View Single Post
Unread 12 Dec 2006, 20:47   #39
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: The Christmas Repeal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
It wasn't mean to be serious. I know that sarcasm is pretty difficult to show across the net without being annoyingly obvious (or having to tell people which kind of defeats the point) but I was hoping you would realise

I know who gives out bloody peerages.
As Phil said, internet sarcasm can be pretty difficult to detect sometimes - especially since sarcasm tags are now passe

Besides, I got the answer partially wrong. The House of Lords Appointments Commission was set up six years ago and makes non-partisan recommendations to the Prime Minister who then passes those onto the Queen. I think that's how it works anyway - I can't imagine them directly communicating with the Queen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not overly bothered by the Lords / Commons issue, but the above could be argued to be a blow to the independence of the Lords.
Without a doubt. There needs to be a wholly independent Appointments Commission that makes not only non-partisan appointments, but also takes recommendations for partisan appointments from the political parties (and then decides who appoint). Partisan appointments would be made according to the votes cast for each party - around 35% for both Labour and the Conservatives and 20% for the Lib Dems, based on the last general election.

The alternative is, of course, an elected House of Lords, but having once been in favour of this I now prefer an appointed upper chamber that has strong scrutinising powers (but no veto). Those appointed would be experts in their fields - it'd be a combination of a meritocracy (in the successful sense - so entrepreneurs such as Richard Branson would be appointed it as well) and a technocracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Sure, the time lag involved means the makeup of the Lords will often be very different from the Commons - ideologically speaking - (which means they might help provide balance between parties) but they don't necessarily provide a balance between people and the government generally.
Until the turn of the millenium, the House of Lords was firmly Conservative. This didn't prevent Tory governments from clashing with the Lords, but Labour certainly had far more problems. If peers had terms of office of 6-12 years, similar to the methodology behind the US Senate, then you might achieve that balance - but then again, if a party leaves government in disgrace, you'd have to wait up to a decade to clear their fellow party members from the upper house as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Most of the people in the Lords are (or were) someone who was once seen in a positive light by powerful politicans. I'm not sure if that's a good character reference.*
It depends who's being appointed. Party politicans can be very good (e.g. the late Robin Cook, who would have eventually become a Lord, or Paddy Ashdown, the ex-Lib Dem leader who now sits in the Lords) or pretty mediocre (Baron Hattersley, anyone?)

There's nothing stopping a politican from being a very good Lord, but they'll need to have the intellectual background and rigour to be an effective scrutiniser of the Commons. Ex-trade union leaders who became MPs are less likely to be as successful at this, although there's obvious plus points for putting them in the Lords to balance out the entrepreneurs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
* = The same criticism could be made of the US Supreme Court of course. Although it does seem you can pretty much make someone a peer for being the PM's mate, which I presume would be frowned upon with the Supreme Court. Because there's so few SC justices I suppose people take the whole thing a bit more seriously.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? There's always been a fair bit of patronage and horse-trading in appointing Supreme Court justices, especially since so many American politicans have legal backgrounds (and anyone can be made a Supreme Court justice, whereas in the UK I've never heard of anyone becoming a Law Lord without first sitting in the High Court and then Court of Appeal).


And let's not forget George Bush's nomination of his own personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, either.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote