abroad. At the same time, people who work in financial services have found themselves in the right place at the right time.
    Yip.

    Although I think the working-age leave vote can be seen as a consequence of austerity. After six years of dave/george it was pretty clear we weren't all in this together.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,675
    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    It's an interesting variant on the 'old people voted Leave so they shouldn't be allowed to vote' bigotry from extreme Remainers. Presumably they'd reverse the 19th-century extension of the franchise.
    It's fascinating to see very old-fashioned arguments being resurrected.
    It goes hand-in-hand with Lib Dems mysteriously forgetting their opposition to the House of Lords since the referendum.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,795
    If we are all trolling....then here goes.

    I see Crick is throwing his toys out the pram because he can't get any leaks about what is really going on. So he wants to change the whole system.

    Amusing.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114
    Charles said:

    That would be the programme motion that was an attempt to ram through, without proper scrutiny, a disgracefully fixed second house that would have massively favoured the Lib Dems? A reform that they could have got through, on an amended basis, with work and perseverance but which they decided to throw away to use as an excuse to preserve outdated boundaries that favoured their party political interests?

    Reform is important. It needs to be done right and should start with an agreement on what the role of the second house should be.

    Indeed. If we started from there, we could have a sensible cross-party reform committee.
    Instead we seem only to get proposals which advantage Party prospects.
    If we first debated what they are for then we wouldn't be having this argument about whether they could stop Brexit or not.
    Also. We could discuss how many there need to be. I am not aware of anywhere else where the Upper House is larger than the Lower.
    Nor where being a Bishop is a qualification.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,836
    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    It's an interesting variant on the 'old people voted Leave so they shouldn't be allowed to vote' bigotry from extreme Remainers. Presumably they'd reverse the 19th-century extension of the franchise.
    It's fascinating to see very old-fashioned arguments being resurrected.
    Given the age of our party leaders, perhaps not surprising, though ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    edited January 5
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    Possibly not. Remainers are younger, so usually light on capital, even if on good incomes. Certainly people in work were more likely to vote Remain than those who are retired. On the other hand they often have substantial student and mortgage debt, while older people often have considerable equity in the form of real estate, and ofyen ISAs and pensions.

    Controlling for age is difficult but in raw terms it is very possible that asset poor but high income voters (who have most to fear from the economic fallout of Brexit) have less wealth than low income retirees with capital assets in UK and abroad (who are insulated from the adverse effects of Brexit).

    As generally in the UK we tax income and expenditure rather than wealth, it may well be that Leavers are both wealthier, and pay less tax. Indeed many would be net recipients from the Exchequer. I certainly intend to be!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    Pong said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Remainers pay most of the tax already!!

    Indeed – it would be interesting to compare national tax take from Remain versus national tax take from Leave. A similarly interesting idea would be to split the country into LeaveUK and RemainUK and see which segment was the more successful. I know where my money would be!!
    On average, Remain supporters are wealthier than Leave supporters, so presumably they pay more tax. I don't know what that proves.
    Open is more successful than closed. I'm not sure why you should be surprised about that.
    More probably, people who live in economically depressed parts of the country have simply found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the goods which they used to produce can more cheaply be produced abroad. At the same time, people who work in financial services have found themselves in the right place at the right time.
    Yip.

    Although I think the working-age leave vote can be seen as a consequence of austerity. After six years of dave/george it was pretty clear we weren't all in this together.
    I'm not decrying the importance of hard work and initiative, but it would be arrogant to claim that I'm better off than the average inhabitant of Merthyr Tydfil because I work hard and they don't, while ignoring advantages of birth and geography.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,309
    DavidL said:

    We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.

    Quite agree. Just a massive gravy train for the troughers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    dixiedean said:

    Charles said:

    That would be the programme motion that was an attempt to ram through, without proper scrutiny, a disgracefully fixed second house that would have massively favoured the Lib Dems? A reform that they could have got through, on an amended basis, with work and perseverance but which they decided to throw away to use as an excuse to preserve outdated boundaries that favoured their party political interests?

    Reform is important. It needs to be done right and should start with an agreement on what the role of the second house should be.

    Indeed. If we started from there, we could have a sensible cross-party reform committee.
    Instead we seem only to get proposals which advantage Party prospects.
    If we first debated what they are for then we wouldn't be having this argument about whether they could stop Brexit or not.
    Also. We could discuss how many there need to be. I am not aware of anywhere else where the Upper House is larger than the Lower.
    Nor where being a Bishop is a qualification.
    Iran?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114
    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Charles said:

    That would be the programme motion that was an attempt to ram through, without proper scrutiny, a disgracefully fixed second house that would have massively favoured the Lib Dems? A reform that they could have got through, on an amended basis, with work and perseverance but which they decided to throw away to use as an excuse to preserve outdated boundaries that favoured their party political interests?

