What an upside down political world we live in! This evening (Monday), Mark Harper MP, the Conservative Minister who is the detailed designer of the Coalition Government’s proposals for Lords reform, will explain their rationale to a special public meeting of our Joint Committee of MPs and Peers. As one of the brightest and best new ministers he can be relied upon to combine the necessary realism and radicalism to spearhead the Government’s reform programme.
Meanwhile, Labour Peers continue to provide the deepest resistance to democratic progress. Last week, I dealt with the redoubtable Lord (Bruce) Grocott, who opened the latest salvo in his crusade to save Peers’ jobs for life. Now he has started worrying what would happen if a reformed Lords (which, even if the Government goes for a fully elected House, would not be fully elected until 2025 at the earliest) voted against armed conflict while the Commons voted for it. The answer is, in short, whatever Parliament decides the law should be. I have long thought there was a case for putting a provision into law for a compulsory vote in the Commons on decisions about armed conflict. I think it unlikely that the Lords – particularly if only 80% elected – should have a veto on that, but the matter simply has to be judged one way or another, and put into law. The idea that we should delay – after a hundred years of dithering – reform of the Lords to have a very, very long think about it all is totally ridiculous. You can see the exchanges here.
A Conservative Minister leads the long-delayed popular movement for reform, while a former senior member of a Labour Government is desperate to find yet more obstacles to it. Topsy turvey indeed!
PS: I suppose I should add that on 18th March 2003, I voted in the Commons against the Iraq War. Had he had a vote then, I suspect Lord Grocott would have supported his mentor, Tony Blair.
these are very much liberal topics, on which they have a good record, and no respons-ibility for the killing and death in Iraq either, .
I fear that the Lords reform will make little progress, and that the Tories, for whom reform of such a place is anathema, will continue to delay and dither for as long as they can, without seeming to do so, to keep the coalition going.
So, no respons-ibilty, but little response-ability either –
The first skill in communication is surely to verbatimly reflect exactly what the originator has just said
before ‘paraphrasing’, ‘interpreting’, ‘summarising’ or
‘summarily-dismissing’
(e.g. by the first skill of debating: “Whatever the opposition just said, true or otherwise, you must rebutt it i.e. deny it, call it ‘false'”.
One also wonders how longest-term fit-for-Purpose* are such ‘brightest and best’, up there on high?
* Purpose = the Overswaying and Underlurking longest-term Earth-lifesupports & Human Civilisation Needs and Affordable & Sustainworthy Hows,
that we all most need to get right, and to most thoroughly scrutinise and nail-to-the-longterm-table.
“Whatever the opposition just said, true or otherwise, you must rebutt it i.e. deny it, call it ‘false’”.
That’s party politics.
But not a split infinitive, which is as follows:
to verbatimly reflect
I have no objection to them but some people have. I very much enjoy the cockney dialect.
I have an acquaintance called Keats, who hails from Islington, and can only be the closest living descendant of the 1820s poet, such is his linguistic skill.
A lot depends on how you have set your line lengths, especially on an old computer.
It is certainly true that the lib dems are thoroughly polite about their powers to involve this country in war, and the noble lord’s comment was too.
My own lack of line composure was due to the word not fitting tidily on to the line.
Literary non-correction is surely every bit as ill mannered as a linguistic one? I won’t mention it again.
The lib dems have got it right!
A couple of little points:
Since this Topic contains a gritty sub-topic of “resistance to democratic progress”, let me suggest that at least as prioritous as literary-correction and linguistic-correction, needs to be the principle #3 of good-communication & honest-argumentation, “Self-Correction = when made aware that you have been misinformed or mistaken in your communication/argumentation, to retract and publicly correct your such previous”
(the first and second principles being
(1) Be Clear in your communication and argumentation
(2) Be positively appreciative of the good intention in every other participant’s, especially your direct opponent’s, submission ).
—————
At risk of sounding like Lord Blagger, the wastefulness by parliamentarians of human-energies, human-timeframes, human-things, both human and Natural-Earth places, and both common-purse and ‘private’ monies, as partly sketched by both the noble lord’s Post and your own responses above, hardly means that any visible and audible party or politician
has yet “got it right” ?
It is a little bizarre to characterise the Labour opposition to the current proposals as obstructive to democracy when Labour, rightly or wrongly, is advocating a 100% directly elected upper house, something not on offer from the coalition. For Lord Tyler to wrap the robe of democracy around the coalition proposals is a bit rich in the circumstances.
