Bye-Bye House of Lords?
Ian Johnson
In article <E9zAJ...@nonexistent.com>, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
> (A problem in the '97 UK election...there was simply no viable option for
> people who 1)didn't want to keep the Tories AND
> 2)DID want to keep the existing contitution).
Referendum Party? Natural Law? I don't get the point you're trying
to make. Labour have a manifesto commitment to constitutional
reform, therefore the people have spoken. If people didn't want
it, why did they vote for it?
Regards,
Ian
--
Ian Johnson
i...@ddraig.demon.co.uk dod #0849 mag #87216 zzr-600 kz400k-ltd
DKM
Ian Johnson wrote:
>
> In article <E9zAJ...@nonexistent.com>, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
> > (A problem in the '97 UK election...there was simply no viable option for
> > people who 1)didn't want to keep the Tories AND
> > 2)DID want to keep the existing contitution).
>
> Referendum Party? Natural Law? I don't get the point you're trying
> to make. Labour have a manifesto commitment to constitutional
> reform, therefore the people have spoken. If people didn't want
> it, why did they vote for it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian
But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
DKM
Louis Epstein
Ian Johnson (i...@ddraig.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <E9zAJ...@nonexistent.com>, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
: > (A problem in the '97 UK election...there was simply no viable option for
: > people who 1)didn't want to keep the Tories AND
: > 2)DID want to keep the existing contitution).
:
: Referendum Party? Natural Law? I don't get the point you're trying
: to make. Labour have a manifesto commitment to constitutional
: reform, therefore the people have spoken. If people didn't want
: it, why did they vote for it?
Because there was no viable party that could offer both non-Toriness
and indifference to constitutional change...a party not running
candidates in enough seats to win a majority would never win anyway.
(RP is simply a fools' clone of UKIP anyway).
Stuart Honan
DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Ian Johnson wrote:
>>
>> In article <E9zAJ...@nonexistent.com>, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>> > (A problem in the '97 UK election...there was simply no viable option for
>> > people who 1)didn't want to keep the Tories AND
>> > 2)DID want to keep the existing contitution).
>>
>> Referendum Party? Natural Law? I don't get the point you're trying
>> to make. Labour have a manifesto commitment to constitutional
>> reform, therefore the people have spoken. If people didn't want
>> it, why did they vote for it?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ian
>
>But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
>beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
>people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
>reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
>
Hence in some cases referenda. But >50% of the people did vote for
parties advocating constitutional reform including to differeing
extents reform of the Lords.
Louis Epstein
Stuart Honan (help...@psicorps.com) wrote:
But whether they voted for them beecause of this,or for other reasons
and in spite of this,can only be guessed.
DKM
Stuart Honan wrote:
>
> DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
> >beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
> >people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
> >reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
> >
>
> Hence in some cases referenda. But >50% of the people did vote for
> parties advocating constitutional reform including to differeing
> extents reform of the Lords.
But again I ask do >50% agree on the type of reform or how much? I
agree reform is needed, but I do not agree with the plans that Labour
has stated.
DKM
Graham Johnson
I am for reforming the House of Lords to make it more reflective of
society. Why not draw up people from all occupational groups, have so many
medics, so many lawyers, so many engineers, teachers, clerics etc etc.
Elected Lords would give us more of the same as we have in the Commons.
Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote in article <E9zAJ...@nonexistent.com>...
> Alan Gould (agol...@agolincs.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <33732339...@news.spectranet.ca>, Nick
> : <cho...@hotmail.com> writes
> : >On Tue, 06 May 1997 17:49:10 GMT, help...@psicorps.com (Stuart Honan)
> : >wrote:
> : >
> : >>Democracy is very important as it gives the people the power to
decide
> : >>how they are governed. Anyone who argues for a decrease in democracy
> : >>has clearly not thought out the implications.
> : >
> : >Democracy gives people the power to decide WHO governs them, not HOW
> : >they are governed.
> :
> : True. We are asked to choose who runs the system, we are never asked if
> : we like the system.
