The Lib Dems have announced that they will vote against the article 50 bill at third reading tonight.
They voted against the bill at third reading in the House of Commons, and so in one respect this is not surprising. But, in terms of Lords protocol, it is quite an extreme move, because peers hardly ever vote against bills at third reading.
So those dependent on government contracts would be in a position to dictate government policy?
I really like the idea of random ballot, it would create an engagement between the people and the politicians. We need a mixture of people in the upper chamber. We could have say 50 people from each of the old regions (Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Wessex, Sussex), along with Wales and Scotland. Sure, it would be mayhem to begin with, sure there would be a bit of nimbyism, but they'd at least be independent from the political parties. And we'd get experience of the world away from Westminster.
Experience of the world away from Westminster and Washington led to brexit and trump
So let's do away with voting altogether?
No, let's not be so silly gooseically glib about the so called evils of them politicians, and let's not be so silly gooseically slaves to the idiotic notion outsider views are great qua outsiders
Who did any of that? Some balance of experience, especially in the 2nd house, I think would be a good thing. I take it you don't? Or will we use the spectre of Trump and Brexit to negate any attempt to democratize our politics? Remember it's the great political class that you so happily defer to that took us to war in Iraq, so maybe you shouldn't be so gooseically glib about the notion politicians know better, also.
I've gone round on this recently, and it's nice to hear I'm not alone in being happy having an unelected second chamber. Really what I'd like is a chamber where political parties have no role in the appointments process, but that ha its own issues (as the above discussion indicates).
The problem for me with an elected chamber is that it's likely to just end up as a mirror of the Commons - in which case, why bother having it at all?
I've gone round on this recently, and it's nice to hear I'm not alone in being happy having an unelected second chamber. Really what I'd like is a chamber where political parties have no role in the appointments process, but that ha its own issues (as the above discussion indicates).
The problem for me with an elected chamber is that it's likely to just end up as a mirror of the Commons - in which case, why bother having it at all?
Because if you do it in the style of the Senate they don't have to base their decisions on what will play well in the Daily Mail, and avoid doing the right thing because it'll sink your election chances.
I've gone round on this recently, and it's nice to hear I'm not alone in being happy having an unelected second chamber. Really what I'd like is a chamber where political parties have no role in the appointments process, but that ha its own issues (as the above discussion indicates).
The problem for me with an elected chamber is that it's likely to just end up as a mirror of the Commons - in which case, why bother having it at all?
Because if you do it in the style of the Senate they don't have to base their decisions on what will play well in the Daily Mail, and avoid doing the right thing because it'll sink your election chances.
I'm forced to ask...which Senate, and why not?
Never underestimate the poltical terror of the Daily Mail.
I've gone round on this recently, and it's nice to hear I'm not alone in being happy having an unelected second chamber. Really what I'd like is a chamber where political parties have no role in the appointments process, but that ha its own issues (as the above discussion indicates).
The problem for me with an elected chamber is that it's likely to just end up as a mirror of the Commons - in which case, why bother having it at all?
Well we have the Senate, where it's a larger area that votes, and they're elected every 6 years. It's supposed to be the moderating body of the House of Representatives, which is very focused on the current public mood.
But as the Republicans control both houses, isn't the President able to get more law passed? I'd like a system where there's no question of someone being in control of the second chamber.
But as the Republicans control both houses, isn't the President able to get more law passed? I'd like a system where there's no question of someone being in control of the second chamber.
Yeah, this is more what I'm getting at. In a space where a Commons majority is considered a requirement to govern, I'm seeing an elected Lords ending up in basically the same space. Avoiding party platforms and party control is the goal (for me) in any reform of the Lords; I have a strong dislike of the party political peers.
But as the Republicans control both houses, isn't the President able to get more law passed? I'd like a system where there's no question of someone being in control of the second chamber.
The Senate has election cycles on a longer time line and in larger, fixed, areas. This does sort of make the Senate a bit more deliberative and is the reason the current ACA replacement law is likely going to go nowhere but I don't think I'd want to export that anywhere.
Judging from her Wikipedia page, she's a lovely human being who would make a beautiful addition to UKIP or the Tea Party. She ticks all the right boxes.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It is a curiosity that the SNP and Sinn Fein want to leave the UK in order to remain in Europe. In other words, they want to reclaim powers from Westminster in order to surrender them to Brussels.
Of course they don’t see it like that. The EU, which concentrates power in Brussels while reducing nations to the status of provinces, is conversely regarded by weak nations and provinces as a way of boosting their status and income.
Scottish nationalism and Irish republicanism are cultural phenomena rooted in romanticism and myth and hatred of the other in the form of the English or the Protestants.
