UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[CumbrianLefty]

Thankfully there's absolutely no evidence of Starmer promising something only to reneg on it as soon as he's been elected.

Well you can always take that attitude, and indeed remain totally miserable as long as someone from your faction isn't leading the party. Alternatively, you can see this as a welcome "win" for the left, and now try to ensure that the next Labour government actually delivers on it.

[Torrain]

For context - here’s a first-hand account of how the last serious Lords reform turned out, during the first Blair term.

Given every reform requires the turkeys to vote for Christmas at each reading of each bill, you can see how much political capital wholesale abolition could drain. Hard to see the Salisbury Convention being entirely honoured in this case…

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basically if you want even moderate reform then you need to start by pledging very radical changes otherwise it all gets lost.

[Torrain]

Basically if you want even moderate reform then you need to start by pledging very radical changes otherwise it all gets lost.

Ah. The Overton Window giveth, and the Overton Window taketh away...

[MABA 2020]

Sort of the aim high in case you fall short approach.

I'm glad they're going to do something about the House of Lords though

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I've personally never understood the point of bicameral systems to start with, either one house is much more powerful and the one that is actually in charge, as is the case in Britain, or you get endless gridlock when the two houses are out of sync with each-other.

My country abolishing it's bicameral parliament and moving over to a unicameral system hasn't really had any draw-backs at all. The upper house didn't contribute anything of value here when it existed and people mostly ignored it most of the time. In most places an additional chamber/house is like parliament's equivalent to having an appendix. You don't need them and the only time you hear about them is when they're causing trouble.

Either way, if insist that a parliament MUST have two houses, (which the people in charge usually do since they're either politicians who wants more job opportunities for politicians, or political nerds who love making things much more complicated then they have to be so they can show off their trivia skills), the system with an appointed second house where the members are free to scrutinize legislation with-out having to appeal to the populist rhetoric of the day, but where they're not able to block the democratic will entirely is rather sensible.

A fully elected HoL on the other hand seems utterly pointless. If you want to fix the problems with it, cap the number of Lords to a sensible figure, remove the last hereditary peers and bishops, make them all be appointed by a non-partisan committee and remove the PM and cabinet from the decision process.

 

[Lord Halifax]

I've personally never understood the point of bicameral systems to start with, either one house is much more powerful and the one that is actually in charge, as is the case in Britain, or you get endless gridlock when the two houses are out of sync with each-other.

In a federation or confederation one represents the people and the other the states/provinces/whatever, but I agree it's pointless in a unitary state.

[All Along The Watchtower]

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1594008567446544384?s=20&t=aepIeh3F...


"how could that nasty man Boris Johnson and the Tory scum have won so massively in 2019, must've been a conspiracy against us"

[Silent Hunter]

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1594008567446544384?s=20&t=aepIeh3F...


"how could that nasty man Boris Johnson and the Tory scum have won so massively in 2019, must've been a conspiracy against us"

It was a pretty open conspiracy - it was clear they didn't want Corbyn in power and effectively campaigned for that. Many Labour voters were probably lukewarm about the whole idea too.

[gerritcole]

Corbyn had labour on the right path, apologize for the 97 01 05 wins which are tainted by Blair’s Iraqi quagmire, this would have solidified young bipoc and terf support which along with nationalizing the banks would have flipped the Northumbria seats that resent London

[Wiswylfen]

Corbyn had labour on the right path, apologize for the 97 01 05 wins which are tainted by Blair’s Iraqi quagmire, this would have solidified young bipoc and terf support which along with nationalizing the banks would have flipped the Northumbria seats that resent London

Bebbanburh Éastnorþ and Weormúþe Munuca?

[WD]

https://twitter.com/jamesrwithers/status/1594040847762325511?s=46&t=e5eErhyh...

[Joe Republic]

^ What ever happened to rejoining EFTA?

[Frodo]

Are they actually being serious this time?

https://twitter.com/HuffPostUKPol/status/1594292402935984128
From the link to the Observer article:

Keir Starmer will abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a new elected chamber as part of plans to “restore trust in politics”, the Observer understands.

In a sweeping constitutional overhaul, the Labour leader has told the party’s peers that he wants to strip politicians of the power to make appointments to the Lords as part of the first-term programme of a Labour government. Starmer said that the public’s faith in the political system had been undermined by successive Tory leaders handing peerages to “lackeys and donors”.

It is understood that Labour will hold a consultation on the composition and size of a new chamber as well as immediate reforms to the current appointments process. Final proposals will be included in the party’s next election manifesto.

Starmer had pledged to abolish the Lords as part of his leadership campaign, and to “replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations”. Doubts were later raised about his commitment to the promise after he abandoned other elements of his leadership pitch. However, it is understood he now sees reform of the Lords as necessary to demonstrate that Labour would represent a decisive change from the Conservatives.

Starmer’s comments suggest that he is backing many of the ideas drawn up by Brown’s review. It is understood to support replacing the Lords with an upper house of nations and regions. It is also said to have backed a new round of devolution, including handing new economic and taxation powers to new independent councils of the nations and for England. Brown wants local mayors to have more power over education, transport and research funding.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/jamesrwithers/status/1594040847762325511?s=46&t=e5eErhyh...

