Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: The EU thread

Last post by Jacob - Today at 06:37:57 PM

Denmark just had nationwide municipal elections. The Social Democrats no longer have the Lord Mayorship of Copenhagen for the first time in more than 100 years.

#2

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 05:42:23 PM

Is your acceptance of religion in legislature part of your far-left shift?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p

 

#3

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 05:29:31 PM

"This is what we believe" (joking probably mostly)


Obviously my ideal would be to simply abolish the Lords full stop. Although this relies on the assumption that the sudden removal of a safety net would encourage MPs to take their role as lawmakers seriously which I think could be a disappointment.

But if you must have a second chamber it shouldn't be as democratic so it doesn't have enough legitimacy to create gridlock/block a governing majority from governing. If it's not elected I lean to the Irish model (which is basically corporatist with seats for farmers, universities, industry, labour etc) - but I'm not massively averse to the UK model of some partisan appointments but lots of people appointed like those listed above "the great and the good" of former judges, senior doctors, intelligence chiefs, sportspeople and artists. Within that I think religion absolutely has a role - but it should be more representative of all faith communities. So far it is very Christian and Jewish (there are, obviously, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh etc members of the Lords but they're not there as faith leaders).

#4

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 05:19:34 PM

Is your acceptance of religion in legislature part of your far-left shift?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p

#5

Off the Record / Re: The EU thread

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 05:11:20 PM

On the other hand big EU announcement for investment funding which is good and essential. I think I posted before that with the current state of infrastructure (particularly in Germany which is the most important country both north-south and east-west), at most about one and a half brigades could be transported at once which feels sub-optimal.

So improving European infrastructure is really important - in some ways it's slightly back to the future as in the 80s I think both in NATO and the Warsaw Pact infrastructure was designed and maintained with the ability to carry military material in mind. That has degraded a lot in the last 30 years and needs to be built back up again.

#6

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 04:55:21 PM

Omg I agree with Simon Jenkins: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/20/unelected-lords-blocking-assisted-dying-democratic-outrage

I didn't realise we are the only non-Muslim country where bloody clergy can sit in the upper (or any) house just because they are the clergy.

You'd think that was relevant to the issue of assisted dying, but I don't really see the connection except to generate a misleading impression. I'd also just add an awful lot of MPs said they had profound concerns about the bill, but they were voting for the "principle" in the expectation that the House of Lords would amend it. That's not how legislators should behave but we are where we are. Advocates of the bill made the argument in the Commons that issues with it could ironed out in the House of Lords; they're now arguing amending it in the House of Lords. I don't think they can have it both ways. I'd also just note that advocates controlled the timetable in the Commons and they chose to make it very, very short. Numerous MPs on all sides of the debate criticised the lack of time for proper debate or amendment - having said that I think it was because (as happened in the Commons) the longer this bill was examined the more MPs voted against it.

I'd also add advocates are also proposing amendments. For example Lord Birt (of the BBC) and Lord Pannick KC have proposed an amendment requiring a specific Assisted Dying Help Service. The day you have had a preliminary discussion is day 1. On day 2 the ADHS must assign you a "personal navigator". If you want to proceed you'll see the first doctor on day 4 and the second doctor on day 12. You can be referred to a panel on day 14 who must make their decision by day 16. You (or your proxy) can ask that the second reflection period after the panel can be shortened to 24 hours and you must be given the drugs within 24 hours of the end of the second reflection period - so, in theory on day 18. Again my entire impression of this is that far too many of the advocates have had agency over their lives and cannot comprehend that is not how other people experience it - because God help you if you're vulnerable in an NHS bureaucracy moving to those deadlines.

The seven peers responsible for most those amendments are:
Ilora Finlay - a palliative care consultant (as in, she still works in a cancer hospital) and former President of both the Royal Society of Medicine and the British Medical Association.
Tanni Grey-Thompson - a former Paralympian medal winner who has spent her post-sports career campaigning on disability issues (again, a reminder that every single disability rights group in the country is opposed to the bill as it's currently drafted - though they have multiple positions on the principle of assisted dying).
Lord Carlile - former high court judge, independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and ormer president of the Howard Leage (prison reform campaign group) as well as chair of numerous public inquiries.
Therese Coffey - former Secretary of State for Health (the current Secretary of State for Health has also voiced concerns around the bill as drafted - having previously voted for assisted dying).
Lord Mansfield - who is an elected hereditary peer But was elected relatively recently and is a KC and former chair of the Bar Council.
Lords Moylan and Goodman are both former Tory politicians. Lord Moylan mainly in local government and then transport (he was on the board for Crossrail) and Lord Goodman a long time ago.

I don't really have an issue with the bishops as another oddity is that the House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber this side of China. There are over 800 members (about 200 Labour, 300 Tory, 100 Lib Dems and the rest are minor parties and about 200 crossbenchers). There are also the 24 bishops (as well as some other religious figures, who typically sit as crossbenchers - for example Baroness Neuberger and Lord Sacks, both rabbis). Personally I'd go further and, for example, make it standard that the Chief Rabbi becomes a member of the Lords and I also think there should be a leading Imam or two in the Lords.

(Hell I'd have that even in a reformed House of Lords as I'd probably go down the Irish model of having panels representing specific interests and communities and would definitely have religion in there )

#7

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Tamas - Today at 04:31:04 PM

Great, society will wallow in ignorance as Google spouts answers that cannot be sourced and are nonetheless trusted.

We will just quietly regress into a cyberpunk version of feudalism.

#8

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 04:21:06 PM

Sure and I don't necessarily have an issue with the actual proposals (according to polling 80-90% of lawyers do Although I have a slight theory that everyone is a conservative about the things they know well - it's why people hate software updates at work) - but most of Europe has a radically different legal traditions often involving investigating, or at least probing judges in a slightly inquisitorial role (this may actually still involve a jury).

It's very much apples and oranges.

I think you might mean 90% don't get trial by jury not that they don't go to trial. Less serious offences (or offences with a low or no custodial sentence) are heard by magistrates or district judges who sit without a jury. More serious cases (or sentences) are heard by a jury with a judge - and I think there are some where the defendent gets to pick. A lot of cases don't go to trial because the defendent pleads guilty, but even then only the most serious offences would go to a jury trial.

#9

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Josquius - Today at 04:17:55 PM

On Google, lately I've noticed the AI working. Text appearing saying "I think he is asking about x" and the like. I'm sure it wasn't doing that before.
It's usually wrong of course.

#10

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 04:14:03 PM

Omg I agree with Simon Jenkins: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/20/unelected-lords-blocking-assisted-dying-democratic-outrage

I didn't realise we are the only non-Muslim country where bloody clergy can sit in the upper (or any) house just because they are the clergy.