LOL
Northern Ireland is different again. The Unionists hate this being said but they are not British. They’re the bit that got tacked on to Great Britain to make the UK.
Does that mean Westminster should tear up the Good Friday agreement and bid farewell to Northern Ireland? No, because it has an obligation to the Unionists; and because the claim to unite Ireland is tenuous since Ireland itself has a tenuous claim to nationhood, having seceded from Britain as the Irish Free State only in 1922.
Nope, I don't see why this would be seen as inflammatory at all.
EDIT: She's a grade A troll that has an occasional column, and sometimes appears on Question Time, with the obligatory furrowed brow and finger wagging. She's from the Peter Hitchens school of using blunt ignorant statements to shock.
I've gone round on this recently, and it's nice to hear I'm not alone in being happy having an unelected second chamber. Really what I'd like is a chamber where political parties have no role in the appointments process, but that ha its own issues (as the above discussion indicates).
The problem for me with an elected chamber is that it's likely to just end up as a mirror of the Commons - in which case, why bother having it at all?
I think an unelected chamber would be best, but if elections are required then a PR version would at least require parties to form coalitions to get anything done.
It's an appeal to British Nationalism over regional nationalism
Problem is, and I have all sorts of biases, is British Nationalism even a thing on a large scale? Is it possible English Nationalism is being mistaken for it?
Legit don't know
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Not sure how you're supposed to appeal to some sort of British nationalism when the pitch seems to be that the non-English portions of Britain are wankers. Except for (non-Northern) Ireland where she says that that's barely a real country.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I don't think she had any intention of countering Scottish or Irish nationalism. She was mocking it for clicks. I mean look at this:
Englishness, however, came to stand proxy for all the communities of the British Isles. Even Edmund Burke, although a loyal Irishman, wrote of himself as an Englishman rather than describing himself as British.
It's an appeal to British Nationalism over regional nationalism
Problem is, and I have all sorts of biases, is British Nationalism even a thing on a large scale? Is it possible English Nationalism is being mistaken for it?
Legit don't know
Dunno about large scale but there are certainly people without a strong enough connection to England to identify as British (I'd generally go with that regarding myself for example), plus a lot of minorities which have assimilated to a civic identity but not to an English ethnic identity would go with 'British', see British Asian and Londoners.
Due to England being such a large part of Britain it is pretty hard to untangle though.
It's an appeal to British Nationalism over regional nationalism
Problem is, and I have all sorts of biases, is British Nationalism even a thing on a large scale? Is it possible English Nationalism is being mistaken for it?
Legit don't know
Dunno about large scale but there are certainly people without a strong enough connection to England to identify as British (I'd generally go with that regarding myself for example), plus a lot of minorities which have assimilated to a civic identity but not to an English ethnic identity would go with 'British', see British Asian and Londoners.
Due to England being such a large part of Britain it is pretty hard to untangle though.
That's the other crux. If we were all 8-10 million people each it would feel more equal, but that thumb is inexorably on the scales.
So those dependent on government contracts would be in a position to dictate government policy?
I really like the idea of random ballot, it would create an engagement between the people and the politicians. We need a mixture of people in the upper chamber. We could have say 50 people from each of the old regions (Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Wessex, Sussex), along with Wales and Scotland. Sure, it would be mayhem to begin with, sure there would be a bit of nimbyism, but they'd at least be independent from the political parties. And we'd get experience of the world away from Westminster.
Experience of the world away from Westminster and Washington led to brexit and trump
The House of Lords has voted to give parliament a veto over the final outcome of Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations, inflicting a second defeat on the government’s article 50 bill.
Peers supported a Labour-led amendment by 366 to 268, despite the government’s argument that it would “damage the national interest” by making May’s Brexit negotiations more difficult.
Michael Heseltine, the Conservative former deputy prime minister, was one of those leading the rebellion against the government’s position, along with Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers.
+22
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
I'm pretty sure Melanie Phillips writes in the Daily Mail. So, you know.
The House of Lords has voted to give parliament a veto over the final outcome of Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations, inflicting a second defeat on the government’s article 50 bill.
Peers supported a Labour-led amendment by 366 to 268, despite the government’s argument that it would “damage the national interest” by making May’s Brexit negotiations more difficult.
Michael Heseltine, the Conservative former deputy prime minister, was one of those leading the rebellion against the government’s position, along with Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers.
Excellent, this is how democracy should work. Let's hope the government reacts in a mature, reasoned manner...
Lord Heseltine backed the demand for a parliamentary vote on the final deal to be written into Brexit legislation.
