Constitutional reform

Lord Norton

Lord McNally, the Justice Minister, yesterday repeated the statement  – made in the Commons by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg  – on constitutional reform.  Rather like Nick Clegg, he attracted some critical questions.  This is hardly surprising given the scope of what is proposed.  There will be one Bill covering the equalisation of constituency boundaries, the reduction in the number of MPs, the provision for fixed-term Parliaments, and the holding of a referendum on the Alternative Vote. 

The provisions relating to dissolution changed from the original announcement.   The current convention governing a vote of confidence will be enshrined in statute.  If a goverment loses a vote of confidence, and a new government cannot be formed within fourteen days, there will be a dissolution; otherwise, an early dissolution is only possible if the House of Commons votes for it by a two-thirds majority.  This is in line with most other legislatures that imposes an extraordinary majority and is in place of the original proposal for a 55 per cent majority. 

Labour members appeared most exercised about the provisions relating to boundaries.  Conservative concern is directed more towards the referendum.  The timing of the referendum is an issue, as is whether or not there will be a threshhold requirement (either in terms of turnout or majority).   Given the significance and size of the Bill – the Government hope to introduce it before the summer recess – it is likely to be subject to intense parliamentary examination.  Watch this space.

26 comments for “Constitutional reform

  1. Twm O'r Nant
    06/07/2010 at 5:19 pm

    “Labour members appeared most exercised about the provisions relating to boundaries.”

    After the fuss that Lord Kinnock made in his former incarnation in the mid(?) eighties, about the corruption of the boundaries commission,causing labour losses, and the subsequent huge majorities of a man with the gift of the gab in the Labour hot seat,in 1997, you would think Labour could keep quiet.

    Hardly contentious now.

  2. Carl.H
    06/07/2010 at 5:39 pm

    So the Government would like an early election but because of the 66%, 5 year rule can`t have one.

    Would it not be easy to call a vote of confidence and whip your members to vote against you ?

    • Anglo irishman
      06/07/2010 at 11:00 pm

      The point is that a government can only call an early election with a two thirds majority, should it loose a vote of confidence it cannot call an election on its own but has to give parliament 14 days to see if it will support another government without an election.

    • Rich
      07/07/2010 at 2:56 am

      Presumably, they could, as Schroeder did in Germany in 2005. But, in the UK scheme, it would like exactly what it would be: a dishonest evasion of the two-thirds threshold. Thus, every government considering such a manoeuvre would have to think carefully about the negative consequences of such a decision before taking it.

      • Lord Norton
        07/07/2010 at 8:35 pm

        The Government would only be able to engineer an early election, getting round the two-thirds majority requirement, if it calculated (successfully) that the Opposition or some combination of opposition parties could not form a government within fourteen days.

        • Dave H
          14/07/2010 at 12:31 pm

          If you have 60% of the seats then you know pretty well that no one else can form a government, yet cannot unilaterally call election.

          The official position of the Opposition to elections is invariably “bring it on, we’re ready”, although I guess that behind the scenes they may occasionally wish to wait a while in the hope that public opinion will be in their favour. Would this translate in practice into the Opposition blocking a government in its fourth year from calling an election, or would they be actively demanding dissolution?

  3. 06/07/2010 at 6:58 pm

    The main, arguably the only, function of Government is to recognise all the Needs of every level of The People and of every individual citizen therein, and the best-possible hows for meeting each of those needs, and to legislate the meeting of those needs and costs, and of the hows thereto required.

    Levels of necessity, importance and urgency of those Peoples’ Needs should be tabulated by the Government and published.

    Most parliamentarians say that ‘we must live within our means’; yet still are legislating for major numbers of people to draw excessive numbers of human-livings from the Common Purse and thereby to be over-destroying our Lifesupports.

    It is arguable that excessive numbers of livings given and taken from the Common Purse, and thereby excessive destructivisms being wreaked upon both non-renewable and renewable Lifesupports, is living beyond the means not simply of English civilisation but of the Earth’s Lifesupport System itself.