    Reform is important. It needs to be done right and should start with an agreement on what the role of the second house should be.

    Indeed. If we started from there, we could have a sensible cross-party reform committee.
    Instead we seem only to get proposals which advantage Party prospects.
    If we first debated what they are for then we wouldn't be having this argument about whether they could stop Brexit or not.
    Also. We could discuss how many there need to be. I am not aware of anywhere else where the Upper House is larger than the Lower.
    Nor where being a Bishop is a qualification.
    Iran?
    Was just thinking that myself.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    Nigelb said:
    Kept British actors in gainful employment for generations. #alwaysanupside
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,113

    I see pb.com has become Troll Central this afternoon......

    Mark,PB nowadays is like remain helpline,it's funny reading.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,262
    dr_spyn said:
    I reckon that’s fair enough, on the assumtion that he will now be out of public life.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361

    dr_spyn said:
    I reckon that’s fair enough, on the assumtion that he will now be out of public life.
    Well, he's still in UKIP isn't he? The sentence therefore seems slightly superfluous.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,398
    DavidL said:

    We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.

    Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,262
    DavidL said:

    dr_spyn said:
    I reckon that’s fair enough, on the assumtion that he will now be out of public life.
    Well, he's still in UKIP isn't he? The sentence therefore seems slightly superfluous.
    Yes, but he might try to get back in. I’ve rather lost touch with Castle Point politics of late, but when I was aware of what was happening it did seem excessively murky.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,398
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    (Replying to @NickPalmer on the earlier thread)

    Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.

    1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country

    2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

    3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.

    Take back control – renationalise the railways!

    Even Germany has some private rail companies even if the main company is state owned
    The Germans have nationalised fully a quarter of OUR railways (Arriva) – so they more than make up for any private incursions into their own system. Don't feel too sorry for them!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva_UK_Trains
    You keep using the word "nationalized". I do not think you know what it means.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,398

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
    He probably needs the extra pages.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488
    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Just this morning I paid 72.50 for mine. You should look at the url you were dealing with, probably a phishing site called pasports.gove.ku or some such. On the bright side, by renewing now we get a whole ten years of legacy burgundy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.

    Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
    Scrap the HoL and go Unicameral. We only need a revising chamber because the HoC passes half finished laws in the first place. The Fettling should be done by MPs in committee. If they need more time then they can give up their second jobs and long holidays.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,144

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
    £110 will be for the same-day in-person appointment service at the passport office. I paid about the same last year for mine.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    rcs1000 said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
    He probably needs the extra pages.
    For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit? :)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,173
    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.

    Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
    Why do we need an upper Chamber? I am not convinced we do. Most people have upper Chambers because they were copying us!

    I do accept that if we abolished the Upper Chamber we would need to significantly boost aspects of the HoC's performance. I would be looking at committees reviewing legislation having the right to call witnesses and take evidence, to have staff to research the basis of the legislation, etc etc. Some aspects of the Scottish experience may be useful to look at in this regard although that system has undoubtedly worked best when no party had a majority, something quite unusual and not especially desirable in the HoC.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,749

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
    It's the large one and I'm doing it from overseas which costs extra. Now I'm wondering if it's an expensable item, given how much work makes me travel...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,309
    Ishmael_Z said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!

    Just this morning I paid 72.50 for mine. You should look at the url you were dealing with, probably a phishing site called pasports.gove.ku or some such. On the bright side, by renewing now we get a whole ten years of legacy burgundy.
    Mine is due for renewal by August 21. Does that mean I'll renew with a blue one :D ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,173
    Mr. Pulpstar, mine's due this year. Not sure if I'll have a burgundy or blue one and, by sheer coincidence, also don't care :p
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,749
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
    He probably needs the extra pages.
    For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit? :)
    I travel mostly to Asia which requires stamps or visas right now, maybe it will be fewer in the future!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,309

    Mr. Pulpstar, mine's due this year. Not sure if I'll have a burgundy or blue one and, by sheer coincidence, also don't care :p

    Hold on I thought you never went abroad :) !
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,173
    Mr. Pulpstar, very rarely, but a passport's good for ID in certain circumstances too. My old one has a nice visa for the People's Republic of China in it.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    rcs1000 said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    (Replying to @NickPalmer on the earlier thread)

    Renationalising the railways as the franchises come up is a fine idea that commands support across the political spectrum. The existing system is an international laughing stock, full of absurd contradictions.