Lord Heseltine learned hours later that he had been fired from five government advisory roles he had held.
Purge the unbeliever! Cleanse this foul heresy with fire and blood!
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
tl;dr- BBC runs a years-long investigation of child porn rings on Facebook, reported rings to Facebook, Facebook leaves most images (and rings) still up, BBC asks why at an interview and brings examples (at FB's request) and Facebook promptly reports BBC to the National Crime Agency for distributing child porn.
also given that Corbyn has purged unfriendly elements within Labor, is there any way for him to be forced out? It's my understanding that unlike the U.S. where only the National Committee members of each party vote in the election for the head of the (D/R)NC, every Labor Party member votes for Corbyn's spot. Is that correct? No one really seems happy with him and he seems to haven't done any of the far-left stuff he's campaigned on. Aside from marching and holding speeches in support of Latin American dictators or whatnot.
tl;dr- BBC runs a years-long investigation of child porn rings on Facebook, reported rings to Facebook, Facebook leaves most images (and rings) still up, BBC asks why at an interview and brings examples (at FB's request) and Facebook promptly reports BBC to the National Crime Agency for distributing child porn.
also given that Corbyn has purged unfriendly elements within Labor, is there any way for him to be forced out? It's my understanding that unlike the U.S. where only the National Committee members of each party vote in the election for the head of the (D/R)NC, every Labor Party member votes for Corbyn's spot. Is that correct? No one really seems happy with him and he seems to haven't done any of the far-left stuff he's campaigned on. Aside from marching and holding speeches in support of Latin American dictators or whatnot.
The only way for him to be forced out is what they tried last year: Someone challenges him for leadership and wins the resulting election. That failed miserably. I suspect if they tried again they'd do better because of all that rope Corbyn has been giving himself, but probably nowhere near enough to oust him.
tl;dr- BBC runs a years-long investigation of child porn rings on Facebook, reported rings to Facebook, Facebook leaves most images (and rings) still up, BBC asks why at an interview and brings examples (at FB's request) and Facebook promptly reports BBC to the National Crime Agency for distributing child porn.
also given that Corbyn has purged unfriendly elements within Labor, is there any way for him to be forced out? It's my understanding that unlike the U.S. where only the National Committee members of each party vote in the election for the head of the (D/R)NC, every Labor Party member votes for Corbyn's spot. Is that correct? No one really seems happy with him and he seems to haven't done any of the far-left stuff he's campaigned on. Aside from marching and holding speeches in support of Latin American dictators or whatnot.
Corbyn isn't like the head of the DNC and is more comparable to a primary election in the US. Except they don't have to immediately run in a general election and aren't gone if they lose.
Basically imagine during the 2016 primary a more ineffectual and useless clone of Sanders had won and you'll get the gist of the politics at work.
My gut instinct is two or three departments at Facebook were really not communicating with each other when they should have been. Like this wasn't a trap to bait the BBC with, why the hell would they even do that? Hanlon's Razor applies.
Isn't soliciting child porn a thing? Like, if they asked for examples and the BBC have proof of that, aren't they in even more serious shit in this fight?
tl;dr- BBC runs a years-long investigation of child porn rings on Facebook, reported rings to Facebook, Facebook leaves most images (and rings) still up, BBC asks why at an interview and brings examples (at FB's request) and Facebook promptly reports BBC to the National Crime Agency for distributing child porn.
I saw a few articles in The Guardian about it, but it doesn't seem to be getting a tremendous amount of coverage (all eyes are on The Budget).
What is astonishing, is that the reporter reported 100 images, and only 18 were removed. With regards to the other 82 images, he got automated replies saying they did not breach "community standards".
So when he pointed out those remaining images were still around, he got reported (Facebook have since removed all those images).
You can't have it both ways; saying the images were fine after claiming to have investigated them, then reporting the BBC reporter for distribution after he showed some of the images (after being asked by Facebook to provide them) is some serious bullshit.
If you were being skeptical, you'd say this was Facebook going after a reporter that works for an organization that doesn't depend on Facebook for its income.
My gut instinct is two or three departments at Facebook were really not communicating with each other when they should have been. Like this wasn't a trap to bait the BBC with, why the hell would they even do that? Hanlon's Razor applies.
Cuts pretty deep on this occasion however.
Either way this look like bad leadership from the top.
Posts
Who did any of that? Some balance of experience, especially in the 2nd house, I think would be a good thing. I take it you don't? Or will we use the spectre of Trump and Brexit to negate any attempt to democratize our politics? Remember it's the great political class that you so happily defer to that took us to war in Iraq, so maybe you shouldn't be so gooseically glib about the notion politicians know better, also.
