Ed Milliband has to go....

[kaosmark2]

Many people traditionally always vote for the same party - Labour or Conservative. Many seats are either rock solid Tory or Labour. So the outcome of elections is determined by the small handful of 'floating voters' in marginal seats. If we could just identify that handful, probably numbering a few thousand, and ask them to decide we could save ourselves all the cost of elections and still get the same result. (Takes tongue out of cheek, ducks and waits for flack).

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Some much bollocks I can't even be arsed tackling it...

If you don't think Brown did too badly there is no hope for you...

[kaosmark2]

Some much bollocks I can't even be arsed tackling it...

If you don't think Brown did too badly there is no hope for you...

[Pogues Mcgogues]

For a Labour man you really have a very short term memory....

If Blair was "short term" then why do we have a Tory government doing a lot of what Blair started.... Or has that totally sailed you by as well...

[kaosmark2]

Do yourself a favour and try to do a little reading...

Blairs own book is a good place to start... Campbell's as well...

There was also a very good program lately done by Nick Robinson which is a worth on how Brown went fucking nuts...

The 10p tax rate cut was a fucking disaster and had nothing to do with Blair... That is a great example of Brown fucking it all up...

Blair stayed and fought the third term when he realised that Brown had no intention continuing the reform plans of New Labour...

I can't be arsed going into detail... I have a shit load of beer with my name on it...

[kaosmark2]

Blair had it right... The whole system needed reform and he brought a lot of it... And took on the party along the way...

But anyone trying to say Blair was a tory is dead wrong... Tony was about reform, enabling people to move on, but not pulling up the draw bridge behind them... A lot of the Tory stuff going on in principle is right (Academy schools for example, a lot of the cuts have to happen, welfare reform), and I agree with it, but its done with no fucking compensation whatsoever....

No Labour people don't have good memories... The whole party to a collective shit, forget all about Michael Foot and put the next big disaster in charge, Ed Milliband...

[eFestivals]

http://www.telegraph...d-Miliband.html

The guy has no consistency and really can't get his message straight...

First he is against the cuts...

Then he agrees with the cuts...

And now he wants to increase the public sector further...

FFS...

while he might be shit, his message is 100% straiught and it's your understanding of what is very simple that has failed.

[eFestivals]

Yawn....

if it's because you're asleep that you're not understanding this then that's better than I thought you were managing.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Questioning whether I want to keep my Labour party membership when I fuck off to Europe in March. I plan to be a gypsy as long as I can so I'm trying to get rid of as much direct debits as I can and that £1 a year could catch me out!

[Kyelo]

I am one of these independent, floating voter types. I don't know why but I'v always had labour at the bottom of my list, just not keen on them at all...that's not to say I'd never vote for them mind you but I can't see anybody in the Labour camp including BOTH Milliband brothers as PM.

I wish they would set up a system where the Commons was elected by FPTP and the Lords PR.

[windy_miller]

There is a serious lack of talent in the Labour ranks...

You look at the Tories and they have big hitters everywhere... Ken Clarke, Ian Duncan Smith and William Hague are three massive figures who Labour have no answer for really...

Edited January 24, 2012 by windy_miller

[kaosmark2]

I am one of these independent, floating voter types. I don't know why but I'v always had labour at the bottom of my list, just not keen on them at all...that's not to say I'd never vote for them mind you but I can't see anybody in the Labour camp including BOTH Milliband brothers as PM.

I wish they would set up a system where the Commons was elected by FPTP and the Lords PR.

[eFestivals]

We really need AV+ with the AMS votes dictating the Lords.

I'm starting to go against the idea of an elected Lords. A second chamber that simply rubber-stamps what the commons does because of political patonage seems a pointless idea. It ends up as 'jobs for the boys', for the people who are unelectable.

If we're to have a second chamber then it needs to be somehow detatched from the political process of parties, so that laws get independent scrutiny. Quite how that can be done satisfactorarily tho I don't really know.

