House of Lords reform

[cromwell]

Well why do we need lots of mps in one house and lots of MUH in the other?



Surely 650 in one and 450 in another is massively out of proportion to the size of the uk state?



For the purposes of this discussion i would think a much smaller , highly paid and vastly experienced group of people elected on merit in both houses would do a far better job and be much better than the current overbloated , underpaid and underskilled rabble we have infesting both houses at present?



Surely a respectable amount of politicians based  on a realistic size comparable to the four small nations that make up the uk as it stands( hopefully not for much longer) is much better than what we have at present based on ancient out of date tradition and over the top pomp and ceremony?



One of the things i hear time and gain is the "too many chiefs not enough indians " argument we have at present.



Look at all the layers of politicians at differing levels , from brussells , westminster ,  holyrood , down to council level.



Despite this vast quantity of politicians , do we have better governance as a result?



Surely we need to reduce the quantity and increase the quality?



Also the major problem of the uk state is and always has been the massive centralisation of power in your capital city. Even the northern english say they feel remote and neglected .



So reduction in size and decentralisation of power. What we have at present is devolving responsibility , and centralisation of power.



You seem to want to work within the confines of a broken system and tinker at the edges.



As a scot i wont accept any system that gives one country 80% of the power in what is supposedly a union of countries.

Couldn't agree more too,many politicos,devolved power is used an excuse to bung a few quid the way of more politicians lower down the rungs and so bloody stupid and a desire for self aggrandisement they don't see its when the crap hits the fan central govt can say "not our fault guv" In my area we have a failed labour politician foisted on us as mayor when we voted against it,I suppose he thought one had already taken the strictly route so he went the mayoral way.



You have councils with cabinet members one now responsible for climate emergency,bloody tossers their job is to see the bins emptied,grids,roads and paths cleaned and the street lights on.

[Thomas]

Finally, what is the actual objection to having lots of MPs/MUHs?  - A genuine question, not being sarky.

Well why do we need lots of mps in one house and lots of MUH in the other?



Surely 650 in one and 450 in another is massively out of proportion to the size of the uk state?



For the purposes of this discussion i would think a much smaller , highly paid and vastly experienced group of people elected on merit in both houses would do a far better job and be much better than the current overbloated , underpaid and underskilled rabble we have infesting both houses at present?



Surely a respectable amount of politicians based  on a realistic size comparable to the four small nations that make up the uk as it stands( hopefully not for much longer) is much better than what we have at present based on ancient out of date tradition and over the top pomp and ceremony?



One of the things i hear time and gain is the "too many chiefs not enough indians " argument we have at present.



Look at all the layers of politicians at differing levels , from brussells , westminster ,  holyrood , down to council level.



Despite this vast quantity of politicians , do we have better governance as a result?



Surely we need to reduce the quantity and increase the quality?



Also the major problem of the uk state is and always has been the massive centralisation of power in your capital city. Even the northern english say they feel remote and neglected .



So reduction in size and decentralisation of power. What we have at present is devolving responsibility , and centralisation of power.



You seem to want to work within the confines of a broken system and tinker at the edges.



As a scot i wont accept any system that gives one country 80% of the power in what is supposedly a union of countries.

[BeElBeeBub]

Well, I could not disagree more. All those last minute concessions at meetings had to.go back to be finally ratified, and since when did the EU have any power over forcing the G7/G8/G20/Gee who gives a f**k how many meetings...

Yeah, some did have to go back for ratification (e.g. treaty changes) but others didn't (e.g. budget agreement) the point is that these were all internal matters e.g. new budget, commission appointments etc.  The UK/EU negotiations will be 3rd party negotiations.



Here's a challenge. Can you cite an example of the EU caving on a "red line" at the last minute in a treaty negotiation with a 3rd party?  This should be easy for you as you say they do it all the time.



Remember, Leavers have consistently predicted the EU would fold at various points since the referendum and have consistently being wrong.  We are still waiting for the German car makers and French wine producers to come to our rescue.  



As for the G7 etc meetings, the EU didn't have any say in those meetings - it is merely present as an observer.

[BeElBeeBub]

My apologies beely i thought you were intent on continuing with hereditary lords and bishops.

Not at all

You mean the english parliament surely    as if we get our way , scotland will be long gone.



If that does happen , i think 450 is far too many for a country the size of england. Surely you would only need 100?



(same for the commons , surely 650 mps for england is a joke when a nation the size of the USA (the whole of britain could fit in the state of texas , california alone has a bigger economy than the uk and a population of 40 million to englands 55 million) has from memory 500 senators?