    Arguably such over-payments are, in terms of both moral and ecolonomic* reasoning, immoral-bribes rather than performance-bonuses.

    One human-being needs one human-living.
    So, since Governments have already legislated such one human-living, at (approx) £200 per week (job and job-seeking costs excluded) thereby fixing the level of life-supportive personal-efficiency at the notional 100% index level; and thereby also revealing that any-one drawing twice that amount from the Common Purse is only 50% personally & lifesupportively efficient, every amount in excess of that per person should be continually-scrutinised in the Public domain.

    Also very arguably, public-transparency of both assets and incomes needs to be made to happen, as an entrenchment in the Constitution as well as in long-term strategic legislation.
    This is simply because tearing the heart out of Earth’s Lifesupports is not a ‘Private’ matter, any more than Auschwitz, Bankers’ obscenely-tyrannical taking of multiple-human-livings from the Common Purse, and undercover dog and cockerel fighting, are ‘private matters’ or ‘Rights’.

    The relevance of this matter of personal-life & lifesupports efficiency to Constitutional Reform is surely of primary concern; for the Constitution must keep abreast not merely of civilisation’s increasing and rapidly-varying capacities and propensities for eating-out the lifesupportive-environment (like a plague of rabbits, mice, or locusts) and be adapted and where need be radically-reformed until parliament has to legislate to keep every individual human-being within the Earth’s and our Civilisation’s means, but be inclusive of the longest-term Human-Race Need to emigrate to another lifesupportive Planet or Body possibly only a few decades hence but equally possibly a few thousands or even millions of years hence.

    The main Issue should be the Listing, Tabling, Prioritising, and regular Publication of The People’s Needs, Costs & Hows;
    with wishes, desires and dreams being separately tabled but simultaneously published.

    Constituencies will become secondary thereafter, and arguably should be re- drawn to ensure equality of number-of-constituents or of population-number, throughout Britain.

    Other legislations will be improved, such as Education, Defence, and the Illnesses Service (‘NHS’) , as well as all the other essential legislations; and a new All-Round Foundational-citizenship, Wellbeing-building and Individual human-development service could be provided for all.

    Parliaments would find things easier, more real-life oriented, and spiritually-rewarding too.

    * Ecolonomic = economic equationing with ecological-findings and fears factored-in.

  4. Carl.H
    07/07/2010 at 6:52 pm

    Has anyone costed the AV system ? I would suggest that it will take a lot longer to count votes, then the alternatives. Exactly how much is the expected administration of this likely to be? With the Government cutting budgets to a bare minimum is even a referendum the correct thing to do at this time ?

    The NHS, Education and Police budgets we are led to believe are to be cut drastically, yet are we to believe there is plenty of money to finance a referendum and the opposite stances ?

    There is a possibility that people may die due to cuts, their education be affected and crime increase. Is the Government saying that it is of the utmost importance a referendum occur only one year into a new Government ?

    • Lord Blagger
      07/07/2010 at 10:52 pm

      Abolish the Lords. That’s getting on for 700 million over the term of this parliament.

      • 08/07/2010 at 6:44 am

        Abolish the Bankers Boardrooms £Billions in self-aggrandisement ‘salaries’ and self-bribery ‘bonuses’ (plural quantities, my lord, for each individual director !): that would save £700 billion ?

        Wry regards,

  5. Gareth Howell
    07/07/2010 at 7:22 pm

    Reading through the very nearly hermetic literature of JDSM, I read the word “Constitution” and realised that, as words go, it was the only in his post relevant to the subject.

    I’m sorry about that.