One method might be via a lucky dip of people on the electoral role, and where the make-up of that second chamber proportionally reflects the demographics of the country - so there's a range of ages, a range of levels of education, and a range of incomes ... and where it's not dominated by the wealthy who have benefitted from birth with a privileged life.

If that method were implemented, those chosen wouldn't have to take up the opportunity - meaning that those who did were likely to take the role seriously. They could be paid (say) 1.5 times the national average wage, and hold that position for 5 years before returning to 'normal society'. If people who earn more than 1.5 times the average wage excluded themselves because they didn't want to take a pay cut that's fine - after all, it need to have members who want to represent the country and not their personal bank balance.

It's no good having the country dominated by a political elite. All that brings about is laws designed to benefit that elite.

[Kyelo]

I'm starting to go against the idea of an elected Lords. A second chamber that simply rubber-stamps what the commons does because of political patonage seems a pointless idea. It ends up as 'jobs for the boys', for the people who are unelectable.

If we're to have a second chamber then it needs to be somehow detatched from the political process of parties, so that laws get independent scrutiny. Quite how that can be done satisfactorarily tho I don't really know.

One method might be via a lucky dip of people on the electoral role, and where the make-up of that second chamber proportionally reflects the demographics of the country - so there's a range of ages, a range of levels of education, and a range of incomes ... and where it's not dominated by the wealthy who have benefitted from birth with a privileged life.

If that method were implemented, those chosen wouldn't have to take up the opportunity - meaning that those who did were likely to take the role seriously. They could be paid (say) 1.5 times the national average wage, and hold that position for 5 years before returning to 'normal society'. If people who earn more than 1.5 times the average wage excluded themselves because they didn't want to take a pay cut that's fine - after all, it need to have members who want to represent the country and not their personal bank balance.

It's no good having the country dominated by a political elite. All that brings about is laws designed to benefit that elite.

[eFestivals]

That's why they should use PR for the Lords, they wouldn't be rubber stamping anything.

Really?

How do you think people would get onto the list from which people would be elected via PR? PR only works for a party system, and you only become a member of a PR chamber by sucking up to the party leadership. If you then go against that party leadership you don't get on the list at the next election.

I'm a big fan of PR for use by the Commons, but it's not the answer to every problem. A second chamber that exists to scruitinise legislation needs its members to have at least some independence from a party system, and PR gives those members the least independence of any method.

FPTP would be better for the lords if it's to be elected, because that permits an individual to stand and be elected on what they do, rather than what their party wants them to do.

The Lords is also far from being independent of the main parties

Oh, I know. In many ways, a house of Lords full of only herediary peers was better than what we have now, because they didn't depend on patronage for their position, and that gave them independence. Even life peers manage that independence to an extent, as shown just the other night.

The flip side of that was of course that they were all of a certain type, from 'the establishment' and wealthy - and so while independent they only represented one particular view from within society.

at best it can hold up legislature but nothing more.

I believe that's right, that's all it should be able to do. It shouldn't be able to over-turn permanently the will of the 'democratic chamber', as that's supposedly the will of the people.

If the commons wants legislation to be passed smoothly by the lords then it has to come up with well-written and well-thought out legislation. If they present poor legislation then the lords bounces it back to them.

A system like this encourages the formulation of good laws.

Edited January 25, 2012 by eFestivals

[Kyelo]

Really?

How do you think people would get onto the list from which people would be elected via PR? PR only works for a party system, and you only become a member of a PR chamber by sucking up to the party leadership. If you then go against that party leadership you don't get on the list at the next election.

[eFestivals]

Numbers my dear Watson, regardless of who is in the position if they do not have sufficient numbers it won't go through. In a PR elected Lords, it would be very difficult to get an overall majority without a coalition ergo no rubber stamping. Debate and compromises would be needed.

when you have a formal coalition in the commons as we do now, and that coalition is approving the legislation as it now, then it would be a very stupid member of a PR-elected Lords who would go against that.

Very few - if any at all - would be prepared to give up their job and their privileged position to go against the party who had given them that job and privileged position. They would be signing their own P45s.

And so a second chamber would just about pointless.