The problem for me with an elected chamber is that it's likely to just end up as a mirror of the Commons - in which case, why bother having it at all?
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Because if you do it in the style of the Senate they don't have to base their decisions on what will play well in the Daily Mail, and avoid doing the right thing because it'll sink your election chances.
I'm forced to ask...which Senate, and why not?
Never underestimate the poltical terror of the Daily Mail.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Well we have the Senate, where it's a larger area that votes, and they're elected every 6 years. It's supposed to be the moderating body of the House of Representatives, which is very focused on the current public mood.
Yeah, this is more what I'm getting at. In a space where a Commons majority is considered a requirement to govern, I'm seeing an elected Lords ending up in basically the same space. Avoiding party platforms and party control is the goal (for me) in any reform of the Lords; I have a strong dislike of the party political peers.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
The Senate has election cycles on a longer time line and in larger, fixed, areas. This does sort of make the Senate a bit more deliberative and is the reason the current ACA replacement law is likely going to go nowhere but I don't think I'd want to export that anywhere.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
We don't know who she is either.
LOL
Nope, I don't see why this would be seen as inflammatory at all.
EDIT: She's a grade A troll that has an occasional column, and sometimes appears on Question Time, with the obligatory furrowed brow and finger wagging. She's from the Peter Hitchens school of using blunt ignorant statements to shock.
I think an unelected chamber would be best, but if elections are required then a PR version would at least require parties to form coalitions to get anything done.
It's an appeal to British Nationalism over regional nationalism
Problem is, and I have all sorts of biases, is British Nationalism even a thing on a large scale? Is it possible English Nationalism is being mistaken for it?
Legit don't know
We should embrace Roman Nationalism
Not that Melanie Philips would be into that, mind
And west of the Bann (among others) is probably the last place you want to appeal to British Nationalism
Dunno about large scale but there are certainly people without a strong enough connection to England to identify as British (I'd generally go with that regarding myself for example), plus a lot of minorities which have assimilated to a civic identity but not to an English ethnic identity would go with 'British', see British Asian and Londoners.
Due to England being such a large part of Britain it is pretty hard to untangle though.
That's the other crux. If we were all 8-10 million people each it would feel more equal, but that thumb is inexorably on the scales.
Corbyn metaphor
Whoops! Wrong thread, but, pretty much.
Finally someone speaks sense.
House of Lords defeats government for second time on article 50 bill
Excellent, this is how democracy should work. Let's hope the government reacts in a mature, reasoned manner...
Brexit rebel Lord Heseltine sacked from government role
Purge the unbeliever! Cleanse this foul heresy with fire and blood!
tl;dr- BBC runs a years-long investigation of child porn rings on Facebook, reported rings to Facebook, Facebook leaves most images (and rings) still up, BBC asks why at an interview and brings examples (at FB's request) and Facebook promptly reports BBC to the National Crime Agency for distributing child porn.
also given that Corbyn has purged unfriendly elements within Labor, is there any way for him to be forced out? It's my understanding that unlike the U.S. where only the National Committee members of each party vote in the election for the head of the (D/R)NC, every Labor Party member votes for Corbyn's spot. Is that correct? No one really seems happy with him and he seems to haven't done any of the far-left stuff he's campaigned on. Aside from marching and holding speeches in support of Latin American dictators or whatnot.
The only way for him to be forced out is what they tried last year: Someone challenges him for leadership and wins the resulting election. That failed miserably. I suspect if they tried again they'd do better because of all that rope Corbyn has been giving himself, but probably nowhere near enough to oust him.
Corbyn isn't like the head of the DNC and is more comparable to a primary election in the US. Except they don't have to immediately run in a general election and aren't gone if they lose.
Basically imagine during the 2016 primary a more ineffectual and useless clone of Sanders had won and you'll get the gist of the politics at work.
There is no way this looks good for facebook at all.
Like.....really at all
Cuts pretty deep on this occasion however.
I saw a few articles in The Guardian about it, but it doesn't seem to be getting a tremendous amount of coverage (all eyes are on The Budget).
What is astonishing, is that the reporter reported 100 images, and only 18 were removed. With regards to the other 82 images, he got automated replies saying they did not breach "community standards".
So when he pointed out those remaining images were still around, he got reported (Facebook have since removed all those images).
You can't have it both ways; saying the images were fine after claiming to have investigated them, then reporting the BBC reporter for distribution after he showed some of the images (after being asked by Facebook to provide them) is some serious bullshit.
If you were being skeptical, you'd say this was Facebook going after a reporter that works for an organization that doesn't depend on Facebook for its income.
Either way this look like bad leadership from the top.