Louis Epstein
Simon Gardner (simon....@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk) wrote:
: In article <3375DF...@prodigy.net>,
: DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:
: > But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
: > beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
: > people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
: > reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
: I can guaratee that in 20 years time, the concept of hereditary peers
: voting in parliament will be a dim and quaint memory of the old-fashioned
: 20th century.
In 1871,Joseph Chamberlain said that it seemed inevitable that GB would
become a republic in his generation.
In 20 years' time there will doubtless be surviving hereditary peers
who have voted on legislation,some are in their 20s now!!
Mike Dickson
In article <3375DF...@prodigy.net> D...@prodigy.net wrote...
> But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
> beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
> people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power?
Whichever - parties offering constitutional change got the majority of
the popular vote. It now appears that the Tories are having to face up
to changing their opinions on the subject. Mind you, now that they face
ten years in the wilderness they can say what the blazes they like.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6NL
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
*Spam deflecting e-mail address used* : Junk e-mails charged at $1000 US
Morley
Mike Dickson wrote:
>
> In article <3375DF...@prodigy.net> D...@prodigy.net wrote...
>
> > But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
> > beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
> > people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power?
>
> Whichever - parties offering constitutional change got the majority of
> the popular vote. It now appears that the Tories are having to face up
> to changing their opinions on the subject. Mind you, now that they face
> ten years in the wilderness they can say what the blazes they like.
>
Remember that saying, "a week is a long time in politics". Ten years in
the wilderness........? it only takes one good long strike for
memories to be refreshed. The old guard are already rattling their
sabres and the press are already comenting upon it. I wouldn't get too
cocksure just yet.
Louis Epstein
Simon Gardner (simon....@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk) wrote:
:
: to find 10 who know that hereditary peers sit in Parliament even now.
An indictment of the educational system,not the hereditary principle.
Persons should be taught that hereditary peers do sit,and ought to sit.
Stuart Honan
DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Stuart Honan wrote:
>>
>> DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
>> >beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
>> >people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
>> >reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
>> >
>>
>> Hence in some cases referenda. But >50% of the people did vote for
>> parties advocating constitutional reform including to differeing
>> extents reform of the Lords.
>
>But again I ask do >50% agree on the type of reform or how much? I
>agree reform is needed, but I do not agree with the plans that Labour
>has stated.
>
My reply would be that you can't pick and choose policies but if you
were so against part of a manifesto then you would probably vote
against it. IMO Labour's plans to finally renovate the HoL (and dump
the hereditary peers in just over 18 months) are long overdue.
Matthew Cunliffe
On Sun, 11 May 1997 20:15:00 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
>: Hence in some cases referenda. But >50% of the people did vote for
>: parties advocating constitutional reform including to differeing
>: extents reform of the Lords.
>
>But whether they voted for them beecause of this,or for other reasons
>and in spite of this,can only be guessed.
Okay, so because people may have voted for a different reason, then we
should stick with the existing constitution, because we don't really
know what they wanted? Really, they are all right wing monarchists,
but just wanted a change in government, and voted Labour for the hell
of it.
I voted for the Lib Dems (and proud of it) for a few reasons. One of
them was because they advocate constitutional reform.
Any others?
Regards,
Matthew
Political Resources
http://www.cunliffe.demon.co.uk/Politics/
DKM
Stuart Honan wrote:
>
> DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Stuart Honan wrote:
> >>
> >> DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >> >But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
> >> >beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
> >> >people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
> >> >reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
> >> >
> >>
> >> parties advocating constitutional reform including to differeing
> >> extents reform of the Lords.
> >
> >agree reform is needed, but I do not agree with the plans that Labour
> >has stated.
> >
>
> My reply would be that you can't pick and choose policies but if you
> were so against part of a manifesto then you would probably vote
> against it. IMO Labour's plans to finally renovate the HoL (and dump
> the hereditary peers in just over 18 months) are long overdue.
My reply back would be over 50% did vote against the Labour manifesto.
They may vote for one of the reform plans of one of the other parties,
but they did not vote for the Labour manifesto.