I should perhaps add, with certain amendments, I favour the 80:20 mix but I eschew the humbug of describing it as more democratic than a 100% directly-elected House and simply argue the merits of alternative structures and also of indirect election as preferable to direct in this context.
Does the time factor reduce the potency of democracy? Elected for 15 years?!To me modern democracy is about 4 or 5 year time spans, and then no more!
This is one of the serious flaws in the current Lords reform proposals, that the elected never get to face their electorates again!
Like Brenda being a democratically elected queen! (300 years ago, at the time of William and Mary)!
We have a democratic monarchy by the consent of the people. That was the essence of the Glorious Revolution. Frankly We could do a lot worse. Imagine an elected presidency with Roy Hattersley slugging it out at the polls in the final round with Patrick Jenkin, or Sir George Young up against David Milliband. No thanks.
Some politicians will never be statesmen and vice versa. Those who will never be politicians
are electable as presidents.
Baroness D’Souza is doing well, and with what exceptional credentials!
The key to this question has to be redefining exactly what Labour and Conservative means today. And throw in with that, the Lib/Dems, as well.
In reality, none of the parties are in any remote way acceptable as a whole to the public today.
Political affiliation has shifted. And what you want in one is not in the other. Additionally, that which is not in line with your wishes, in either party, is so abhorrent to you it is simply impossible to overlook in order to vote their way.
What is desperately needed, and I do mean desperately, is a party that has the ‘majority’ views of the general public. Not these three that lurch madly from one policy they know would be rejected, if put out for a vote on its own, to another, that would be embraced by all. In the hope that they will draw you in to accept the unacceptable. It is a mish mash of chaos.
UKIP certainly doesn’t have it, and neither the Greens. It appears politicians fear to be free of the politically correct quango’s in order to give the voter what ‘they’ want to vote for.
So, in answer to your question, Lord Tyler, what we do have is not close to the old idea of Conservatism. So, exactly what it is, is now obscure.
And has been for some time.
However, as important is, when you read and listen to what they offer as their policies and objectives when running for election, once in power, they renege on them totally and reform in order to rejoin the leaving parties politically correct madness. So it has simply become a ‘catch 22’ situation.
If voters consider that no party meets their wishes, there are two solutions. One is the creation of new parties, and the other is the single transferable vote system. The benefit of the latter is that it inexorably forces candidates from the same party to distinguish themselves from their fellow party members, to say nothing of those from other parties. Thus a conservative who is determined to get the UK out of the EU could say so forcefully conscious that his party running mate might put his opposition to the EU, if it exists at all, in a more circumspect manner. The voters wanting a conservative could decide which position they favoured and still cast their fallback vote for the other candidate before voting outside their preferred party.
The general consequence of STV is that party blocs become eroded and you have more of a Parliament of individual members. This has many virtues, but it makes accountability of a government more difficult.
On balance I think the downsides of STV outweigh the pluses. But anyone asking who are the conservatives now, would find that under STV it was easier to get an answer.
The headline of this thread is misleading. What Lord Tyler is really asking is (a) should the royal prerogative – i.e. the government – decide upon decisions of going to war, or should it be the requirement that there is a positive vote of the House of Commons; (b) should reform of the House of Lords, which all parties subscribed to in varying ways, be implemented by legislation enacted in this Parliament; (c) should the legislation be in the form currently proposed?
In my view, on (a), it is inconceivable that the nation could go to war without a positive vote of the House of Commons in any case, but it is certainly the case that the road to war is sometimes obscured by the terms under which the Commons assent is sought and given. So my answer is that no legislation is required, just better discipline by the House (and the Speaker) in ensuring its resolutions are clear as to effect and implications.
On (b), there is no case for further delay. Having a legislature that in the case of 92 members is based on heredity is 100% unacceptable in the modern world, and the power of patronage is manifestly excessive in respect of the remainder.