    1. We allow other countries to nationalise our franchises but not our own country

    2. When one of our major franchises failed the government had to renationalise it to keep it running – and it was a major success story (East Coast). They then reprivatised it purely for ideological reasons (to Virgin) and it is now again becoming a national disgrace.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

    3. The busiest railway in the land (the Tube) is, erm, nationalised, which rather gives the lie to the insane idea that we can't have nationalised systems in the UK.

    Take back control – renationalise the railways!

    Even Germany has some private rail companies even if the main company is state owned
    The Germans have nationalised fully a quarter of OUR railways (Arriva) – so they more than make up for any private incursions into their own system. Don't feel too sorry for them!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriva_UK_Trains
    You keep using the word "nationalized". I do not think you know what it means.
    I used the word nationalised with an s. I prefer the British English conventional spelling.

    In any event, I am using it as a figure of speech. A more precise way is to point out that the German state (DB) runs a quarter of our railways. More than our own state.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Pulpstar, mine's due this year. Not sure if I'll have a burgundy or blue one and, by sheer coincidence, also don't care :p

    Hold on I thought you never went abroad :) !
    As a Morris Dancer he may well need it to get served in pubs. Or to buy a vacuum cleaner...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,836

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so...

    Given the archetypal villain in the story is elsewhere described as "paddling in the shallow end of the gene pool", I'm not entirely convinced, Mr.D.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,041
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.

    Quite agree. Just a massive gravy train for the troughers.
    The trough which keeps on giving !!

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/retired-peers-awarded-a-meal-ticket-for-life-7gsffmrjt
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,236
    A peerage for Toby Young must surely be nailed-on.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,173
    Mr. B, they envy us and seek to disparage us to mask their own feelings of inadequacy. Naturellement.

    Dr. Foxy, did the Kiwis have an established church, though?

    Mr. L, all a morris dancer need do is wave his wiffle stick and the delighted patrons almost fight one another to buy him his drinks.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,328
    edited January 5

    Mr. Pulpstar, very rarely, but a passport's good for ID in certain circumstances too. My old one has a nice visa for the People's Republic of China in it.

    I would recommend 'Abroad' – it's a varied and interesting place. But I am guessing you are a Leaver "none of this foreign muck" type :)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,236
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
    Post of the day!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
    Socks and sandals is indeed one of the optional pictures on an LD membership card!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib+dem+membership+card+options&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrqqGFmcHYAhWPCuwKHUuZBOsQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=E2BOvCZM53qd6M:
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,236
    Anazina said:

    Mr. Pulpstar, very rarely, but a passport's good for ID in certain circumstances too. My old one has a nice visa for the People's Republic of China in it.

    I would recommend 'Abroad' – it's a varied and interesting place. But I am guessing you are a Leaver "none of this foreign muck" type :)
    Time to give the 'Yorkshire Airways' sketch another outing?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,173
    Miss Anazina, au contraire, I'd be more than delighted to engage in a lengthy debate about the relative merits of the Four Great Chinese Classics*. If you've also read them, that is ;)

    *I started and did not finish Story in the Stone, on account of the fact that it's the most boring thing since I asked my geography teacher a straightforward question and he talked at me for a solid 40 minutes.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,236
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
    Socks and sandals is indeed one of the optional pictures on an LD membership card!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib+dem+membership+card+options&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrqqGFmcHYAhWPCuwKHUuZBOsQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=E2BOvCZM53qd6M:
    As a medical man, you could go for the combo I witnessed on holiday last year: Crocs & Socks
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    Anazina said:

    Mr. Pulpstar, very rarely, but a passport's good for ID in certain circumstances too. My old one has a nice visa for the People's Republic of China in it.