A renovation of the HoL is long overdue, but a major renovation not dump
the hereditary peers and go from there.
DKM
jtd.iol.ie
I think Blair's ideas on the Lords are rediculous and ignorant. An upper
house needs one of two characteristics; it must either be democratic,
having a democratic legitimacy, or it must have in its membership a
valued contribution that overcomes any democratic deficit. At present,
the Lords has no democratic mandate. Its value comes from its quirky
membership, a mixture of amateurs in there by an accident of birth,
appointees, retired diplomats, clergymen. Internationally, it is
regarded as one of the world's most useful second chambers, producing
such quirks as the world's first serious attempt at environmental
legislation because an accident of bith produced an environmentalist
hereditary peer in the 1970s who put the issue on the agenda.
Blair's ideas won't make the House any more democratic, merely remove
the quirky aspect of hereditary peers, turning the house simply into one
big quango. But thn I have to say that the more I saw of Blair during
the election, the more he struck me as a case of image over substance.
If you do scrap your House of Lords, can we in Ireland have it? In
politics lectures in college it was compared favourably our supposedly
democratic and in fact practically useless worthless senate.
JIM DUFFY
Louis Epstein
G.K.Brown (gkb...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: Morley <sw...@itl.net> wrote:
:
: >Remember that saying, "a week is a long time in politics". Ten years in
: >memories to be refreshed. The old guard are already rattling their
: >sabres and the press are already comenting upon it. I wouldn't get too
: >cocksure just yet.
: If a workforce goes on strike for weeks on end, they usually have a
: very good reason for doing so. In 1979 the good reason which began the
: "winter of discontent" was that the government forbade the Ford
: workers from receiving a payrise which the management was quite happy
: to concede.
:
: As long as the Blairites don't pick a fight with Labour's natural
: supporters, by freezing their wages for 4 years, the constitutional
: changes are certainly going to go through.
[shudder]
: Gordon Brown
You are,I take it,not the Cabninet Minister?
: gkb...@enterprise.net
: Old Labour Web Site:
: http://homepages.enterprise.net/gkbrown
Louis Epstein
Jim McCown (mcco...@NOSPAMosu.edu) wrote:
: In article <5l8i73$8s2$1...@nuacht.iol.ie> "jtd.iol.ie" <j...@iol.ie> writes:
: [bobbited]
: >Blair's ideas won't make the House any more democratic, merely remove
: >big quango. But thn I have to say that the more I saw of Blair during
: >the election, the more he struck me as a case of image over substance.
: Image over substance? That reminds me of a politician here in the USA.
Only one??????
Craig Cockburn
Ann an sgriobhainn <5l8i73$8s2$1...@nuacht.iol.ie>, sgriobh "jtd.iol.ie"
<j...@iol.ie>
>I think Blair's ideas on the Lords are rediculous and ignorant. An upper
>house needs one of two characteristics; it must either be democratic,
>having a democratic legitimacy, or it must have in its membership a
>valued contribution that overcomes any democratic deficit. At present,
>the Lords has no democratic mandate. Its value comes from its quirky
>membership, a mixture of amateurs in there by an accident of birth,
>appointees, retired diplomats, clergymen. Internationally, it is
>regarded as one of the world's most useful second chambers, producing
>such quirks as the world's first serious attempt at environmental
>legislation because an accident of bith produced an environmentalist
>hereditary peer in the 1970s who put the issue on the agenda.
>
That last sentence is not so much supporting the House of Lords but
appears to support the idea of interesting/useful/relevant legislation
being introduced. To some degree don't private members bills fulfill
this purpose? I would like to see more bills introduced along non-party
lines and the recent debate concerning "we don't vote for how we are
governed, we vote for who governs us - any agreement between the two is
simply a happy coincidence for the voter" leads me to wonder how much
room there is for making politics more representative of what people
want rather than what fulfills party needs.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: cr...@scot.demon.co.uk
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Louis Epstein
Stuart Honan (help...@psicorps.com) wrote:
: DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:
: >Stuart Honan wrote:
: >>
: >> DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: >> >But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
: >> >beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
: >> >people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
: >> >reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
: >> >
: >>
: >> Hence in some cases referenda. But >50% of the people did vote for
: >> parties advocating constitutional reform including to differeing
: >> extents reform of the Lords.