    07/07/2010 at 7:35 pm

    JSDM, I have to disagree with you on the reason for Government, but your idea is the one we operate under. Originally, Government existed to Govern, hence its name. The purpose of Government has always been to establish and maintain Laws to create a functioning Society which doesn’t descend into Chaos. Social programmes to meet the needs of everyone were never part of any Government for most of Human History, but Government has alway been a part of Human History. its hard to believe that it exists to recognise the needs of the People and then to find ways to meet those needs when in fact this was never understood as the Role of Government prior to a Socialist Philosophical trend which effects even Conservatives since the 19th Century.

    Governments chief role is to maintain a Military and Police force to protect our lives and property from damage and destruction, and to settle disputes between parties, not to meet every need.

    If we get that into our heads we’d be a lot better off as Government would contract, we’d have fewer Welfare recipients on the Public Dole, and we’d have much less Governmental interference.

    • 07/07/2010 at 9:59 pm

      I should like to hear more of your facts, factors, life-experience, formal-argumentation, moral-reasoning and historical-evidences, Zarove.

      Just for now, however, let me ask you a few questions:
      Was a certain Australian statesperson Dorothy Green right or wrong when she said (‘) A prime duty of government is to make people self-governable(‘) ?

      Has not the chief role of Government, Judiciary, Monarchy, Establishment, Military, Police and other Civil Service Bodies, NGOs, Community Institutions, Churches and the whole ‘Private’ Sector themselves, as well as of the Military and Police force, been to protect and luxuriate their own lives and property rather than those of the People ?

      When you say it is part of the chief role of Government to ‘settle disputes between parties’, does that mean by Arbitration,and by the Fines and Prisons sytems ?

      Where is the Friendly Method III of win-win-win participatorily cooperative problem-solving used as the first resort, In Britain ?
      Or as a resort at any stage of a problem and during its ensuing ‘slippery slope’ deterioration through Conflict and into eventual Crisis ?

      Did you not notice that I did not say that it is, nor that it should be, the role of government ‘to meet every need’ ?
      Was I not saying that it should be the purpose (duty, chief-role) of government to identify, recognise, put into a Listed Order, not only every need of every individual citizen but to include in such published Listing the ‘how each need might best be met’, and the Cost of each such need & how ?

      Are you prepared to justify your opening interpretation of my proposal as being ‘the one we operate under’ already ?
      I would agree that more efficient government bodies, and individual subjects too, is an essential yet to be accomplished;
      and that it is well within our reach (the Peoples’and the Governments’of Today) to at least noticeably begin such a Radical Reform.

      I would agree that whilst such efficiency is being achieved there will be less and less need for Taxpayers’ money to be allocated to people falling below the essential-minimum income for one human-being to live healthily, happily and citizenlike; and that an Ecolonomic nation-state is currently possible, to begin and to pay ‘unemployed’ people according to their ‘carbon footprint’ or as I prefer this matter to be called their ‘personal-life-efficiency and Lifesupports-supportiveness’.

      I would agree that we would have less governmental interference;
      because government would be supporting every-one’s real needs, hows, and costs;

      Not, let me repeat, not ‘meeting’ everyone’s needs, Zarove.

      Best regards;
      JSDM (2159W0707).

    08/07/2010 at 2:14 am

    JSDM, I can’t have much life experience in what Ive said unless I am 6000 years old, for I mentioned all of Human History.

    That said, if you want Historical examples f what I’ve said, look at any Government in Antiquity. The Roman Empire had no Welfare State, and the Senate did not exist to recognise and set goals to meet communal needs. The Democratic Greek City-States did not hold Government for this either. No one got extra money forhelping to raise Children, no one got extra Money for mental ilness, and certainly no one got extra mony to help go to School.

    Carthage was pretty limited also. So was Babylon. So was Egypt. So was Israel.

    When you look at the Medieval Fiefdoms of feudal Europe, only Locally did anyone in any Governing position really concern himself with anyone’s upkeep, but the greater Government, councils or Kings, did not set up Government safety nets to ensure basic life necessities, and the Principle Role of the Sovereign was to act as chief Judge and Court of Appeal, and to raise an Army for the Defence of the Kingdom.