Scotland may or may not have gone by the time this rolls around (a separate discussion) I plucked 450 out of the air simply because it's a number divisible by 3 (for the 3 terms each MUH/Lord would serve)



I am open to the argument we have too many MPs/MUHs.  In particular the current Lords system has a more or less unlimited number



However as a counterpoint I would raise.



For MPs:



In a constituency MP system your number of MPs is directly related to the population and whatever MP/constituents ratio you deem appropriate.  It's currently around 100k per MP.  If we doubled that we could halve the number of MPs but then the nominal workload would increase.  As it goes up the link between MP and the issues in their constituency starts to become more an more general.  



You can argue if that is a good or bad thing,



For MUHs:



Part of the role would be to have a wide breadth of knowledge and experience.  The Upper House would specifically strive to not be political.



With a largish number of MUHs there coudl be a number of "domain" experts for any given issue.  Say it was something to do with genetic engineering licencing.  Dig up the 2 or 3 MUHs who were experts in that to sit on the committee.  Something about sports - dig up the ex-sprtsmen and football managers. International banking - some ex-CEOs and so on.



If you had (say) 100 MUHs (as the US does senators) there is almost no way a significant portion could be expert on any given issue.



Finally, what is the actual objection to having lots of MPs/MUHs?  - A genuine question, not being sarky.

[johnofgwent]

At the risk of detailing the thread....



I think this might be where Leavers may have a misapprehension.



It is absolutely true that the EU is extremely flexible and capable of fudging things at the very last minute......in *internal* negotiations.



All those 10pm, 2hrs before the deadline, summits between leaders before some sort of compromise agreement is reached at the last moment happened *between member states*.



When it comes to negotiations between the EU and 3rd parties, as the UK will be, the EU has a track record of sticking to it's negotiating mandate.



On a practical level the EU cannot make last minute concessions because those would require the prior agreement of the council (and potentially. The EP and national parliaments).

Well, I could not disagree more. All those last minute concessions at meetings had to.go back to be finally ratified, and since when did the EU have any power over forcing the G7/G8/G20/Gee who gives a F@@@ how many meetings...

[Thomas]

MPs and "Lords" are a vital part of the governance of this country, we really should pay well.

please dont use the word "lords" beelbeeb . It undermines your argument and gives a false impression.



How about MUH (members of the upper house?)



As for paying politicians well , i completely agree. You need to drastically cut the amount of bloated politicians in both houses , and i mean big time , and massively up their pay and perks to attract the best.



Also ,  experience in industry and life in general , and a complete banning of career politicans is a must.

[Thomas]

I think there is a misunderstanding.



I 100% agree with you about getting rid of hereditary and religious lords.



I used the term "Lord" as shorthand for "member of the upper house".  Whether they are called "lords" or "senators" or whatever is not really the point.



Likewise I am using "house of lords" as shorthand for "upper house" or "second chamber".

So to recast



The second chamber of the UK Parliament would consist of 450 members....

My apologies beely i thought you were intent on continuing with hereditary lords and bishops.

The second chamber of the UK Parliament would consist of 450 members....

You mean the english parliament surely    as if we get our way , scotland will be long gone.



If that does happen , i think 450 is far too many for a country the size of england. Surely you would only need 100?



(same for the commons , surely 650 mps for england is a joke when a nation the size of the USA (the whole of britain could fit in the state of texas , california alone has a bigger economy than the uk and a population of 40 million to englands 55 million) has from memory 500 senators?

[BeElBeeBub]

They should all have to retire at age 66 on a pension of £160 a week, JoG. They will have sucked enough from the taxpayer before they retire to build up their own nest-egg.

Something has to be done, and I wouldn't rule out abolition in favour of commons parliamentary rule.

Part of the job of the proposed upper chamber would be to act as a pool of experience.



It would also be advantageous if the members were free (as possible) from financial pressures.  To that end I would expect being a member to to be their main occupation.



As they should be towards the end of their careers in whatever field they are expert in and expected to serve 15 years that would put the usual entry age in the 50's if not later.  So capping the age at 66 would be an issue.



Likewise if someone (say an eminent lawyer or scientist) is to effectively curtail the last few years of their profession (which may be very lucrative) the renumeration should be reasonable.



MPs and "Lords" are a vital part of the governance of this country, we really should pay well.



In the grand scheme of things the cost is insignificant.



Even if we salaried every MP (650) and lord (450) at £500k a year it would be just 3hrs of government expenditure.



The absolute worst option is to have people with legislitive responsibility being poorly paid, this forcing them to look tonight sources of income....