: >
: >But again I ask do >50% agree on the type of reform or how much? I
: >agree reform is needed, but I do not agree with the plans that Labour
: >has stated.
: >
:
: My reply would be that you can't pick and choose policies but if you
: were so against part of a manifesto then you would probably vote
: against it. IMO Labour's plans to finally renovate the HoL (and dump
: the hereditary peers in just over 18 months) are long overdue.
IMO the hereditary peers are an invaluable admixture to the already
preponderant influence of politicians and their favorites,who are in
no need of even more power!
Louis Epstein
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (in...@londwill.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <33775970...@news.demon.co.uk>, Matthew Cunliffe
: <Spam...@pissoff.com> writes
: >On Sun, 11 May 1997 19:31:53 GMT, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
: >
: >>Mike Dickson (mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk) wrote:
: >>: Louis 'Fuckwit' of Epstein (l...@put.com), from the land beyond the hills
: >>: of Ng-Rah-Gagagagar, seventh sperm of Ashglop the Shagger of Balrogs and
: >>: Bearer of the Hidden Gom-Blablabla, said in <E9xIL...@nonexistent.com>...
: >>:
: >>: > If the elected people are stupider than the herditary ones,it ought to
: >>: > count as an argument against electing people!
: >>:
: >>: Uh-huh...except that this is never true.
: >>
: >>Baloney.
: >
: >The well known impartial expert on constitutional matters once more
: >steps in with an astute and quite obviously correct observation.
: >
: >NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: >
: >I know what Louis' answer will be, seeing as he is an out and out
: >royalist who doesn't even live here, but....
: >
: >Surely it is better to have a bunch of democratically elected,
: >accountable, stupid old farts as a second chamber, than a bunch of
: >sycophantic, hereditary, stupid old farts? For some reason, this
: >bunch of dotards think they should automatically have the right to
: >decide our future, because of course they are completely in touch with
: >public opinion or rather the opinion of their vassal's.
The absurd assertion here was that no poltician is ever stupider than
anyone who ever inherits a title.(Hmm,Bertrand,3rd Earl Russell,
or Lord Rayleigh,the physicist,were both stupider than anyone ever
elected an MP?)
: Why is it people always fall into the trap of assuming that all
: hereditary peers are old? By the laws of fate, one's father can die
: when one is young or old or any time in between. Consequently the
: present age spread of the hereditary peers is quite wide, from early
: 20's to almost a 100.
Indeed,here are the ones younger than any life peer,some of them
rather active...
(might have cut list a peer or two late)
Nov 19 1955 Lindsay E
Jan 4 1956 Fairfax of Cameron B
Jan 30 1956 Grantley B
March 14 1956 Ffrench B
May 20 1956 Mills V
August 13 1956 De Saumarez B
August 22 1956 Gridley B
August 25 1956 Hardinge V
Sept 13 1956 Ailsa M
Oct 3 1956 Attlee E
Oct 18 1956 Tankerville E
Nov 16 1956 Northumberland D
Jan 30 1957 Brooke & Warwick E
March 15 1957 Granard E
May 16 1957 Mancroft B
May 16 1957 St. John of Bletso B
May 22 1957 Jeffreys B
June 7 1957 Strathmore & Kinghorne & Strathmore and Kinghorne E
(former deputy chief whip)
June 8 1957 Poltimore B
March 31 1958 Rosslyn E
April 26 1958 Bute M
May 7 1958 Colyton B
May 24 1958 Woolton E
Sept 9 1958 Mackintosh of Halifax V
Oct 27 1958 Ponsonby of Shulbrede B
Dec 23 1958 De Ros B
April 8 1959 Biddulph B
July 2 1959 Londesborough B
July 20 1959 Burden B
Sept 10 1959 Granville E
Feb 22 1960 Strathclyde B
