General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Not going to happen. Use this line to draw in the last few far left hold outs that were on the fence for the election then quietly say:
Now is not the time. The country has bigger priorities. We don't think the electorate care about this above a properly funded #NHS. Etc etc
Politics playbook 101.
You say this but I can't see why they would need the votes. It's not like this is going to swing anything so what would be the point in declaring it only to then not do it?
It's entirely possible they might actually go through with it after all they're only getting rid of hereditary peers it's not like they're completely reworking the entire thing. The Lords will still exist.
Labour are going to win, and they'll have a large majority. But why, as a strategy for election, would you rest on your laurels especially when there's rumblings of losing votes due to their inaction on the Gaza question.
A good election tactic is to identify something that appeals to the hardcore of their voters and promise to change it. These might have potentially not voted or voted Green (or George Galloway 😩) but this way you might save their vote and win a better working majority rather than a Theresa May majority.
I don't think they'll do it because it sounds like a last minute election line precisely to appease these voters. If they had a thoroughly thought out timeline and action plan rather than just Labour will eat the rich, who's with me comrades? then fair enough, but I might have missed that.
Think about it the other way around, Tories looking to stave off election calamity and get their hardcore voter base to vote rather than not vote or vote Lib Dem (or Nigel Farrage): We will stop the boats, we will make criminals of people who don't have the means to look after themselves, we will give old people ever increasing sums of money as a thank you for their service during the decades of peace after WW2 where they gave nothing and took as much as they could amassing wealth beyond your wildest dreams. You wouldn't believe a word of that would you?
Labour could axe all hereditary peers...
...from the House of Lords
This is a pretty good april fools, NGL.
And replace it with what?
A second FPTP psuedo-democracy isn't going to help.
No, they're not even proposing to replace the House of Lords here. All they're proposing is to remove the remaining 92 unelected hereditary peers (out of around 800+ total unelected peers) who survived Blair's 1999 cull of most hereditary peers.
I never thought of it before but your comment just made me realise this would be a great backdoor way to get the PR ball rolling. Make the lord's elected with a full PR system. Maybe with half the seats going up for election every 7 years or something.
The issue with this is the same as with the mayoral system. The next tine the Tories get a turn, they replace it with FPTP and claim it's "more democratic".
I which case it should become the primary chamber. Having the second chamber be more representative of public opinion would be yet another way the commons would repress the views of the people.
It's worse than that - they rowed back on fully reforming the House of Lords, this is just binning hereditary peers, all the others get to stay. So it's the same mess, just with slightly fewer leeches hang off it.
They have the opportunity to make a sweeping change and show people there's a different way of doing democracy. They aren't taking that though.
Reality suggests once in power, sod all will happen, as usual.
It's a start but I won't be happy with anything less than sortition - a true upper house of our peers.
I'd like for it to be people with previous careers as well though, not career politicians. Which is what it would end up being if open to anyone standing.
That's pretty much what it is - you can think of it like political jury service. It would be a cross-section of the population vetting laws with an eye on how they impact the lives of ordinary people. So you might get an NHS doctor pitching in on medical reforms but you also get a lot of people who use the NHS and are incentivised to improve it because it is life or death to them, rather than a politician who might be more interested in seeing what can be flogged off to their mates in return for a cushy non-executive position.
We largely only get a say in the laws during elections when we have to decide who we trust yo make the changes we want. With sortition in the upper house we get instant and fine-grained oversight of each individual law.
Ah I'm so sorry - thanks for the TIL.
Yes, I very much agree with your idea then.
Edit: I also like what @[email protected] suggested of retaining 1/3 of seats for cross-party selected experts. Especially with sortition, it's important to have the expertise to inform discussion.
Sortition means you dont stand to get elected, instead you get randomly selected to serve, its how jury service works. That said I'd prefer 2/3rds sortition 1/3 appointed cross-bench experts, they are the only good thing about the current lords and it would be a shame to lose them.