Mr. Sam said:I don't understand the sudden resurgence of this "back room" phrase. Many major political decision(s) have been taken before they reach Parliament, whether it be within one party or two.
Mr. Sam said:I personally don't like the idea of the (poorly) elected House of Commons being scrutinised by an unelected body. It shouldn't have to be kept that way just to compensate for the shitty way seats are dispersed, allowing powerful governments that can easily stay unchecked in the Commons - barring massive backseat rebellions.
Mr. Sam said:I personally don't like the idea of the (poorly) elected House of Commons being scrutinised by an unelected body. It shouldn't have to be kept that way just to compensate for the shitty way seats are dispersed, allowing powerful governments that can easily stay unchecked in the Commons - barring massive backseat rebellions.
PJV3 said:I agree with you, i just wish they would think these things through.
Creating a majority in favour of the current goverment while waiting for a review to decide
what to do with Lords is back to front.If they dont come to an agreement on reform, what is to stop the next government appointing Lords to create a majority.
Have the Conservatives not also been going on about scrapping ID cards for years?Shanadeus said:
Found this nifty pic just now, will be interesting to see how much the LibCon coalition will cut.
Dark Machine said:The Lords is an absolute joke of an establishment and anyone who says it isn't is a damn liar or a joke themselves. Jsut like those campaigning against a fairer voting system. Seriously, we have one of the oldest existing political systems in the world, and we still have half of it completely undemocratic and the other half only a bit democratic because of the shanked vote system. The whole reason for this deal is because the Lords is full of Lab supporters from the last government (inc. cash for honours don't forget) and they can't be removed, I mean seriously, if this keeps up every time the government changes they'll run of room and have them sitting in the aisles.
The Lords should be abolished and reformed as a democratically elected house like nearly every other democracy around. I don't care how great people think they are, I never got the choice on who was there, so they have no right to affect decisions which intrude on my life.
And while we're at it, the Privy Council should go as well, it may not take big decisions, but tell that to those islanders in the Indian Ocean who were evicted by the Privy Council's call on the quiet for a US airbase. Jack Straw deserves lynching for that and other stuff he's done too, he's one of the worst of all New Labour alongside Blair post 9/11.
More unelected toffs in positions they get from doing f**k all, who you know and all that. Get OUT of my legislative system of government NOW.
Dark Machine said:The Lords is an absolute joke of an establishment and anyone who says it isn't is a damn liar or a joke themselves.
sohois said:Didm't Blair introduce some law that allowed the commons to force through whatever they wanted, even if the Lords objected? I was under the impression that the Lords power to limit the House of commons legislature drive was increasingly irrelevant in recent years.
Zenith said:It was the Lords that stopped that horrendous "hold people for 42 days with no charge" bill. The elected MPs bent over backwards to pass it again and again.
I remember a huge thing about this kicking off when Fox Hunting was banned. Didn't the first Parliament Act mean the Lords could only reject a piece of legislation 3 times or something, then later that was used to push through another Parliament reducing it to two times?And some people think this shouldn't be allowed and Fox Hunting shouldn't be banned?phisheep said:That's well before Blair - The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1947, kicked off when the Lords threatened to vote down the Liberal budget.
They've only been used four times, it is a pretty drastic measure. Last time was for the foxhunting bill, which one would scarcely have thought to be of enormous constitutional sugnificance.
... and the infamous 'Abolition of Parliament Bill' in 2005/6, which was probably the most antidemocratic bill placed before Parliament in 400 years - and under a Labour Government too, god help us.
Dark Machine said:The Lords is an absolute joke of an establishment and anyone who says it isn't is a damn liar or a joke themselves. Just like those campaigning against a fairer voting system. Seriously, we have one of the oldest existing political systems in the world, and we still have half of it completely undemocratic and the other half only a bit democratic because of the shanked vote system. The whole reason for this deal is because the Lords is full of Lab supporters from the last government (inc. cash for honours don't forget) and they can't be removed, I mean seriously, if this keeps up every time the government changes they'll run out of room and have them sitting in the aisles.