(Conservative chief whip)
March 12 1960 Cromwell B
June 4 1960 Rayleigh B
June 27 1960 Cholmondeley M
(the Lord Great Chamberlain)
Feb 17 1961 Dundonald E
May 23 1961 Hawarden V
June 6 1961 Milford Haven M
Sept 4 1961 Stair E
June 30 1962 Cawdor E
Oct 10 1962 Derby E
July 10 1963 Martonmere B
August 24 1963 Addington B
Nov 5 1963 Yarborough E
Jan 7 1964 Netherthorpe B
May 20 1964 Spencer E
June 28 1964 Listowel E
May 27 1965 Boyne V
July 16 1965 Albemarle E
Nov 16 1965 Goschen V
(a minister in the Major government)
Nov 16 1966 Inverforth B
July 18 1967 Redesdale B
Sept 21 1967 Selby V
Oct 11 1967 Fermoy B
July 27 1968 Marchamley B
Aug 10 1968 Wrottesley B
Sept 19 1968 Wimborne V
August 10 1969 Iveagh E
Jan 8 1970 Trevor B
Nov 4 1970 Denbigh & Desmond E
Dec 15 1970 Freyberg B
(noted for his actions re war widows' pensions)
Feb 3 1971 Hardwicke E
Jan 6 1973 Dillon V
April 17 1975 Gretton B
(still too young to sit:)
Feb 13 1977 Lovat B
April 15 1980 Elphinstone B
June 13 1989 Craven E
: If a non-hereditary House of Lords is going to make any sense at all,
it can't.
Louis Epstein
Mike Dickson (mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk) wrote:
: In article <863496...@vision25.demon.co.uk>
: ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk wrote...
:
: > 2. choose peers at random from the electoral roll to serve for 10
: > years. This would produce a mix similar to the population as a whole
:
: This is a singularly dreadful idea. Aside from the obvious issue of not
: knowing what level of mental competence you are going to get, the whole
: idea of reforming the House of Lords is to eliminate the undemocratic
: element of allowing people to sit there without them being answerable to
: the electorate.
And this frothing-at-the-mouth worship of democracy is terminally stupid.
Ergo,the Lords should NOT be reformed,except through reversal of 20th
century dilutions of their power.
: Your idea would not guarantee against an unfair bias in
: favour of ideas not supported by the population;
How about a fair bias in favor of ideas not supported by the
population?
: My reformation of the House of Lords would involve prudent use of
: dynamite.
PRUDENT use would direct the dynamite against the critics of the
hereditary principle.
Mike Dickson
Louis 'Fuckwit' of Epstein (l...@put.com), from the land beyond the hills
of Ng-Rah-Gagagagar, seventh sperm of Ashglop the Shagger of Balrogs and
> And this frothing-at-the-mouth worship of democracy is terminally stupid.
Yes, that's why nearly every right-minded human being on the planet
wants it, I suppose. And I notice that you don't offer any substance to
your argument other than 'it is stupid'. About par for the course for
you, Hobbit, but do try and give a decent argument, will you?
Louis Epstein
Steve Carrie (step...@uunet.pipex.com) wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:
: > : Your idea would not guarantee against an unfair bias in
: > : favour of ideas not supported by the population;
: >
: > How about a fair bias in favor of ideas not supported by the
: > population?
:
With reality is more iimportnt than with "the people".
: I seriously doubt if any of them know what unemployed means...
Keep looing.There are a number who scroung pretty hard for a
living...of course,the enemis of the peerage then pick on the
down-and-out among peers as a disqualification itself!
: > : My reformation of the House of Lords would involve prudent use of
: > : dynamite.
: >
: > PRUDENT use would direct the dynamite against the critics of the
: > hereditary principle.
:
: but that wouldn't be democratic...
And there are better ideas than democracy in this world.