    Even the early Republics that cropped up due to the Enlightenments thinking inherited this limited notion of Governance. Neither the American nor French Republics had much by way of Social Programmes.

    I don’t think that the whole of Governing Bodies, which you strangely include the Private Sector which by definition is not Government, exists only to further itself and for its own protection and luxury. I certainly don’t think this in terms of the Church or Military, both of which are renown for making great sacrifices and living in the worst conditions. While it has become an accepted Truth that the Church has been a force of evil and oppression and exists only to further its own ends, the real Truth of History will show that Churches (Plural) have often been forces of Social good, and frequently make excursions into the worst Parts of the world in order to specifically supply relief, and even in places like the UK often offer Humanitarian Aid tot he worst Neighbourhoods in the worst Cities. Free of Charge. The idea that the Church only wants to protect its on power over people and allow is Bishops to live in Luxury is a helpful Myth for the New Religion of Secularism, but it is not a proper reflection of Reality. Neither can we say the Military exists only for its own Luxury when they go into battle fields to die, and live by sleeping on the ground in wartorn nations. Its preposterous to make those sorts of assertions about the Military. The Military life is a hard one, and one of much Sacrifice, not an easy one of Luxury.

    While the Rest, such as the Monarchy, do not have to contend with sleeping on dirt and rock and dodging bullets as the military does, and as frequently Missionaries do, and while Members of Parliament aren’t likely to need to put themselves into Danger at home on a regular Basis, I also reject the Notion that they have existed mainly to help others. Queen Elizabeth the First said the Crown only appeared glorious to those who do not wear it, and reminded us in her Golden Speech that the Crown was a Responsibility.

    While there have always been those out for their own Ends, I don’t think institutions as a whole have been only bent toward this.

    As to Modern Britain’s current “Win-Win-Win” participatorily cooperative problem-solving, I find it to be more Myth than Reality. Lets look at some examples. Did the SORS really supply a Win-Win-Win with people who are morally opposed to Homosexuality? They are simply classed as Homophobic Bigots whose moral concerns are overridden even on their own Property. Baroness Murphy wants to close down Faith Schools on the Ridiculous grounds that they harm Social Cohesion, all based on the Secularist ideology that Schools should be run off a Secular, non-Religious Principle. When I point out that modern Secularism is a well defined Philosophy about our existence in and of itself and really is a Religion in and of itself she just ignores my complains and continues to say it’s not a Religion and uses that to justify wanting the Secularism to dominate the Schools, because even though this means one Philosophical outlook and worldview, one set of beliefs and set of Values derived from a specific Philosophy regarding our existence, will dominate all others, its OK since its Not Religious.

    Now if a religious belief system dominated that would be wrong, but a Secular one can force itself onto us all.

    Is it really Win-Win-Win here? People are forced to send their Children to a State run Secular School, where the Moral and Ethical Values they are Taught will be rooted in Humanism and the Present interpretation of secularist Philosophy. They get to learn I Religious Education about the Religions of the world in terms of a Comparative Religion Course, but ht orals, Ethics, and Values that the School instils in them and the perspective that all of the Lessons come form will be decidedly Humanist. For those, such as Christians, Jews, or Muslims, or perhaps Sihks, Hindus, Ba’hai, Buddhists, or others who do not want their Children Indoctrinated into the Religion of Secular Humanism, too bad, its not a Religion and this is what a Non-Religious Secular based education MUST teach them. It will teach them the Secularist Values and impose those directly onto the Lessons. It will teach them the secularists beliefs about the nature, origin, and meaning of life. Now if a Christian wanted to make all Schools Christian and teach only Christian Ethics, Morality, and Values, and all lessons form only a Christian perspective, this would be wrong as its forcing one Religion onto another. Thankfully Secularism is not a Religion so its OJK to force everyone to learn from its perspective.