The Lords should be abolished and reformed as a democratically elected house like nearly every other democracy around. I don't care how great people think they are, I never got the choice on who was there, so they have no right to affect decisions which intrude on my life.
And while we're at it, the Privy Council should go as well, it may not take big decisions, but tell that to those islanders in the Indian Ocean who were evicted by the Privy Council's call on the quiet for a US airbase. Jack Straw deserves lynching for that and other stuff he's done too, he's one of the worst of all New Labour alongside Blair post 9/11.
More unelected toffs in positions they get from doing f**k all, who you know and all that. Get OUT of my legislative system of government NOW.
RedShift said:I remember a huge thing about this kicking off when Fox Hunting was banned. Didn't the first Parliament Act mean the Lords could only reject a piece of legislation 3 times or something, then later that was used to push through another Parliament reducing it to two times?And some people think this shouldn't be allowed and Fox Hunting shouldn't be banned?
Mr. Sam said:What will be bizarre is if we get a proportional, representative House of Lords elected by a proper system and the House of Commons, elected by FPTP or AV, retains ultimate power. That would be/will be messed up.
Mr. Sam said:What will be bizarre is if we get a proportional, representative House of Lords elected by a proper system and the House of Commons, elected by FPTP or AV, retains ultimate power. That would be/will be messed up.
FabCam said:Some fantastic news today. BA won an injunction to stop Unite's ridiculous and illegal strike. They're spewing the same bullshit as all unions do about "democracy no longer exists in this country" but in the end their failure of a legal department fucked up yet again. It also resembles the company, jurors, judge, public and press putting up the middle finger to a union that has far too much power.
killer_clank said:Thank fuck. I'm all for trade unions but these cunts took it WAY too far.
phisheep said:I think maybe a bit overboard on the Lords. Sure, they dont have any direct democratic legitimacy, but for all that they do seem to work extremely well as a revising and scrutinising chamber.
phisheep said:Youre dead wrong about the Privy Council though. We did vote for them since (although in theory it is a separate institution) in practice it is just the government of the day acting outside Parliamentary process, and the orders that the Council makes are prepared by Ministers (including in the case you mentioned). It has its uses when things need to be done quickly in national emergencies, but can be too easily used to bypass Parliament, so probably its powers ought to be curtailed a bit. Thats tough to do though since all the authority of the Cabinet derives from the Privy Council, of which the Cabinet is a mere subcommittee.
jas0nuk said:There is, however, the Salisbury convention, which is that the Lords will not reject any policies which were in the manifesto of the government of the day, given that the governing parties campaigned and were elected on those manifestos. Until the government starts introducing legislation which was not in the manifesto they will not need to mess with the composition of the Lords.
phisheep said:That'll be interesting in this scenario, where the government didn't actually have a manifesto but was negotiated into existence afterwards.
Dear new Chief,
Terribly sorry to inform you of this, but there's no money left.
Good Luck,
Liam Byrne,
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Maybe they could exploit a loophole there and cherry pick any Tory or Lib Dems election promises they want through.phisheep said:That'll be interesting in this scenario, where the government didn't actually have a manifesto but was negotiated into existence afterwards.
Mr. Sam said:Maybe they could exploit a loophole there and cherry pick any Tory or Lib Dems election promises they want through.
I'd lol if it wasn't so true, and if it wasn't our goddamn money.Dark Machine said:I lol'd.
THE government last night accused Labour of pursuing a scorched earth policy before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments.
The newly discovered Whitehall black holes could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear.
The black holes that ministers have already unearthed include:
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has astonished and baffled ministers.
- £420m of school building contracts, many targeting Labour marginals, signed off by Ed Balls, the former schools secretary, weeks before the general election was called.
- The troubled £1.2 billion e-borders IT project for the immigration service, which, sources say, is running even later and more over-budget than Labour ministers had admitted.
- A crisis in the student loans company where extra cash may be needed to prevent a repeat of last years failure to process tens of thousands of claims on time.
- The multi-billion-pound cost of decommissioning old nuclear power plants, which ministers claim has not been properly accounted for in Whitehall budgets.
