Raise the voting age!

[Fredxx]

Would you describe yourself as a "fanatical remainer"?

They do say exceptions prove the rule :-)

[Fred]

Nope.

More of your mindless shit.

Irrelevant to the claim about higher standard of living claim.

Wrong, as always.

But the standard of living is one of the highest in the world, particularly for those at the bottom of society.

[Fredxx]

<snip>

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest. The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the boys with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding the STV system.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but feel in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the elected side. While I would like some reform I actually like the present system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it back for reconsideration.

[Fredxx]

Perhaps some of voted so our children can purchase affordable houses and have respectable income. I suppose that could also be considered borderline selfish.

Therefore you were persuaded by mainly lies, half truths and predictions of an impending Armageddon and economic meltdown.

I did thanks.

You seem to have forgotten that many have not enjoyed the success of the booming economy over the past 15 years, however hard you try to make it so.

There would have been no need to build any houses, something both parties have promised and failed to do, if the various treaties of accession had not been agreed and signed.

Did you read the section you were replying to? That's quite a leap in believing it proves you right. It really does nothing of the sort.

If there were no benefits of staying for the masses, for those who work and wish to buy a house, then the only alternative is leave.

We've seen wages rise and housing prices can only fall or rise more slowly. Why is this so hard to accept as a benefit? Unless you wanted to enjoy the value of your house increase further to the detriment of those wanting to get on the housing ladder? As you announced, the reason you voted to remain was purley selfish.

[bert]

Well here's my stab at it

First we should clarify its purpose. What the HoL is supposed to do, regardless of which flavour of government is in power, is to improve bills, to make their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and identify possible unintended consequences.

A totally elected house, proposed by many, could lead to a challenge to the authority of the Commons with Peers claiming to represent constituents but this seems to be the only alternative which gets put on the table. Yet there does not appear to be much appetite for such a House but nevertheless there should be some element of public choice.

I suggest the following:-

a) Size The overall size of the HOL should be capped somewhere about 600.

b) Hereditary Peers. Do we still want them? How many? Should they be phased out?

c) Bishops As long as we have an Established Church then it should be represented, the number of representatives (currently 12) to be reviewed perhaps reduced to the 5 Lords Spiritual.

d) Law Lords. Scrap the Supreme Court and bring them back. Brexit has shown that the SC is openly putting itself above Parliament. It is deciding now what Parliament meant rather than what Parliament said. It has become political as much as judicial.

e) Elected Peers A portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or population) rounded down to the nearest integer. Devolved governments could be involved in allocating their share geographically in their area, They would simply be elected in order of preference. (Perhaps with single transferable vote) Members would be elected for a fixed term say

10 years but could then stand for re-election

f) Party Nominees within 3 months of a general election each party (recognised as such by the Electoral Commission) could nominate a group of members in proportion to the number of votes they received rounded down to the nearest integer (meaning any party getting less than 1% would not get a seat). These members would serve until three months after the next General Election (when they could be re-nominated).

g) Other Expertise How should we control the introduction others into the Lords with a range of experience and expertise from areas such as business, public services, foreign affairs, entertainment, other religions sport etc.? (Note the Honours System exists to recognise them for achievement and contribution). With a total cap on the size of the HOL this group would also be capped. They could be for life which would restrict new blood coming in, for a fixed term such as 15 years, or with a compulsory retirement age. They could be nominated by public suggestion even voted for or selected by an appropriate committee.

Reform along these lines would ensure we maintain an element of tradition, introduce an element of election, keep political appointments in line with overall party representation in the HOC and still provide for the inclusion of specific expertise. It would also remove the current right of party leaders to nominate whoever and as many as they wish into the Upper House almost at random.

Constructive comments welcome.

[Fredxx]

Ok

I think phased out.

No, with one exception. I would accept followers of any denomination, Santa Claus or other as long as nominated members must come from a group that profess their atheism. Atheism is supported far more than any mythical deity. Even ones that are agnostic don't generally align to a religion.

I would disagree, SC pulled in the reigns of a dictatorial PM. I accept the final result was the same but hey.

This is something I find abhorrent. The idea of politics entering a second house means it will become playground for attention. The current strength of the HOL is that it represent experience and not pandering to the public. We have the HOC for that.

I prefer this, and most people seem happy with the names put forward. It is rare to see negative media attention towards a proposed candidate.

I see no reason why these cannot be appointed, perhaps ones that have worked in an advisory capacity and not aligned to any party. We could have political and non-political appointees.

As I said we have enough political bickering as it is. I'm tired of the posturing that comes with (re)election.

I don't feel the HOL is as important as the HOC. They do not formulate policy, not can they stop bills being passed. There is also the principle that any proposal in a manifesto is accepted.