    How is that Win-Win-Win? The only people who win are the Ardent Secularists who can now promote their “Nonreligious NonFaith” and whose “Nonreligious NonFaith” is the only acceptable thing to say in an Educational Environment. They win, and everyone else looses.

    The same can be said when Governments say they must be Secular, and by Secular they mean the Philosophy of the Modern Secularists, not simple Neutrality as it use to mean.

    How is it Win-Win-Win with Hate Speech Laws which can be used to silence unpopular Speech?

    The Modern Win-Win-Win Philosophy isn’t really a Win-Win-Win, its set up to favour certain Groups favoured by those in power so they can feel more enlightened.

    I don’t buy it at all, and would prefer true Liberty of Conscience. To achieve this we need fewer Government regulations on what people do over their own Property, and what they can and cannot say, we need Government to allow other perspectives than just the Secularist Religious view, and we need to permit people to live by their own Moral and Ethical Values in Public without fear.

    We don’t have that now.

    Instead, we have a Government which regulates out Free Speech, tells us we cannot exclude form serving people whose moral choices we oppose, and Favours some people over others.

    Then to add to this we have a Situation in which it is often easier for some people to simply take Public Money offered them than to support themselves, and they Drain the Treasury of their own upkeep while they live off the labour of others how pay Taxes, whilst they adopt a new mentality. They also destroy their own Moral Character and Independence, becoming Dependant upon the State and as a Result becoming unable to truly be themselves, for they must play by the States Rules. This is not a win either.

    I am not at all opposed to helping the Poor. I don’t even oppose the Queens Government from doing so, but the extent to which we provide a Welfare State simply corrupts the Morals of people while destroying their ability to truly be free persons, and ensures the worker is used to support those who won’t work.

    If we keep in mind that the chief end of Government is the settlement of Disputes between parties, the Administration of Justice, and Protection by offering a Police and Military service, and that all else is secondary, then we can create a Much better system in which peoples needs can be more Rationally met without creating Wards of the State.

    • 08/07/2010 at 10:21 am

      If only in your final paragraph you had begun with “If we keep in mind that the chief task of Government should be to win-win-win recognise parties’ needs, hows and costs; and thereafter to provide win-win-win resolution of disputes between parties” I could have started wholeheartedly agreeing with you, but you don’t give me sufficient true-premises, conclusions and cogently valid arguments and moral-reasonings to win my overall agreement: I have to stand against most of what you put forward.

      Then you go on to deny an adequate and safety-supervised human-living to the Disadvantaged, Disabled and Deprived.

      Your above therefore has to be given my total disagreement.
      Nevertheless, in your next posted reply to someone else, I see sufficiency of both fact and argument for me to agree with that;
      I think you did well to tackle the fundamental essential of win-win-win problem-solving.
      So thank you Zarove, therein I give you my “D’Accord”.

    08/07/2010 at 2:43 am

    Oh another good example regarding Schools. In 2011 it will be Mandatory to teach the States Sex Education to Children starting in the lowest levels, including Same Sex relationships, how to use Contraception, sexual exploration, and how to get an Abortion.

    How is forcing a Catholic School to teach Children that Homosexuality is a natural and harmless variation of Human Sexuality, or how to use Contraception and making sure its available to the Students, or how a Girl can get an Abortion, a Win-Win-Win? Those things Violate Catholic Teachings and run contrary to the entire point of a School that exists to reinforce Catholic Moral Teaching.

    But the Secularists are happy as “Reason and rights” win out, well, so long as you accept that Catholics cant use Reason and have no right to teach what they believe.

    What about other Schools that also Object?


    Don’t make me laugh, there is a clear Bias at work that Favours certain people, and Win-Win-Win doesn’t quiet work so long as we are told what we must do to appease those in the powerful lobby positions.

    • 08/07/2010 at 10:32 am

      D’Accord, Zarove:
      I plump for win-win-win as the primary design basis and thereafter as the first-resort for every problem including disputes.