[BeElBeeBub]

No because while i am open to the idea of a second revising chamber , i will not accept a chamber being stuffed in any way ( election / proposing) of hereditary lords or religous leaders as you say in the quote below....

I think there is a misunderstanding.



I 100% agree with you about getting rid of hereditary and religious lords.



I used the term "Lord" as shorthand for "member of the upper house".  Whether they are called "lords" or "senators" or whatever is not really the point.



Likewise I am using "house of lords" as shorthand for "upper house" or "second chamber".

So to recast



The second chamber of the UK Parliament would consist of 450 members....

[BeElBeeBub]

I fully expected that the EU would bombast and strut around like a bunch of pompous arrogant pricks and finally at the eleventh hour cobble some sort of agreement together because in forty two years of watching the EEC and now the EU at work in all their summits on all sorts of things that's what they DO.

At the risk of detailing the thread....



I think this might be where Leavers may have a misapprehension.



It is absolutely true that the EU is extremely flexible and capable of fudging things at the very last minute......in *internal* negotiations.



All those 10pm, 2hrs before the deadline, summits between leaders before some sort of compromise agreement is reached at the last moment happened *between member states*.



When it comes to negotiations between the EU and 3rd parties, as the UK will be, the EU has a track record of sticking to it's negotiating mandate.



On a practical level the EU cannot make last minute concessions because those would require the prior agreement of the council (and potentially. The EP and national parliaments).

[cromwell]

Mod notice

One post on Brino moved to off topic thread,please open a brino thread thanks

[Thomas]

OK a couple of different things in there.



The whole "leave" business was right from the start sold to leavers as a period of negotiation while we were inside the EU as members, a date after which we left, which would be with a deal if we got one, with "transition arrangements" thereafter

Well john what everyone was told from the start was once may triggered the article 50 process , a process if you remember the uk was legally bound by  , we would go through a negotiation period of up to two years from that date , and at the end of that process , eu treaties would no longer apply.



 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/article-50-options">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... 50-options">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/article-50-options



The article 50 period ended march last year as you know .



Now while i fully concede there is a case to be made  remainers in parliament forced the uk along with the eu to extend that period three times , the last of those extensions formally end januray 31st. From that date on , boris johnson and his party own everything that follows.



The treaties the uk were obliged to honour should theoretically cease to apply on 31st january this year , but that is emphatically NOT the case hence my arguing on 31/01/2020 the uk will have BRINO.



This article explains it rather well....

 By contemplating an extension of the deadline, the UK would become vulnerable to filibustering by endlessly dragged-out negotiations. During an extension, the UK would have to continue paying into the EU budget and be subject to the restrictions on its freedom of action imposed by EU laws. The whole point of Brexit is to escape those restraints.



Regrettably, it seems that the UK government is intent on achieving many of the damaging consequences an extension of the Article 50 period by asking for a "transition" period under which the UK would still be liable to make payments into the EU budget as if it were still a Member State, and still be liable to comply with EU laws and be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.  The difference between that and an extension of membership under Article 50 is that the UK will no longer have any vote on the EU laws which affect us or any representatives in the EU institutions.



This "transition" period would last (assuming it becomes formally agreed as part of a Withdrawal Treaty) until 31 December 2020.

[/b]



https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/article-50-and-how-brexit-works/brexit-the-article-50-process">https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-le ... 50-process">https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/article-50-and-how-brexit-works/brexit-the-article-50-process



As the article makes clear , the uk is now vulnerable to endlessly dragged out negotiations by the conservatives and the eu , and during the negotiations , you will be told you need an extension/transition period during which eu treaties will still apply contrary to what everyone was told.



Hence BRINO.

it's EU bullshit foisted upon us as a part of their demands while they scrabble round like headless chickens trying to find a way to replace the money we won't be giving them before it actually stops

Dont really agree john. While there is an argument that up till 31/01/2020 you are legally obliged to accept the eu bullshit as you put it as part of the article 50 period , you are under no obligations except those you agree to afterwards.



It takes two to tango john , and the eu will look after thier own interests as you would expect ,whereas the tories wont be looking after brexiters.

I have lost the will to bother working out what is supposedly going on with the island of ireland north and south. I expect it will be seen as a victory by the IRA.

Go over onto some of the the irish forums john , unionists are either in meltdown or resigned to their fate , with the alround cry of being sold down the river ringing out by both unionists and nationalists.



Trust boris johnson and his party at your peril.

[johnofgwent]

I know you have no love for the tories , and at least i get an honest answer from you unlike the tory lickspittles on this forum.