Louis Epstein
Peter Ramm (peter...@spam.btinternet.com) wrote:
:
: Given the amount of in-breeding in the aristocracy I would suspect
: that the mental competence of 10 people selected at random would be
: greater than that of the chinless wonders which under the current
: system we are blessed with.
Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
pervasive among the aristocracy.
(If you can't,please stop using stupid cliches).
William Addams Reitwiesner
peter...@spam.btinternet.com (Peter Ramm) wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 1997 19:10:03 GMT, mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk (Mike
>Dickson) wrote:
>
>>In article <863496...@vision25.demon.co.uk>
>>ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk wrote...
>>
>>> 2. choose peers at random from the electoral roll to serve for 10
>>> years. This would produce a mix similar to the population as a whole
>>
>>This is a singularly dreadful idea. Aside from the obvious issue of not
>>knowing what level of mental competence you are going to get, the whole
>>idea of reforming the House of Lords is to eliminate the undemocratic
>>element of allowing people to sit there without them being answerable to
>>the electorate. Your idea would not guarantee against an unfair bias in
>>favour of ideas not supported by the population; what if your random
>>selection turned up ten Nazis?
>
>Given the amount of in-breeding in the aristocracy I would suspect
>that the mental competence of 10 people selected at random would be
>greater than that of the chinless wonders which under the current
>system we are blessed with.
While your suspicions about the mental acuity of the "chinless wonder"
class may well be right on the mark, your suggestion that inbreeding among
the aristocracy is a (or the) cause of this vapidity is wrong, and if you'd
actually studied genealogy you'd know why. As a rule, the current crop of
aristos (by that I mean people who belong to families which were ennobled
more than a hundred years ago) is *less* inbred than the current crop of
farmers (by that I mean people who are owning, or living on, or working the
same plot of land their great-grandparents were working a hundred years
ago). Of course, inbreeding is far less common among those who have grown
up in a metropolis, such as London.
I'm not trying to say that the chinless wonders are a force for good, I'm
just saying that explanations for their inadequacies have to be found
someplace other than the (alleged) narrowness of their family trees.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Ceterum censeo Patdwfsytam delendam esse."
Louis Epstein
Craig Cockburn (cr...@scot.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Ann an sgriobhainn <5l8i73$8s2$1...@nuacht.iol.ie>, sgriobh "jtd.iol.ie"
: <j...@iol.ie>
: >I think Blair's ideas on the Lords are rediculous and ignorant. An upper
: >house needs one of two characteristics; it must either be democratic,
: >having a democratic legitimacy, or it must have in its membership a
: >valued contribution that overcomes any democratic deficit. At present,
: >the Lords has no democratic mandate. Its value comes from its quirky
: >membership, a mixture of amateurs in there by an accident of birth,
: >appointees, retired diplomats, clergymen. Internationally, it is
: >regarded as one of the world's most useful second chambers, producing
: >such quirks as the world's first serious attempt at environmental
: >legislation because an accident of bith produced an environmentalist
: >hereditary peer in the 1970s who put the issue on the agenda.
:
: That last sentence is not so much supporting the House of Lords but
: appears to support the idea of interesting/useful/relevant legislation
: being introduced. To some degree don't private members bills fulfill
: this purpose? I would like to see more bills introduced along non-party
: lines and the recent debate concerning "we don't vote for how we are
: governed, we vote for who governs us - any agreement between the two is
: simply a happy coincidence for the voter" leads me to wonder how much
: room there is for making politics more representative of what people
: want rather than what fulfills party needs.
What people need is more important than what they want.
Louis Epstein
Mike Dickson (mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk) wrote:
: Louis 'Fuckwit' of Epstein (l...@put.com), from the land beyond the hills
: of Ng-Rah-Gagagagar, seventh sperm of Ashglop the Shagger of Balrogs and
:
: > And there are better ideas than democracy in this world.
:
: So please answer the question you have been evading - when are you
: leaving the USA and its intolerable democratic system?
Better to use it to change it!
Phil Hunt
In article <EAB7v...@nonexistent.com> l...@put.com "Louis Epstein" writes:
> Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
> pervasive among the aristocracy.
King Charles II of Spain.
