|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Whoo!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6376229.stm
Leader of the Commons Jack Straw has abandoned plans
to break with tradition and allow MPs to vote on Lords reform using a
preferential voting system.
Mr Straw had proposed the system as MPs have failed in the past to agree on how much of the Lords should be elected.
Instead of a traditional vote he wanted MPs to rank options, from all peers being elected to all being appointed.
But Mr Straw said his "enthusiasm" for the vote plan, which he only unveiled 12 days ago, was clearly not shared.
During Commons exchanges on the day the Lords reform
plans were unveiled there was opposition to the plan on the basis that
it broke with Commons tradition, which sees MPs vote by walking through
the yes or no lobbies.
I am pleased. 
| | |
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6337725.stm
"Commons leader Jack Straw is having another throw of the dice more than a decade after Tony Blair promised to do it, eight years since a "halfway house" was created and four years after voters were presented with the farcical sight of MPs throwing out seven options and leaving the government with no policy at all.
This time, Mr Straw hopes and believes it will be different and conclusive and that the current House of Lords will be replaced by something completely different and with a new name.
He has produced fresh proposals and will offer MPs an unprecedented PR-style voting system in order to whittle down a new series of options - from a fully elected to a fully appointed chamber - to just a single one, with a 50/50 split his favoured option."
A brief history for those unfamiliar with the situation (namely non-Brits):
Since 1911, the House of Lords has had no veto on Parliamentary legislation. They've been able to amend it (subject to Commons assent) and delay it (since 1949) for one session, i.e. a year.
In 1999, the Labour Government passed an Act which was designed to deprive the hereditary peers (those which inherited their titles by birth - some going back hundreds of years), but a deal was in fact struck which allowed 92 to remain - the remainder being Life Peers (the title is not inherited), Law Lords (our 'supreme court' but this will also soon change) and Bishops of the Church of England (who rarely vote anyway).
Anyway. Since this marvellous (read: hasty and pointless) Act, the Government has eaten humble pie. For this reason: Without the hereditaries, the House of Lords has become a much more professional House. Although I actually miss the occasional eccentric Lord which the British Parliament has a habit of nurturing, the Lords are chiefly appointed from among the country's most highly educated and achieving elites.
Or, if you're a cynic, from those who do the Government/Opposition a favour.
The House of Commons has turned down government legislation once in the last 10 years (thanks to the tight discipline among elected MPs in the Commons), while in the Lords the Government is challenged constantly and forces it to amend badly thought out legislation.
Therefore, the unelected chamber, which is to a great extent immune to Government pressure, is the best defence British democracy has.
With me so far? So. Now the Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Straw) wants to reform it again. But the last time it was considered, MPs could not decide on what to do to it. Partially/wholly elected? What portion elected? None at all? Remove hereditaries entirely? What?
Personally, I am against any kind of elections in the Upper House, chiefly for the reason above (the Upper House would become an echo chamber for the Commons and utterly useless at stopping irresponsible laws), but also for this reason:
Since 1911 it is accepted that, being elected, the Commons (quite rightly) is the superior chamber, and if it insists, it gets its way. With an elected second chamber, this logic will no longer fairly apply, especially as, given the fucked up election system we have in the Commons (which gives a party which got 1/3 of the vote over half the seats), a different voting system in the Lords will make it the most democratic House. How can the government than fairly use the Parliament Acts? We'll have a whole can of worms on our hands.
Also, I'm sick and tired of people attacking archaic and antique portions of our constitution purely because it looks old-fashioned. It's called the Lords. So bleeding what. We're not the only democratic country to have an enelected second chamber, and ours is in fact the second-hardest working chamber in Europe (the busiest being the House of Commons). A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
If you want to really improve the nature of the British system and make it better able to scrutinise our government, tinker with the bit that's broken; the elected portion, the Commons. That's where true power lies, that's where most people's concerns are, and it's just as riddled with supposedly obsolete and pointless rituals as the Lords. But will a government change things here?
Absolutely not. Because the Commons is the source of the Government's power, and they like it just how it is. So, to look like they're reforming, they pick a fight with the only portions of the Constitution capable of stopping them.
So I say: leave the Lords alone! (and bring back the hereditaries...)
| | |
| Liz's Dutch passports arrived today...And my mum didn't understand why. Mum: Why does she need Dutch passports? What's she got with her now? Me: She's got her Canadian passports nowMum: So why does she need Dutch? Me: So when she returns here, she can work. Mum: Why can't she do it on her Canadian one? Me: Cos it's easier with Dutch, cos of the EUMum: That's cheating the system! Me: No it's not, it's an internationally recognised law Mum: Why can't she use Canadian? Me: Cos the British government won't listen to it as much as a Dutch one*bangs head on desk* I swear I must be adopted. I'm the only person in my family who actually thinks about these things. I read a pretty cool quote today. "An idea of absolute perfection and purity can only be a source of error in politics." | | |
| Smart man.The folowing was said 300 years ago and still holds true today. Why, because nothing has changed. Screws were screws from the beginning of time. People who want power and control simply use sheer force of will and fear and eventually might to get what they want. No different than Alexander the Great or any other conqueror.
Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they pat you paternally on the shoulder and say that there is no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they will send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces.
Jean Paul Marat
18th Century French visionary | | |
| Dead Rising.Chainsaws rock. They rock better when you've wrestled better ones out of the hands of a dieing clown. He must've been a mechanic, cos they're silent, run longer than the ones I can nab from the hardware store, and don't have a habit of disembowelling my friends either. Cos it's a harsh world out there, in Williamette Mall. I've hacked and slashed 500 zombies to pieces so far. There's still 50,000 people in this town though, so plenty of work to do. Not so easy when it's pitch black (power's gone out - stupid automated circuits) and the zombies seem to be more aggressive in the dark. Maybe it's just my imagination. Weapons that suck for killing zombies: - Handbags
- CDs
- Water pistols
- Severed limbs (although one did walk round with a fist protuding from its caved in face once)
- Toy swords
- cardboard boxes
- handguns (unless you're really strapped; point blank in the head usually does the trick, but against a whole horde of the buggers, you may as well save the last one for yourself)
Weapons that you need to survive against the Undead: - Lead pipes (plentiful and durable)
- Hedge clippers
- Battle Axes (a little unwieldy but they take a whole swathe in one go!)
- Katana blades
- Cleavers/knives
- hockey sticks (they're awesome!)
- cash machines (best for throwing)
- baseball bats (although if I find a cricket bat, I'll be laughing...get some f*****g red on you!)
Has anyone actually SEEN a shotgun? They must be a myth... | | |
|