On (c), there are fundamental flaws in the present proposals. I favour reduction in the number of peers, and 300 is about as low as I would go (maybe 400 about as high), and I favour a mix of elected and unelected members, perhaps on an 80:20 ratio as proposed. But I have doubts about the wisdom of direct election and would prefer election by an electoral college of the Commons or all the candidates saving their deposits at the preceding general election. I’m content to retain much of the episcopal bench, but might like to see a category of unelected peers for the great and good, e.g. retired prime ministers, former defence chiefs, former top judiciary and civil service heads. Most worrying is the no second term clause for the elected members, which effectively prevents anyone facing an electorate (surely a prerequisite in a democracy), and the 15 year term is too long. I’m also uneasy about the transitional process. But if the coalition shows any kind of open mind, solutions to these problems can be found. When the constitution of the United States was under debate, there was at one stage after much wrangling a simple proposal – to which the delegates agreed – that the new government would be composed of three separate branches: legislative, judicial, and executive, each with distinct powers to balance those of the other two branches, and that the legislative branch should consist of two houses. That resolved, the rest of the constitution was built up piece by piece, but it all began with a simple resolution (as did the constitution of the Third Republic in France, though that is perhaps a less happy example, which ended, as one might say, in tears in 1940). So too can a new structure and system for the upper chamber be decided.
By your leave, I think that two centrally relevant pointers need to be answered:
1. Before Parliament (The Commons, the PM) can activate any of the the Armed Forces, the Monarch must sign ‘OK’,
is that not so ?
Thereto surely the House of Lords needs to have a participative-power ?
———————–
2. From the submission by Maude Elwes 3.51PM.W12Oct11
that comes across as from a good arguer who has grasped with both hands the horns of at least one of the ‘bulls’ (that run rather aimlessly in most of the other posts and, incidentally, in most of the other blogs in LOTB generally),
and with “Fallacies and Argument Appraisal”* at one’s elbow,
even the posting peer’s initial contribution needs to come across more clearly,
and needs to leave less room for fallaciousness (by us lesser-contributors).
From Chapter 2 “Fallacies of Diversion” we can spot the following ray of light, almost hidden on page 22:
“Deliberately distorting a position by conjuring up a weak caricature of it is not fulfilling that obligation” (obligation of an arguer to be clear, fair and honest).
Even unawarely using such commonly (and publicly-blindly) accepted weak-caricaturing as “wishes”, “have your say”, “friendly fire”, “ethnic cleansing”, “give government your views”, needs to be spotlighted.
Whilst I stand back corrigible, since Maude has done so well I believe here she might best be one to stand, ‘no fault’, one tiny but I think crucially vital-to-democracy pointer towards improvement:
Maude has said, albeit possibly merely en passant, “your wishes” and “the ‘majority’ views of the general public”,
which are whitewashingly weak caricatures, usurpingly replacing real “Needs” and real “Hows” (i.e. how each such need can be affordably met);
which are hugely more vital matters than mere “wishes”, “views”, “says”, and “opinions”.
—————-
* “Fallacies and Argument Appraisal”; Christopher W. Tindale (University of Windsor); Cambridge 2007).
====================
Twm, you’d need to join in using the above text, if only because your diversional-reply to milesjsd, trying to connect him to “split infinitive” incorrectness, is not only a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack, but is something up with which jsdm will not put
(thanks to Sir Winston Churchill, R.I.P.)
1. The Queen has no power under our constitution save upon advice of her prime minister, and in practice she cannot act against that advice. So the Queen has no power to delay a mobilisation or an outbreak of war (see, for example, the powerlessness of George V in his telegrams to cousins Nicky and Willy in 1914). I don’t see any logic to including the Lords in any affirmative process, certainly as long as they lack any democratic mandate, and even then probably not.
2. Your second point is lost to me.
3. A lot of these threads are full of ad hominems, some more subtle than others. Straw man arguments are a form of them.
1. There was a case in Australia, self-confessed publicly by PM Hawke who had ordered Army helicopters into surveillance over a Tasmanian Environmental protest gathering without first obtaining (I believe without even submitting) such an “armed force order” to the Monarch for final approval under the Australian Constitution.
2. The second point is that Government is there to recognise each and every need of each and every citizen;
and not to ignore, deny, distort or otherwise be unfaithful towards any of them;
and to do this government workers need to be fit-for-purpose and well-skilled in good communication and honest argumentation, such as is taught by the three principles thereof 1. Clarity 2. Charity 3. Self-Corrigibility;
and by such non-fiction know-how publications as Christopher W. Tindale’s “Fallacies & Argument Appraisal”
which latter I have reason to think you have not made yourself familiar with before writing your point 3:
“A lot of these threads are full of ad hominems, some more subtle than others. Straw man arguments are a form of them”.