--
**===== Phil Hunt ===== ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk ===============**
** See <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/index.htm> for info on: **
** Eurolang ** Politics ** Voting Systems ** Basic Income **
Andrew Adams
Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote in article <EAB7v...@nonexistent.com>...
> Peter Ramm (peter...@spam.btinternet.com) wrote:
> :
> : Given the amount of in-breeding in the aristocracy I would suspect
> : that the mental competence of 10 people selected at random would be
> : greater than that of the chinless wonders which under the current
> : system we are blessed with.
>
> Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
> pervasive among the aristocracy.
>
> (If you can't,please stop using stupid cliches).
>
Leaving aside the issue of inbreeding, there is no reason to
believe that the average level of mental competence among
hereditary peers is any higher than in the population as a
whole.
Therefore, if you support the principle of an unelected
second chamber, why not go for the random selection
method?
Andrew Adams
Alan Gould
In article <EAC5E...@nonexistent.com>, Louis Epstein <l...@put.com>
writes
>What people need is more important than what they want.
Providing of course that they can decide for themselves what they need
and what they want. Or were you proposing that someone else decides that
for them?
--
Alan Gould
Louis Epstein
Phil Hunt (ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <EAB7v...@nonexistent.com> l...@put.com "Louis Epstein" writes:
: > Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
: > pervasive among the aristocracy.
:
: King Charles II of Spain.
I said "pervasive",and was referring to the present hereditary peerage,
who were who you were criticizing.Here are their titles and birthdates,
look them up and research their ancestry and get back to me:
April 19 1899 Ormonde M
Sept 1 1901 Riverdale B
Oct 21 1901 Oranmore and Browne & Mereworth B
August 10 1903 Lisle B
Sept 18 1904 Eccles V
May 3 1905 St. Vincent V
Oct 5 1905 Howard of Penrith B
Dec 5 1905 Longford E
August 25 1906 Dunsany B
Nov 21 1906 Younger of Leckie V
April 23 1907 Dudley B
May 13 1907 Perth E
(Oct 9 1907 Hailsham V)
Oct 31 1907 Molesworth V
Nov 18 1907 Malmesbury E
June 4 1908 Halsbury E
July 11 1908 Penrhyn B
Jan 29 1909 Tonypandy V
Feb 10 1909 Milne B
June 29 1909 Kemsley V
Feb 15 1910 Jersey E
Feb 24 1910 Hazlerigg B
Oct 19 1910 Harberton V
Nov 3 1910 Meath E
Nov 22 1910 Romney E
Dec 8 1910 Horder B
March 17 1911 Lauderdale E
April 9 1911 Deramore B
April 25 1911 Hayter B
(May 18 1911 Camrose V)
Dec 17 1911 De Villiers B
Jan 19 1912 Wemyss and March E
March 9 1912 Thurlow B
April 14 1912 Hastings B
April 23 1912 Belper B
Sept 29 1912 Lambert V
October 6 1912 Cullen of Ashbourne B
Nov 27 1912 Howard de Walden & Seaford B
Nov 27 1912 Lansdowne M
Dec 11 1912 Bessborough E
Feb 23 1913 Lincoln E
April 16 1913 Aberconway B
May 30 1913 Ely M
May 30 1913 Sackville B
July 18 1913 Esher V
July 27 1913 Cawley B
Oct 16 1913 Simon of Wythenshawe B
Nov 26 1913 Hives B
Jan 8 1914 Hollenden B
Jan 15 1914 FitzWalter B
Feb 13 1914 Cadogan E
Feb 15 1914 Dysart E
March 11 1914 Hood V
April 14 1914 Egmont E
May 25 1914 Aldington B
May 27 1914 Erroll of Hale B
May 27 1914 Leinster D
May 31 1914 Audley B
June 11 1914 Bagot B
June 21 1914 Morrison B
June 21 1914 Sinclair B
July 30 1914 Killanin B
Sept 27 1914 Citrine B
Sept 28 1914 Abinger B
Oct 3 1914 Sidmouth V
Oct 17 1914 Dalhousie E
Oct 30 1914 Greenwood V
Nov 1 1914 Strabolgi B
Nov 8 1914 Abergavenny M
Nov 25 1914 Broughshane B[?]
