shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Bringing academies back under LA purview I believe.
I've only seen the headlines, so how do things like more local control over education work? I always thought that should be a national thing in terms of policy and strategy, but down to local areas to implement it. Is that about where they're heading, or in danger of a mish-mash of different plans across the country?
I too, haven't deep dived the proposals, but the minimum should be to get rid of cronies and clergy having a say in lawmaking for the rest of their lives/careers without democratic accountancy.
PR is the obvious way to go.
It won't be ideal to begin with, but it's absolutely the right thing to do.
What's the alternative?Why have two elected chambers? What’s the point? And why remove the ability to get rid of shit politicians? Voters won’t matter, just brown nosing party leadership to get on the list. All so 6% of people can vote for the Very Specific Issue Party and get one MP who achieves fuck all.
What's the alternative?
A single chamber or a second chamber of cronies and clerics?
Or how about the most popular poster on SBT?Change the selection criteria for HoL to not be something politicians give their mates but something closer to an MBE. A reward for actually having achieved something in a field. Sure we need some law making experiencing there, but not this crap. Maybe limit political ones to the major offices of state at least so you don’t get Lady fucking Fox and Dorries. Let the Royal Society or the unions or major charities have nominations.
I like the theory of the Lords: get some expertise in to critique bills without the populairst pressures of election breathing down their neck. But at the moment it’s a cronies club and not much else.
Or how about the most popular poster on SBT?
It's all bollocks and is cronyism by the back door.
This is a supposed democracy, lawmakers should be answerable to the electorate.
The HoL votes on laws sent up from the HoC.They’re not lawmakers though. They’re law scrutinisers.
Do you want the civil service elected too? The heads of quangos? How far does it go?
The HoL votes on laws sent up from the HoC.
They are lawmakers.
Other branches of government are advisers/experts. and are on a period of notice (normal employment terms). Not so with the HoL.
An appointed second chamber is something that doesn't sit right with me.
It’s often easier to do it in steps isn’t it?Id be open to a fixed term. But HoL can’t create law, their job is to scrutinise the laws the HoC creates as you say. So why do we need them if not for expertise? Just scrap them entirely if that’s what you want.
No more city games under Labourwhat are they going to do? Ban VPNs?
No more city games under Labour
Don't fall ill on 21st or 28th December then.
Why have two elected chambers? What’s the point?...
It could stop Governments raging invasions on other countries when there are other mechanisms that could sort this out like the UN?
How would it do that?
Armed forces come under the royal prerogative authorised by the PM.
Oh, come on Shmmee, you can't be that stupid?
You’d be surprised how stupid I can be. Humour me.
Any action needs the consent of Parliament, across the two chambers.
Edit-
Actually, I just checked. No, Government doesn't but in reality you would expect explicit consent from Parliament to go to war. Unless it was an emergency. Iraq War was no emergency.
Edit II- I guess these are things to be worked out if you are going to have an elected second chamber. You just can't force a vote through an elected chamber like you can when one is unelected.
Can't see the twitter as I'm at work but was reading some tweets about it earlier. There is a very hard authoritarian streak in the Labour party, it seems to assume that people like that kind of thingThis is up there with the dumbest policy ideas ever. There’s a bit of the Labour Party that is hell bent on making the internet “safe” and all logic and reason flies out the window, same as Tories and terrorists.
No polticians, you can’t ban basic technology. Make better laws.
Can't see the twitter as I'm at work but was reading some tweets about it earlier. There is a very hard authoritarian streak in the Labour party, it seems to assume that people like that kind of thing
But it'd also be easiest to hold it at the same time, as you just take the overall nationwide percetnage figures for votes and give each party that percentage of seats in the upper chamber. Also makes it so if you live in a safe seat your vote doesn't feel like it's wasted and therefore could improve turnout.That's what I was heading for in an upper chamber!
As for counterbalance, it'd be madness to hold it at the same time. What you maybe need is a bit like local authorities, where a set percentage of seats become up for election at staggered intervals.
Trouble with having experts in the upper chamber is who chooses the experts?Why have two elected chambers? What’s the point? And why remove the ability to get rid of shit politicians? Voters won’t matter, just brown nosing party leadership to get on the list. All so 6% of people can vote for the Very Specific Issue Party and get one MP who achieves fuck all.
And what constitutes an expert?Trouble with having experts in the upper chamber is who chooses the experts?
At least the coverage for us abroad might improve then!No more city games under Labour
And what constitutes an expert?
I bet your definition of experts would differ from mine... I've got a number of peer reviewed published papers. Do I count?If you’ve had enough of them they’re an expert.
I know this is SBT and we’re all experts but are people really saying that say a teacher with 30 years experience or a scientists with a significant amount of published papers doesn’t have more insight than Nadine Dorries or Clare Fox?
I bet your definition of experts would differ from mine... I've got a number of peer reviewed published papers. Do I count?
Nope. I'm suggesting that there are experts in more than science, technology, finance.Are you really claiming there are no experts?
Nope. I'm suggesting that there are experts in more than science, technology, finance.
So who picks the balance? Who decides the priorities? Experts? In which case, I refer you back to my previous answer.
A priest is an expert in theology after all, and does have a place somewhere in a chamber of experts!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?