Hahahahahahahahahaha omg

This is objectively good policy for the UK but I can't believe Rishi thinks he'll get away with it given how weak his leadership already is.

[WD]

https://twitter.com/jamesrwithers/status/1594040847762325511?s=46&t=e5eErhyh...

Hahahahahahahahahaha omg

This is objectively good policy for the UK but I can't believe Rishi thinks he'll get away with it given how weak his leadership already is.

It’s undoubtedly a great deal and will tear apart the Tories. A win-win for the UK.

[Torrain]

As expected in the aftermath of the Swiss-style deal discussion, the ERG are having a normal one:
https://mobile.twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1594612369241640960

[Torrain]

The other bit of interesting news this morning is that Sunak’s people are briefing that he’s not going to support the Johnson-Truss plan on deferred peerages (to prevent 4 embarrassing by-elections).

The original plan was to ask KCIII to allow it - but Sunak seems to have decided that a constitutional showdown with a monarch is a bad idea. He’s instead planning to block the peerages - which is basically unprecedented in its own right (although breaking the precedent of permitting the last resignation honours list to be approved, no matter how seemingly corrupt is probably not the worst thing in the world - and may speed up the death of the resignation honours list as a whole, which would be no bad thing…)

Going to be interesting to see what impact that has - if true, he’s killed the gravy train for two of his own cabinet ministers, and Nadine Dorries (who’ll probably be angrily tweeting about this until the end of time).

[EastAnglianLefty]

Thankfully there's absolutely no evidence of Starmer promising something only to reneg on it as soon as he's been elected.

Well you can always take that attitude, and indeed remain totally miserable as long as someone from your faction isn't leading the party. Alternatively, you can see this as a welcome "win" for the left, and now try to ensure that the next Labour government actually delivers on it.

I'm also not sure why Starmer would break a promise to get rid of a couple of hundred Tory peers appointed either for being schoolfriends of David Cameron or having given the party a sizeable donation.

[CumbrianLefty]

The other bit of interesting news this morning is that Sunak’s people are briefing that he’s not going to support the Johnson-Truss plan on deferred peerages (to prevent 4 embarrassing by-elections).

The original plan was to ask KCIII to allow it - but Sunak seems to have decided that a constitutional showdown with a monarch is a bad idea. He’s instead planning to block the peerages - which is basically unprecedented in its own right (although breaking the precedent of permitting the last resignation honours list to be approved, no matter how seemingly corrupt is probably not the worst thing in the world - and may speed up the death of the resignation honours list as a whole, which would be no bad thing…)

Going to be interesting to see what impact that has - if true, he’s killed the gravy train for two of his own cabinet ministers, and Nadine Dorries (who’ll probably be angrily tweeting about this until the end of time).

Even if the above can be pulled off, there would surely be nothing to prevent at least some of the MPs in question resigning their seats out of spite in those circumstances.

[Torrain]

The other bit of interesting news this morning is that Sunak’s people are briefing that he’s not going to support the Johnson-Truss plan on deferred peerages (to prevent 4 embarrassing by-elections).

The original plan was to ask KCIII to allow it - but Sunak seems to have decided that a constitutional showdown with a monarch is a bad idea. He’s instead planning to block the peerages - which is basically unprecedented in its own right (although breaking the precedent of permitting the last resignation honours list to be approved, no matter how seemingly corrupt is probably not the worst thing in the world - and may speed up the death of the resignation honours list as a whole, which would be no bad thing…)

Going to be interesting to see what impact that has - if true, he’s killed the gravy train for two of his own cabinet ministers, and Nadine Dorries (who’ll probably be angrily tweeting about this until the end of time).

Even if the above can be pulled off, there would surely be nothing to prevent at least some of the MPs in question resigning their seats out of spite in those circumstances.

Alok Sharma and Alister Jack would literally be gifting seats to the opposition if they stood down - and even Adams and Dorries could prompt an upset in the right conditions. Going to be pretty chaotic if they take that step...

The party deserves it though, for getting into bed with Johnson, who was clearly going to use the powers of the office to try stuff like this with the PM's appointment powers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This particular affair has also further undermined the credibility of the House of Lords in its current form as Johnson in his resignation honours list has brazenly breached the usual conventions.

[JimJamUK]

If you’re going to do Lords reform then either simply tinker about with it a bit eg; remove hereditary peers, switch to a panel of experts style house, or just abolish it completely. The whole ‘house of regions’ style idea sounds stupid, either it duplicates the geographic representation role of currently elected MPs, or it goes down a US Senate style route of a powerful 2nd chamber that can block things supported by a majority of more democratically elected MPs (and who looks at the US Senate and thinks “let’s do that”?).

[EastAnglianLefty]

I don't know why you'd reach for the Senate (created as a co-equal legislative body) for a comparison when the Bundesrat is right there.

[CumbrianLefty]

As with so much else, there are other foreign countries in the world than the US