• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
But for that one term they're still liable to follow the party whip. They may be less inclined to do so, but this doesn't change the fact that there will be far fewer independents and people from outside politics in the House if it is to be elected.



Replace "peerage" with "senate appointment." :rolleyes:

Even if only 20 or so senators are directly appointed, this does not take into account the fact that parties choose their candidates. Granted, STV is an effective way of combating this, but I can't help but feel that most voters will vote as the party tells them (de jure STV, de facto PLPR) and that therefore, promising a candidate the "right" place on an unofficial party list (like a leaflet which tells supporters how they should vote) will serve the same function as promising one a peerage.

If you have 20% of senators appointed for life by an independent commission then that would be a far greater proportion of independents in the upper house than we have at the moment. Furthermore, as we have seen in the past, things like university constituencies are very likely to elect independents themselves.

Of course, why you place such a value on not being formally aligned to any political party is beyond me. I would much rather vote for someone and know what they stand for than to vote for someone who masks their partiality behind the label of "independent".
 
((Well, they really don't have to be in the timeframe, if the foundations were laid long before by someone a lot more important.))

Then yeah, go with Gladstone and either Lloyd George or Asquith. Preferably Lloyd George.
 
((Ummmm... If I were to choose one or two most important British liberals of all time, which would I choose? Or what about a few moderate conservatives? And socialists would get Attlee(right?), but what about someone a tad bit more radical?
I mean, I'm not looking for just important figures, I'm looking for the Faces of these ideologies, much like Mosley was for British fascism.))

John Maynard Keynes. David Lloyd George. Asquith perhaps. John Stuart Mill.
 
((Bah, Christ. Okay, I'll try and find all these blokes and figure out, which ones to stamp on this new thingy...
Was Attlee alright for Labour? And who's an important radical socialist?


Bhaha, in Estonia, we had like ONE liberal bloke who never achieved anything, ONE conservative-rural guy, who did a self-coup and then a pair of nationalists-parafascists.
...And then some Soviet collaborators.))
 
Last edited:
John Maynard Keynes. David Lloyd George. Asquith perhaps. John Stuart Mill.

I think he means political Liberals, you know, guys who actually sat in the Commons and didn't chicken out of standing for Cambridge like a certain British economist may have done. :p

William Gladstone and David Lloyd George are the best candidates if there can only be two.
 
((Bah, Christ. Okay, I'll try and find all these blokes and figure out, which ones to stamp on this new thingy...
Was Attlee alright for Labour? And who's an important radical socialist?))

Did you see my suggestions on the previous page?
 
Did you see my suggestions on the previous page?

We should probably have Gaitskell there too, actually, if we can have three Labour people. Stuff Hardie, this isn't the 19th Century anymore. :p
 
Bhaha, in Estonia, we had like ONE liberal bloke who never achieved anything, ONE conservative-rural guy, who did a self-coup and then a pair of nationalists-parafascists.
...And then some Soviet collaborators.))

Eesti cannot into politics.
 
That doesn't make him unimportant. ;)
((Well, but is he THAT important to drag him here? Did he change something that drastically?))

Eesti cannot into politics.
((Well, the First Republic had like twenty little parties and two government crisises a year for the first ten years and then Päts did a self-coup just before the nationalists-parafascists won the elections and next ten years we had a nice little moderate dictatorship and economical golden age.
...And then the russians came back.))
 
Last edited:
((Well, but is he THAT important to drag him here? Did he change something that drastically?))

Well, founding the Labour Party must count for something...
 
Well, founding the Labour Party must count for something...

Why isn't Bill Rodgers being mentioned?! Why aren't people nominating Bill Rodgers?! :p

Oh and Desmond Donnelly, there's another irrelevant guy who founded a political party. Why shouldn't he be on the list? :p
 
Oh and Desmond Donnelly, there's another irrelevant guy who founded a political party. Why shouldn't he be on the list? :p
((Just looked him up, I think I have to put him on the list because I'll never forgive myself if I don't.
...
Man, what a hero.))
 
Wow. I mean... Wow. What about it?
((Was this even a topic of discussion in 60s? I know in Soviet bloc it wasn't.))

During the late 1950s and 1960s, it is estimated that the Soviet Union had some of the highest abortion rates in the world. The abortion rate during this period is not known for sure, because the Soviet Union did not start releasing abortion statistics until perestroika. The best estimates, which are based on surveys of medical professionals during this time, say that about 6 to 7 million abortion were performed per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
 
If you have 20% of senators appointed for life by an independent commission then that would be a far greater proportion of independents in the upper house than we have at the moment. Furthermore, as we have seen in the past, things like university constituencies are very likely to elect independents themselves.

Of course, why you place such a value on not being formally aligned to any political party is beyond me. I would much rather vote for someone and know what they stand for than to vote for someone who masks their partiality behind the label of "independent".

I guess that is the problem of considering voting for the upper house. Reform is absolutely necessary - at present a house stuffed with hundreds of hereditary peers is an affront to a nation which looks on course for a progressive coalition. I would urge my liberal colleagues to support a two pronged reform which will drastically reduce the number oh hereditary peers, with a long term proposal to reduce them in their entirety. Secondly, we must question a system which allows one religion, which is not even the state religion across all the countries of this United Kingdom, to appoint members to the upper house.

A parallel, democratically elected chamber would do little other than create a new arena for political brinkmanship - any new chamber should have as little political input as possible.

I therefore propose a drastically smaller and technocratic chamber, to be staffed in its entirety by appointees made by an impartial body. Members shall be limited to one term of 15 years with no possibility of renewal, and must be aged 40 or over. Appointments should be phased in three waves - seperated by a few years, to reduce the volatility of membership.
Beyond that, Parliament shall be invited to vote of guiding principles which will act as the constitution of Tue new independent body for selections - the principles being that nominees ought to be recognised I'm their field and capable of demonstrating an expertise in pertinent aspects of life; for example; business, education, science, culture and sport.

Such a chamber will not have any increased or reduced powers - the prime legislative chamber of our land is to remain the House of Commons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.