    I would recommend 'Abroad' – it's a varied and interesting place. But I am guessing you are a Leaver "none of this foreign muck" type :)
    My Grandfather went abroad once, first to France then to Mesopotamia. He didn't like it much as people kept trying to shoot him. After that he stuck to Scarborough and lived to a ripe old age.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,173
    On socks and sandals: Roman soldiers wore the combination in Britain. That said, not good for hard marching as blisters and blood would fuse with the sock and make the removal rather unpleasant.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
    Socks and sandals is indeed one of the optional pictures on an LD membership card!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib+dem+membership+card+options&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrqqGFmcHYAhWPCuwKHUuZBOsQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=E2BOvCZM53qd6M:
    As a medical man, you could go for the combo I witnessed on holiday last year: Crocs & Socks
    I draw the line at Crocs! I never wrar clown shoes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
    Socks and sandals is indeed one of the optional pictures on an LD membership card!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib+dem+membership+card+options&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrqqGFmcHYAhWPCuwKHUuZBOsQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=E2BOvCZM53qd6M:
    Good grief. I knew they were a bit perverted but I never imagined that. Giving them the benefit of the doubt the yellow socks just might indicate a sense of humour and self mockery. I hope so.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,962
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
    He probably needs the extra pages.
    For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit? :)
    I travel mostly to Asia which requires stamps or visas right now, maybe it will be fewer in the future!
    I once managed to fill a quarter of my entire passport with visas for a single holiday. For all the cost and hassle, you do get some pretty paperwork.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,262
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
    Socks and sandals is indeed one of the optional pictures on an LD membership card!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib+dem+membership+card+options&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrqqGFmcHYAhWPCuwKHUuZBOsQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=E2BOvCZM53qd6M:
    Travlling round New Zealand a ferw years ago we bought a coach tour which was otherwise all Aussie. After a bit one of the men said he’d thought I was a Pom. Said I was.
    ‘You can’t be mate', he said ‘You’re wearing sandals without socks!.'
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,453

    Miss Anazina, au contraire, I'd be more than delighted to engage in a lengthy debate about the relative merits of the Four Great Chinese Classics*. If you've also read them, that is ;)

    *I started and did not finish Story in the Stone, on account of the fact that it's the most boring thing since I asked my geography teacher a straightforward question and he talked at me for a solid 40 minutes.


    My geography teacher was much more fun. He once asked us for different soil types and coped admirably when I replied 'sod'.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,262

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anazina said:

    MaxPB said:

    Just applied for my new burgundy passport! Bloody £110 for it! The government should definitely continue to offer the burgundy ones after Brexit but just double the cost, remainer tax!


    The burgundy is a much smarter colour than the naff new blue one – so you are paying for class and a little luxury.
    Why £110; Gov UK says £72.50.
    He probably needs the extra pages.
    For all the extra visas and passport stamps post Brexit? :)
    I travel mostly to Asia which requires stamps or visas right now, maybe it will be fewer in the future!
    I once managed to fill a quarter of my entire passport with visas for a single holiday. For all the cost and hassle, you do get some pretty paperwork.
    SE Asia? Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos do seem to go in for them
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,398
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    We really, really need to get rid of the HoL. Its an embarrassment. Complaining about any PM from any party abusing the power they are given to appoint legislators really misses the point. That right should be restricted to voters.

    Agreed. Now, there are many ways we can go about this, and we can restrict the power of the HoL relative to the Commons, but we do need to put in place a proper, elected, and accountable upper chamber.
    Scrap the HoL and go Unicameral. We only need a revising chamber because the HoC passes half finished laws in the first place. The Fettling should be done by MPs in committee. If they need more time then they can give up their second jobs and long holidays.
    I'm not 100% sure that's a good idea. I like the idea of two different bodies with different electoral cycles. The danger with a single one is that it causes excessive concentration on what happens at the next General Election. An upper chamber on a slightly offset or elongated time horizon, or perhaps one elected in a slightly different way seems like a good idea.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Firstly, the referendum gave the government the mandate to leave the EU and its associated organisations.

    Secondly, yes, I would agree that the House of Lords as it is composed and appointed is undemocratic. But it has no mandate at all to halt any form of Brexit since it is not elected in any form -indeed the Liberal element is grossly over-represented as a result of the Coalition. Remoaners should not hide behind the undemocratic House of Lords in its undemocratic bid to cancel the result of a democratic referendum.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. B, as expected. The world fears and envies us, and rightly so.

    Dr. Foxy, (where are your socks?), if we were to make such a change, assuming there weren't drastic constitutional implications beyond that (which I suspect there would be) we might as well make the Commons the Parliament of England, and the Upper House the Parliament of the UK.

    New Zealand have a similar consitutional system to us, and abolished their upper house in the 1950's. They don't seem to miss it, and of course remain a Constitutional Monarchy at present. Sweden and Denmark manage fine too.

    I got rid of my sox for the New Year!



    Given your sandal tendencies these days that was probably a good idea.
    Socks and sandals is indeed one of the optional pictures on an LD membership card!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lib+dem+membership+card+options&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=insv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrqqGFmcHYAhWPCuwKHUuZBOsQ_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=E2BOvCZM53qd6M:
    Travlling round New Zealand a ferw years ago we bought a coach tour which was otherwise all Aussie. After a bit one of the men said he’d thought I was a Pom. Said I was.
    ‘You can’t be mate', he said ‘You’re wearing sandals without socks!.'
    Is it any wonder we can't win a test match?
This discussion has been closed.