To me it shouldn't exist if it isn't elected.

In principle, I'm 100% with that.

But principles do not bring about good legislation. Only a system that actually works, is fit for its purpose, manages to do that.

Two elected chambers where election is almost wholely dependant on toeing the party line will never achieve the balances I believe we should have in a system of govt. Govt should be about what is good for the people, and not what is good for the party in power.

[kaosmark2]

I'm starting to go against the idea of an elected Lords. A second chamber that simply rubber-stamps what the commons does because of political patonage seems a pointless idea. It ends up as 'jobs for the boys', for the people who are unelectable.

If we're to have a second chamber then it needs to be somehow detatched from the political process of parties, so that laws get independent scrutiny. Quite how that can be done satisfactorarily tho I don't really know.

One method might be via a lucky dip of people on the electoral role, and where the make-up of that second chamber proportionally reflects the demographics of the country - so there's a range of ages, a range of levels of education, and a range of incomes ... and where it's not dominated by the wealthy who have benefitted from birth with a privileged life.

If that method were implemented, those chosen wouldn't have to take up the opportunity - meaning that those who did were likely to take the role seriously. They could be paid (say) 1.5 times the national average wage, and hold that position for 5 years before returning to 'normal society'. If people who earn more than 1.5 times the average wage excluded themselves because they didn't want to take a pay cut that's fine - after all, it need to have members who want to represent the country and not their personal bank balance.

It's no good having the country dominated by a political elite. All that brings about is laws designed to benefit that elite.

[kaosmark2]

Numbers my dear Watson, regardless of who is in the position if they do not have sufficient numbers it won't go through. In a PR elected Lords, it would be very difficult to get an overall majority without a coalition ergo no rubber stamping. Debate and compromises would be needed.

I suppose whips do nothing in our current system? Like I said as well most people vote along party lines ie they vote for what they believe that PARTY stands for, its manifesto. We would all vote independent if it was about what that individual would do.

To me it shouldn't exist if it isn't elected.

[kaosmark2]

when you have a formal coalition in the commons as we do now, and that coalition is approving the legislation as it now, then it would be a very stupid member of a PR-elected Lords who would go against that.

Very few - if any at all - would be prepared to give up their job and their privileged position to go against the party who had given them that job and privileged position. They would be signing their own P45s.

And so a second chamber would just about pointless.

In principle, I'm 100% with that.

But principles do not bring about good legislation. Only a system that actually works, is fit for its purpose, manages to do that.

Two elected chambers where election is almost wholely dependant on toeing the party line will never achieve the balances I believe we should have in a system of govt. Govt should be about what is good for the people, and not what is good for the party in power.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

In Holyrood, the MSP's make up cross party committees to scrutinise legislation. It falls prey when one party has more MSP's than another and when you have a party like the SNP - where no official whips are used but where no party MSP goes against the party, or Salmond, line - it realy destroys any kind of democracy and makes it depressing and very dictorial.

I think it's hard with the Lords. I don't like thsat it isn't democratic, but in some sense that has benefited from time to time (although very very seldom).

[abdoujaparov]

Yes

His package was agreed under the Labour administration....

[pink_triangle]

No, his contract was agreed under the previous government, not the level of any bonus (or indeed whether any bonus should be paid). As I understand it (and I havent seen the contract - nor, I suspect have you), the contract makes the RBS board responsible for deciding remuneration and says that Hester is entitled to be part of any RBS bonus scheme - but doesnt require a bonus to be paid, never mind set the amount.

[abdoujaparov]

To me the problem is not Hester being greedy and accepting the bonus, if someone wants to offer me a million pound for doing nothing, I will gladly accept. Its more the boardroom system that allows it to happen, where these people sit on various boards of directors giving each other pay rises. This system should be what the coallition are targeting not a symbolic gesture which solves little in the long term.

[kaosmark2]

While the system of reward for nothing is ridiculous, the fact that it's in shares surely gives him an incentive to try and do as well as possible? If the bank succeeds, he gains more, but so does the state. At least it's better than cash.