Strawman arguments are actually distinct from ad hominem arguments, which Tindale makes clear by dealing with the Straw Man as one distinct form of Fallacies of Diversion not of ad hominem fallacious attack against the person (his Chapter 2)
whereas Ad Hominem Arguments, in separate chapter 5, make it clear that some ad hominem arguments (“attacks upon the person making the opposing argument”) are not fallacious, but do not contain Straw Man fallacious argumentation.
So your point 3 is ‘mistaken’; and might only light you up as being abrogative of your co-democratic responsibilities by accepting that a large number of fallacies pervades the Lords of the Blog as a normality.
—————
My intention, and I believe it to have been much more evident in my submissions than you are principle 2 -wise admitting, is to be Clear, Charitable and Self-Corrigible and to hold or invite other participants to those same core principles.
1. Are you confusing an act by the monarch without the advice of the prime minister with an act by a prime minister (Hawke, in your example) without a constitutionally-required monarchical approval?
2. I would not dispute your view that government workers need to be fit-for-purpose and well-skilled in good communication and honest argumentation (if they serve at a level which this is appropriate) and that amongst the qualities of these attributes are clarity of expression, charity in dealings with others and an ability to recognise when one has made either an error or a mistake, to which I would add a willingness to rectify an error or mistake if that is still possible.
3. I am aware of the difference between ad hominem arguments (“attacks upon the person making the opposing argument”) and straw man arguments, and like the phrase ‘fallacies of diversion’. Certainly not all of the latter fall into the category of the former, nor vice versa, but I have encountered quite a few straw man arguments posted on Lord of the Blogs which are or contain subtly made ad hominem remarks or arguments. I don’t think what I wrote therefore was incorrect, but it is, in my view, a matter of judgement rather than one of fact.
@DF:
When I read through these last posts my devilish mind couldn’t hold back the image of our Queen having passed on, along with The Prince of Wales.
Then, by terrible fate we were down to Zara Phillips and her Tindal specimen, being Queen and consort. What a shock horror that was.
Time to let go of monarchy, we are big boys now. And lets face it, they no longer serve the purpose of lead arrow on the battle field do they?
@Miles:
Well, the French have a very good word for it.
Indechiffrable
I thought it pertinent here.
In which sense do you think “indechiffrable” pertinent here, the breakable or the unbreakable ?
Here is a side bar but worth a mention.
If, as it appears, in the further revelations regarding our Defence Minister, Dr Fox, and his too close for comfort friend, sixteen years his junior, being on the take from rich benefactors is a reality. Then these men decided to assist the cause of dubious characters and their pocket filling tactics, to keep them centered on ‘our government’ making decisions in favour of issues only as long as they are: against the European Union, in bed with the USA and Pro Israel. Otherwise they cut off the tap.
It turns out one of these givers of luxury to our politicians, and their comrades, runs Las Vegas.
Well people there you have it. Britain is being influenced by men who run Casinos, and all the other little sidelines of that great money maker in Nevada. Which explains in full why we were asked on here what we thought of legalizing brothels.
I wonder how many more may be on the take in this game they play with out lives?
However, my inference to rich men not favouring our connection to Europe, as it may put them in the shade, was absolutely on the button. And I bet if the researchers dig even further, they will find the downfall of the Euro is as a direct result of US interference.
With one last go here, the US is planning to go to war with Iran, as the creature Blair has been egging us so to accept for months now. How much extra did he get for that compliance I wonder? And it is being put to those who can make it legal as we write.
It will come out of the blue, similar to Libya. Don’t be taken by surprise. This has been on the cards for a couple of years. Israel has wanted to bomb them since Iraq and this mornings papers tell us that they have decided to go ahead as, wait for it, a plan was made to hit a Saudi Minister in a Washington restaurant. Of course, it didn’t come to fruition. Never mind, an entire country is going to be hammered as a result.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
Whilst I agree much of what you say – shock, horror – I think the problems of the EU and Eurozone are not due to any sovereign state outside Europe but more to the intrinsic weakness of a collection of nations sharing a common currency without also ensuring some common fiscal disciplines. This invited speculators to speculate not so much on the exchange rate between the Euro and the rest of the world currencies, as on the market value of individual Eurozone member nation government bonds. Once the spread between one nation bonds and another’s became appreciable, it was only a question of time before the Soros effect took effect.