At the very worst the HOL can delay legislation, they cannot stop it. It is effective at weeding out extreme or ill conceived laws from knee-jerk reactions to public outcries and pointing out deficiencies. That only happens because of the tenure of its members, it would cease to play that role as soon as you have elected members.

[Dave Plowman (News]

The real trick, of course, is the rich and powerful persuading the poorest half that all their woes are caused by other poor. Preferably of another race. Get them at one another's throats, and the rich and powerful keep the status quo. And easier than ever to do now with social media.

[Dave Plowman (News]

We did once have a decent amount of social housing. The reasonable rents for that set a base for other rented housing, and to some extent the value of housing in that sort of bracket for sale. Which would be what most first time buyers bought.

But hey. The important thing is to make money out of everything. Meaning high rents and therefore high values for rented housing stock. And you have benefitted by your house being worth a fortune, so you should borrow against it and give the money to your children so they can buy too.

There is likely a flaw in that argument, but that's what you voted for.

[Radio Man]

Right to vote should be linked to paying direct taxes, with a few exceptions. Only those paying Council Tax ( actually paying it) should be permitted to vote in Local Elections. For National elections, paying income tax.

[Tim Lamb]

In message [e-mail]>, "Dave Plowman (News)" [e-mail]> writes

I already had a house and didn't pay much attention at the time they were sold off. Without knowing anything about the construction funding, it seemed not unreasonable at the time.

Is something preventing any local authority building more?

[nightjar]

That would depend upon what you want them to be accountable for and to whom.

If the existing system gives the accountability you want, then the answer would be local list PR. That could be virtually indistinguishable from the existing system. The difference would only come when allocating seats. Each party would get the same proportion of seats in Parliament as they got of the popular vote. That would, of course, mean that results could not be announced until every constituency had completed its count.

Constituencies are ranked according to the percentage of the local vote each party got, with the highest ranking being allocated to each party first. Safe seats would remain safe seats, but some marginal seats might not get the same MP as they would have under the FPTP system. Instead that seat could be awarded to a runner up. The constituencies would still get an MP that had appeared on the local ballot.

There would probably need to be some tweaking of the basic model, to allow for the fact that we have four nations, three of which have national parties. However, we are not likely to get PR, as no party in power is going to sign up to a system that would see the end of one party majority governments.

I've nothing in principle against the House of Lords. I quite like the tradition. I was simply pointing out that they, unlike the EU Commission, they really are unelected.

[Fredxx]

And a decade of Labour didn't increase the housing stock to match demand, similarly Tories and ConDem pact.

Without sufficient houses being it doesn't matter whether the houses are social housing or not. In fact it's a total irrelevance.

There are many who don't have bank of mum and dad at their disposal. Your argument has entered the ridiculous. At least you you now know and possibly accept a reason why people voted for Brexit.

Your rhetoric would be expected from a hardened Tory.

Quite, we voted to control borders and take control. And there now seems more houses are bing built:

Who'd have thought under a Tory government.

Trouble with pendulums once they start moving they have inertia. I expect in 15 years time there will be an excess of housing! Best maintain an eye on the housing market and sell when you see a sustained drop in prices.

[Fredxx]

Hey, lets use colour of skin as another reason, perhaps gender as another.

HAM radio enthusiasts must also be banned from voting for their fanatical and unsociable attributes.

[bert]

Thank you for your feedback

[bert]

In article [e-mail]>, "Dave Plowman (News)" [e-mail]> writes

Council house rents and hence rates were anything but reasonable. They had to be subsidised by pushing up rates on private householders.

Suggest you look at the equity release market more closely.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Thatcher specifically forbad the use of money obtained from the sale of council housing being used to build more. She didn't want any in subsidised housing, as they would be more likely not to vote Tory.

And once you legislate how councils spend what money they have, it becomes very difficult for them to go back to building housing.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Very difficult to reverse such things once Thatcher had sold all the family silver and given the proceeds away.

Doesn't concern me directly. I did very well out of Thatcher selling off the family silver. And don't have kids to worry about them being able to buy a house.

It would seem it was what the public wanted, by the voting. So no point in crying over spilt milk now.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Exactly the same principle as you subsidise the poor through universal credit, etc. Just shifted around.

Why would I? I'm not complaining about the house I bought as a first time buyer now needing a millionaire to by it from me.

It's what you voted for, bert.

[Fredxx]

Which is the bit I feel was criminal. However it did save councils from maintaining council stock, which was often at a loss wrt rent.

Councils can borrow money, and could invest in housing stock if they wanted.

[Fredxx]

I still don't see how selling off houses reduced housing? At the time there was enough housing to go round as evidence by dips in house values. Now the situation regarding the quantity of housing and demand for housing is very different

Selling off the silver hasn't made silver disappear.

It doesn't stop many whingeing about the referendum.