http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php?disp=comments en-UK http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:13:30 +0000 Ciarán [Visitor] c4166@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ I suppose we'll have to wait for someone to do the leg-work. Though a one-minute trawl of <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70307-0001.htm#07030790000006">this</a> debate sees Lord Winston's being pretty much ignored.<br /> <br /> All entirely anecdotal of course. Let's agree to disagree! this debate sees Lord Winston's being pretty much ignored.

All entirely anecdotal of course. Let's agree to disagree!]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/07/constitution_changing#c4166 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:20:04 +0000 beano [Member] c4165@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ <em>"My guess? Maybe a bit, but if most likely if they spoke at all the whips had more to do with their words than their experience."</em><br /> <br /> I disagree. You're right, collecting evidence would take a long time, but I see no reason they wouldn't be listened to. Also, the whips have less influence over the Lords than they do over MPs, for reasons outlined above. "My guess? Maybe a bit, but if most likely if they spoke at all the whips had more to do with their words than their experience."

I disagree. You're right, collecting evidence would take a long time, but I see no reason they wouldn't be listened to. Also, the whips have less influence over the Lords than they do over MPs, for reasons outlined above.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/07/constitution_changing#c4165 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:00:13 +0000 Ciarán [Visitor] c4164@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Beano, for the expertise argument to have any traction at all, you have to show that the experts actually <i>used</i> their expertise regarding legislation (and, with more difficulty, perhaps that they were listened to by others as experts). So the question is: were people from the arts more likely to speak on the arts and was their authority recognised? Likewise with the armed services etc.<br /> <br /> My guess? Maybe a bit, but if most likely if they spoke at all the whips had more to do with their words than their experience.<br /> <br /> The only systematic exception would have been the law lords, but we have to get rid of that anyway (for good reasons).<br /> <br /> I'm a bit too lazy to even collect some anecdotal evidence on this. Actually finding out would take a long hard trawl through the records. But the point is: the logic of the argument assumes an actual engagement by and with expertise. Which certainly can't be taken for granted. used their expertise regarding legislation (and, with more difficulty, perhaps that they were listened to by others as experts). So the question is: were people from the arts more likely to speak on the arts and was their authority recognised? Likewise with the armed services etc.

My guess? Maybe a bit, but if most likely if they spoke at all the whips had more to do with their words than their experience.

The only systematic exception would have been the law lords, but we have to get rid of that anyway (for good reasons).

I'm a bit too lazy to even collect some anecdotal evidence on this. Actually finding out would take a long hard trawl through the records. But the point is: the logic of the argument assumes an actual engagement by and with expertise. Which certainly can't be taken for granted.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/07/constitution_changing#c4164 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:20:45 +0000 beano [Member] c4163@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ What's undemocratic? I've said I'm more or less in favour of the proposals as they stand for a wholly elected house. <br /> <br /> Besides, as the system stands at the moment the 'experts' are subservient to the elected MPs anyway and only scrutinise legislation. I see no problem with appointing experts - save that you need someone impartial and knowledgable enough to appoint them. Since I don't think any such person exists, that option's a non-starter. <br /> <br /> I think it was Churchill who said democracy is the worst system except for all the others.
Besides, as the system stands at the moment the 'experts' are subservient to the elected MPs anyway and only scrutinise legislation. I see no problem with appointing experts - save that you need someone impartial and knowledgable enough to appoint them. Since I don't think any such person exists, that option's a non-starter.

I think it was Churchill who said democracy is the worst system except for all the others.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/07/constitution_changing#c4163 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:58:58 +0000 simon [Visitor] c4158@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ It is undemocratic. and horiffic. If appointing experts is so good. Why have elections http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/07/constitution_changing#c4158 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:45:17 +0000 simon [Visitor] c4157@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Why elect a parliament at all then. Just have an "expert" if it some god dahm good. It is undemocratic it subverts peoples rights. http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/07/constitution_changing#c4157