      Including also early-stage conflicts over Needs, Hows, and Costs whether the latter be Physiological, Emotional, Mind-functional, Environmental (Bio, Built, People), Spiritual, ‘Immediate emrgency santuary’, or entirely separate Job-skills-and- circumstances.


    08/07/2010 at 6:58 pm

    I actually did not see your last reply above before posting on the Schools, sorry.

    but my only point is this, we should be free to excersise the right of use over own own property, free to Educate our Children in our beliefs, even if those beliefs are unpopular with the Governing Powers that be, provided they are adequately educated in what they need to be functional adults, and not given over to criminal franchises, and free to express our beliefs, which is not true of most current legislation designed to “make things fair”.

    As for the disabled, I am Photosensaive and cannot be in the sun for too long, walk with a cane due to an injury to my spine, am Dyslexic, and have had another medical ailment. While one can make a case for support in extreme cases, it is my firm conviction that the best medicine is to help the person become independent, not Government supported.

    This increases their freedom and strengthens their moral Character. I did not want o be a Dependant to the State, and don’t think others should be either.

    • 09/07/2010 at 9:12 am

      I think we are in major agreement, now.

      Most differences between us, and others, appears to be simply the ‘semantics’ or respective at-variance meanings and senses of words and phrases.
      That said, both Houses before the election were standing up against domination by the government-of-the-day; and the legislative reform of that gross governmental, parliamentary, and democratic imbalance has begun and Elected scrutiny committees (instead of govt-exec-appointed ‘select’ committees) is now “In” and in action.

      Even so, the Reform of the Lords committee appears to be heavily pre-stacked in favour of majorly if not totally Politicising the Upper House (through Election-by-‘The People’), sacking or phasing out all Hereditary seats, and increasing the number of Lower House ‘retiree MPs’ appointments to the Upper House; thus effectively destroying the major (and virtually unique) function of the Upper House to disinterestedly, non-politically, and advocatively on behalf of any disadvantaged People, scrutinise and propose amendments for the Lower House to try to ‘come to terms’ with.
      Also before the election, in the Commons there was at least one MP (a woman, on the Labour side as I recall) who spoke out clearly in favour of (paraphrasing)
      (‘) A serious need to defend The People against the Government(‘).

      That said, most people (us impaired or otherwise somewhat disadvantaged folk included) know that much Government service is good and sustain-worthy, and that the main problem there is cost-effectiveness.
      Of course, millions of us can also name government departments, regulations, rules, services and personnel that are hopelessly blind to people’ real and holistic life-essentials, and are hugely wasteful drains upon both the Common and the Taxpayer Purses.
      One closing clarification about my inclusion of the ‘Private’ Sector (and other ‘non-government’ sectors) in my overarching view of the entire English civilisation we are in:
      whatever the Big-Body is, or the TV Ads are plugging, they have a controlling-power over us.
      The Utilities, and the ‘variable direct-debit’ for instance; and Water-Companies’ ‘Assessed Charge’ and ‘Standing Charge’ whereby they can legally take from your bank many times more money than the actual amount of water you are using is worth.
      ( I know an octogenarian pensioner who uses less than £2 worth of water per month [for good and clean reasons] but is having to pay £25 per month, or be evicted into the gutter, and sent to prison, and thereafter probably deported too [she is an anglicised Polish-German-Australian [Australian passport still] with leave-to-remain in England).
      She has also been ‘ripped-off’ by the Electricity utility variable direct-debit set-up, whereby she was over £200 in credit but as soon as she replaced the direct-debit order with a Standing Order (for an amount still in excess of her actual monthly usage) she got a demand letter every month for £27 (her usage was less than £3 per month even in winter, for good and clean reasons). Letters followed threatening to break into her flat and install a pre-paid meter, blacklist her for Credit Rating in banks and other financial institutions, prevent her switching to any other utility company, and sending her to prison if she did not pay all arrears plus all costs incurred in all these ‘neccessary legal processes’.
      Even my own retirement-village Tenants Association and ‘Social Club’ committees could not be trusted to keep minutes and notes of meetings truthfully and unbiased-ly.
      Where can one turn for honest and holistically win-win-win neighbourliness, citizenship, and democratic-governance ?