On the Israel question, President Obama has made it clear he does not want it presumed by Israel that the USA is a bottomless pit of support. This has prompted the Republicans to try to woo over the pro-Israel vote within the USA whilst seeking to retain the friendship of the Arab autocracies. This balancing act is not impossible as some of those autocracies would rather have a stable Israel than a series of unstable Islamist states as neighbours.
But there’s little doubt that Atlantic Bridge Inc is a lobby organisation at the highest level seeking to influence governments into pro-Atlantic ultra-right anti-regulation stances, and that Atlantic Bridge Inc funded Werrity directly and / or indirectly. And since the latter sat on Fox’s side and was not simply a Walter Mitty groupie, as some of Fox’s friends have tried to imply, that means Fox was tolerating , putting it at its most charitable, the presence by his side of a lobbyist paid by overseas forces of an unknown nature. To my mind that is a resignation issue, tout court, and the remedy is for someone in the Commons to move a motion to reduce his salary by half. That would surely be a confidence motion and the LibDems would have to come off the fence and decide whether Fox should stay or go.
All this is hardly relevant to the issue of Lords reform, but we all like personality politics, so I’m not surprised.
@Dan Filson:
If only I had your ability to accept the unacceptable. Life would be so relaxed.
I don’t believe for one minute the European fiscal situation is not enhanced as result of US efforts to destabilize its currency. In fact I feel it is a plain as the nose on your face. But, that those in the know turn a blind eye because they are fearful of having to address it and deal with it. Because what will that do to our position of being on the inside out.
Those on the right want us to be an American State. Whilst those on the left want a foot in each pie.
They appear to lack the ability to really think big in respect of Europe. Held back by the constant promotion of Hitler and Nazism. Which of course, is as it is intended to do. The over concern of being on the edge of the almighty Eagle rather than realizing the weakness of that greedy bird. And our own position of strength elsewhere.
I like the thinking of Jum Rogers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05v9H4LV_J8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYCGQWcQ3o
We should seriously consider nationalizing the utilities again. I can here you scream. LOL. However, I am serious. Debt and more debt is not the way out of this crisis. We have to think sideways.
Here is an interesting thinker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE-JDq5Q1WM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLbkclzqHV4&feature=related
Now your reference to Atlantic Bridge Inc. Reveals the real reason Fox and chum wrrity have been let out of the closet.
This company was under investigation by the US IRS. And they must have come up with a nice little indictable offense. Or as close to it as you can get.
This organization is the one Dr Fox and friend was in bed with as a charity no less, and is also the playground of those maniacs called The Tea Party. That nut case Palin frequents the hustings on their behalf. But, more important is, our own right wingers, including Mrs. Thatcher are patrons of this pro war group.
Now there’s room for speculation if ever there was one. Scroll down for fun.
Only in America.
Somehow my link to this information below didn’t attach itself and that was sad. So here it is again. Do scroll down to the information at the bottom.
As I wrote above, only in America.
http://www.zimoz.co.uk/news/headlines/atlantic-bridge-liam-fox-adam-werritty-israel/
Some interesting comments from Dan Filson.
To say that everybody likes “personality politics” must surely be false. It may even be that some political opinions are taken only because they are devoid of personality politics.
The extreme example of personality politics is the “media not the message” politics of right wing extremism and monarchy, not being in the least bit interested in the people’s opinions, but merely in the very best lining of their own pockets.
3. I am aware of the difference between ad hominem arguments (“attacks upon the person making the opposing argument”) and straw man arguments, and like the phrase ‘fallacies of diversion’
There are very few abusive remarks; all in good nature.
Equally, Standing outside the court room with a straw in your shoe to designate that you are prepared to give false witness for the sake of it, is something that professional lobbyists specialize in and make big money from. There are none here.
So I should hope!
But that is, in itself, a neat diversion from the current meaning of a straw man argument, also known as an Aunt Sally argument, namely putting words into the mouth (or from the metaphorical pen) of a contributor to the thread that they haven’t uttered with such an outre argument, so over the top against them, as to be easily knocked down by them. Now that does go on.
I suppose the number of ad hominem attacks are quite few, and the total contributors in any case – save on Welfare Reform where Baroness Murphy did really ask for the torrent of responses she got – are relatively few (which should be a worry really for Lords of the Blogs). The same gang of suspects meet quite often in this Tardis of opinions.
@DF:
And the same gang of suspects meet just as frequently in that Tardis of opinions as well.
Except, I wonder how much of their thoughts are bought rather than felt as a result of that £300.00 per day? A lot of people will sell their soul for a lot less than that.