- A £600m computer contract for the new personal pensions account scheme rushed through by Labour this year, which will still cost at least £25m even if it is cancelled.
jas0nuk said:I'd lol if it wasn't so true, and if it wasn't our goddamn money.
In fact it's an understatement, there isn't just no money left, there's a NEGATIVE amount of money left. We need £90 billion cuts over this Parliament to start getting back to a position where we can reduce our national debt.
What Labour have done is disgraceful, especially in the last few weeks when they knew the game was up:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127819.ece
Funny, noted Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, that as Philip Hammond made his debut as transport secretary on the Today programme yesterday, he seemed much more comfortable answering questions on the economy. Maybe, as Nick pointed out, this had something to do with the fact that Hammond has no obvious expertise on transport. His shadow responsibilities spanned health, trade and industry and the Treasury. And could it be just a coincidence, asks reader Tim Gresty, that his near neighbour (in the parliamentary sense), is the similarly named Stephen Hammond, Conservative MP for Wimbledon, who was a respected, knowledgeable and vocal shadow minister for transport until the election. Did Dave get his wires crossed? Well, there was a lot going on.
Empty said:my life was way more fun when i thought there was some chance of that being true. curse you jas0nuk with your spoilsporty facts and solid reasoning. curse you.
:lol Tory logic and reasoning wins all!Empty said:my life was way more fun when i thought there was some chance of that being true. curse you jas0nuk with your spoilsporty facts and solid reasoning. curse you.
jas0nuk said::lol Tory logic and reasoning wins all!
A summary of what Nick Clegg announced this morning when talking about the Great Repeal Act (aka the bonfire of New Labour's totalitarian regime) courtesy of ConHome:
- ID cards out
- Biometric passports stopped
- No e-mail control without specific need
- CCTV regulated
- Innocent people off the DNA database
- No ContactPoint
- No fingerprints taken from children by schools without parental consent
- Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest
- Review the thousands of criminal offences created by New Labour which made criminals of ordinary people
- Review of the anti-terror powers. Back to great British freedoms
- Defend trial by jury
Excellent stuff.
jas0nuk said::lol Tory logic and reasoning wins all!
A summary of what Nick Clegg announced this morning when talking about the Great Repeal Act (aka the bonfire of New Labour's totalitarian regime) courtesy of ConHome:
- ID cards out
- Biometric passports stopped
- No e-mail control without specific need
- CCTV regulated
- Innocent people off the DNA database
- No ContactPoint
- No fingerprints taken from children by schools without parental consent
- Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest
- Review the thousands of criminal offences created by New Labour which made criminals of ordinary people
- Review of the anti-terror powers. Back to great British freedoms
- Defend trial by jury
Excellent stuff.
avaya said:naked shorts on vanilla as well as OTC
Traditional short selling requires you to borrow a share from a lender -> sell that share at the current market price (which you bet on dropping) -> buy share back at new cheaper market price -> give lender back share, pay them a fee and pocket the rest. Naked shorting is when you sell a share you don't actually have (at current market price), but because there is a period of time between the sale and when you actually have to deliver their share there's time for you to wait for the price to drop below the price you 'sold' it for, buy it, then deliver it and pocket the difference. If the shorter can't get it in time (or as some people would play it, don't try to deliver on time) it's called a "fail to deliver". You can tip the balance of failures (creating an impression of tight stock) to sales that go through (creating the impression of ample supply even though the stock you're selling doesn't "exist" yet, driving the price down) without that much effort and affect its price. What we're looking at is essentially market manipulation that profits when companies go down.Zenith said:What does that even mean?
jas0nuk said:A summary of what Nick Clegg announced this morning when talking about the Great Repeal Act (aka the bonfire of New Labour's totalitarian regime) courtesy of ConHome
I love this new government.jas0nuk said:David Cameron has this afternoon tried to further marginalise the right-wing elements of his party by trying to dilute the voting power of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers by allowing it to include the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party rather than just Tory MPs who don't have government jobs and want to hold the government to ransom.
This could be his Clause 4 moment.