      [to be continued, if necessary ?)
      With best regards, my lord;

  10. ZAROVE
    09/07/2010 at 1:41 am

    It should also be noted that I think I misunderstood your comments. With apologies.

  11. ZAROVE
    09/07/2010 at 8:38 pm

    As to the Lords, I’ve said many times I would reinstate the Hereditary peers. This whole push towards Greater Democracy rests on the assumption that only Democracy is legitimate and only Democracy can be Free.

    That is of coruse nonsence, as we sopoen see Democratically elected leaders destroy Freedom, and we have seen how elections divide us, with parties wantign grater power over society and manipulating it to get their ideologies pushed through. As forign to our modern culture as these thouhts are, I dont think unelected Aristocrats are nessisairly the lazy, self interested tyrants we are lead to beelive and certianly dont see leected politicians as superior.

  12. jm
    09/07/2010 at 9:55 pm

    Modern ballad song:
    “So on we go,
    His welfare is my concern…
    And the road is long
    With many a winding turn
    That leads us on
    To who knows where and who knows when…
    He ain’t heavy
    He’s my brother.”

    Sometimes I almost feel I know when its our turn to sing this song about the House of Lords;
    and when it is the House of Lords turn to be singing it about us.

    Yes: constitutional reforms plural will go on being urgently needed, my lords.
    jm (2155F0907).

  13. Lord Blagger
    10/07/2010 at 11:21 am

    Exact the problem with current ‘democracy’. The fraudulent one.

    The one where Peers and MPs vote themselves a larger slice of the pie.

    For example, the drinks subsidy is still in place. 5% rise in prices, but still half the price of a pint outside of parliament. You’re paying the difference.

    So when people are directly responsible via voting for what gets implemented, its very hard to bribe the electorate when they pay the bill.

    All that the politians can do is to penalise one section to give to another. They might get away with it short term, but it doesn’t work long term.

    For example the libdems delight at increasing CGT. No doubt the CGT tax revenues for the first full year under the new regime will be less tax. Watch out for the lies when they claim increases in tax under the old regime are down to the new as people rushed to get in before the change.

    Lord Blagger

  14. ZAROVE
    10/07/2010 at 7:39 pm

    Reform will always be needed because the Politicians will always need to change the rules to get their way…

    • jm
      11/07/2010 at 4:02 pm

      Attaboy !
      But once we have not only tested-out and agreed the constitutional-necessity of a Win-Win-Win Method III Democracy, no-one nor any Body will be getting their own self-centred way.

      Every one including the Monarchy, Lords and Commons, and yes! Bankers and Business Bosses, and the whole Nation of us too, will be allowed simply what one-human-being genuinely needs, plus very possibly a small-sufficiency of ‘holiday’ or ‘luxury’ allowance (the latter to be very need-indexed and to be variable egalitarianly throughout the Nation, I would strongly suggest)!
      My parents were ‘pure English’ and sang leading roles in Gilbert & Sullivan light-operas; so I am quite familiar with all the words of “There Lived A King In Days Of Old”; and am not suggesting above that we (Britain tha is) elect nor even ‘appoint’ such a King.

      ‘Though inserting such an ‘exercise’ into schooling, universities and PhD ivory-towers and islands I would most certainly recommend.

      • Carl.H
        12/07/2010 at 8:56 am

        “My parents were ‘pure English’ ”

        Why do I find that statement obnoxious ? Perhaps because we are an island of mongrels, of descendants of invaders, of absolute impurity which makes us stronger. Or perhaps it`s because it is a statement of elitism, of them and us.

Comments are closed.