John , boris johnson is in power right now , the may government and the likes of grieve clarke etc are all gone , and right here and now johnson is drawing a border down the irish sea and signing away part of the sovereign british territory?



Doesnt that bother you as a confirmed unionist?







John you arent forced to endure it. Thats tory propaganda , the article 50 period is over , and johnson has signed you up for another twelve months of taking rules paying eu bills  , FOM and ECJ jurisdiction.



I think as this year goes on the tory propaganda machine will start to have a massive job trying to sell these excuses to the public over brexit.

OK a couple of different things in there.



The whole "leave" business was right from the start sold to leavers as a period of negotiation while we were inside the EU as members, a date after which we left, which would be with a deal if we got one, with "transition arrangements" thereafter. and a clean break if we did not. So you can't really say enduring transition arrangements is TORY bullshit, it's EU bullshit foisted upon us as a part of their demands while they scrabble round like headless chickens trying to find a way to replace the money we won't be giving them before it actually stops.



I freely admit I had hoped the abysmal failure of the "pro leave" government members to actually get on and do a proper negotiation, coming up instead with may's cobbled together bullshit, would actually give us the hard exit i had always hoped for.



I never understood who the backstop was supposed to be for. I wrote to my MEP's MP and AM's asking this question and not one of the bastards even replied.



I have lost the will to bother working out what is supposedly going on with the island of ireland north and south. I expect it will be seen as a victory by the IRA.

[Thomas]

I really have no idea, Thomas. As I said elsewhere while May was mismanaging the omnishambles, I fully expected that the EU would bombast and strut around like a bunch of pompous arrogant pricks and finally at the eleventh hour cobble some sort of agreement together because in forty two years of watching the EEC and now the EU at work in all their summits on all sorts of things that's what they DO.

I know you have no love for the tories , and at least i get an honest answer from you unlike the tory lickspittles on this forum.



John , boris johnson is in power right now , the may government and the likes of grieve clarke etc are all gone , and right here and now johnson is drawing a border down the irish sea and signing away part of the sovereign british territory?



Doesnt that bother you as a confirmed unionist?

You mockingly use the term BRINO because of the transitional period we are now forced to endure.

John you arent forced to endure it. Thats tory propaganda , the article 50 period is over , and johnson has signed you up for another twelve months of taking rules paying eu bills  , FOM and ECJ jurisdiction.



I think as this year goes on the tory propaganda machine will start to have a massive job trying to sell these excuses to the public over brexit.

I make no secret of the fact I voted to leave fully expecting Cameron's worst case scenario of an exit from the single market and the customs union because nothing ekse would make sense to be the defacto position.

Fully agree. Even tony blair admitted leaving the CU was indeed the only positive reason he could see to brexit in the first place.

I had (most naively I admit) secretly hoped the EU pomposity would end with ano deal brexit because I genuinely feel that would be the best thing to happen, a complete ejection with no strings and no continued payoffs and now if you want to start talking then effing start and no more of the strutting bullshit.

ok but neither the eu nor remainers can take any blame for what happens from now on in.....the tories own what happens now completely.

Right now, I have no bloody idea what happens in twenty odd days time.

fully agree john , and once again at least you are being honest .

But if anyone starts leaning towards Corbyn's insane amendments they need to be taken out and shot.

The dead man is still shuffling along , best ignored to be honest . No one will take him serious and he is merely there as a mater of form.

[johnofgwent]

talking of which john whats your take on BRINO at the end of the month?



Barry assures me he has blind faith in the tories to take the uk out of the eu (eventually , just not soon) whats your take?



Are you happy to be a rule taker and bill payer without a say?



Or did brexit mean more to you?



Im sure we are going to have a laugh with the forum tories over the coming year about  this.

I really have no idea, Thomas. As I said elsewhere while May was mismanaging the omnishambles, I fully expected that the EU would bombast and strut around like a bunch of pompous arrogant pricks and finally at the eleventh hour cobble some sort of agreement together because in forty two years of watching the EEC and now the EU at work in all their summits on all sorts of things that's what they DO.



You mockingly use the term BRINO because of the transitional period we are now forced to endure.



I make no secret of the fact I voted to leave fully expecting Cameron's worst case scenario of an exit from the single market and the customs union because nothing ekse would make sense to be the defacto position. I had (most naively I admit) secretly hoped the EU pomposity would end with ano deal brexit because I genuinely feel that would be the best thing to happen, a complete ejection with no strings and no continued payoffs and now if you want to start talking then effing start and no more of the strutting bullshit.



Right now, I have no bloody idea what happens in twenty odd days time.



But if anyone starts leaning towards Corbyn's insane amendments they need to be taken out and shot.