Feb 4 1915 Moncreiff B
March 15 1915 Rendlesham B
March 21 1915 Soulbury V
April 10 1915 Lyveden B
May 10 1915 Sutherland D
June 26 1915 Wyfold B
July 1 1915 Leverhulme V
July 2 1915 Wellington D
July 21 1915 Norfolk D
August 2 1915 Wigram B
August 4 1915 Vaux of Harrowden B
Sept 14 1915 Wilson B
Sept 16 1915 Grimthorpe B
Oct 15 1915 Dunleath B
Oct 16 1915 MacDonald of Gwaensygor B
Nov 3 1915 Monckton of Brenchley V
Dec 3 1915 Rollo B
Dec 30 1915 Terrington B
Jan 10 1916 Tweedsmuir B
Feb 19 1916 Henniker & Hartismere B
April 18 1916 Donegall M
April 22 1916 Oxford and Asquith E
May 12 1916 Cork and Orrery E
May 13 1916 Townshend M
June 7 1916 Rochester B
July 7 1916 Denman B
July 13 1916 Devon E
(Oct 20 1916 Silkin B)
Oct 24 1916 Salisbury M
Oct 27 1916 Ashtown B
Nov 17 1916 Polwarth B
Jan 2 1917 Chatfield B
Jan 5 1917 Wynford B
Jan 27 1917 Dunboyne B
Jan 27 1917 Merrivale V
April 24 1917 Newborough B
May 24 1917 Bedford D
Oct 8 1917 Caldecote V
Nov 19 1917 Glanusk B
Dec 12 1917 Borwick B
Feb 19 1918 Forbes B
March 15 1918 Haig E
April 4 1918 Jellicoe E
June 28 1918 Whitelaw V
Sept 1 1918 Lisburne E
Sept 27 1918 Shepherd B
Oct 28 1918 Lanesborough E
Nov 2 1918 Aylesford E
Jan 24 1919 Savile B
Feb 23 1919 St. Levan B
Feb 24 1919 Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome E
March 14 1919 Keyes B
April 3 1919 Grafton D
April 28 1919 Breadalbane and Holland E
May 15 1919 Darling B
May 28 1919 Rutland D
June 6 1919 Carrington B
June 16 1919 Aberdare B
July 3 1919 Loudoun E
July 3 1919 Orkney E
July 9 1919 St. Oswald B
August 22 1919 Cathcart E
August 29 1919 Ritchie of Dundee B
Sept 27 1919 Clanwilliam E
Oct 31 1919 Falmouth V
Jan 2 1920 Devonshire D
Jan 5 1920 Bellew B
Jan 5 1920 Dudley E
Jan 13 1920 Essex E
March 20 1920 Carbery B
March 28 1920 Tennyson B
April 1 1920 Ilchester E
April 17 1920 Mostyn B
April 24 1920 Colgrain B
May 7 1920 Cross V
May 13 1920 Dormer B
July 10 1920 Carnock B
July 20 1920 Aberdeen and Temair M
Aug 27 1920 Marks of Broughton B
Sept 4 1920 Sandhurst B
Sept 22 1920 Saye and Sele B
Oct 6 1920 Garvagh B
Oct 17 1920 Kilbracken B
Dec 16 1920 Mottistone B
Dec 22 1920 Sandford B
Jan 28 1921 Harvey of Tasburgh B
Feb 7 1921 Bruntisfield B
March 30 1921 Sutherland E
April 11 1921 Buckmaster V
May 1 1921 Middleton B
May 29 1921 Wilton E
June 11 1921 Massy B
June 29 1921 Cornwallis B
July 24 1921 Fisher B
Oct 15 1921 Ampthill B
Oct 31 1921 Hardinge of Penshurst B
Dec 17 1921 Daventry V
Dec 19 1921 De Mauley B
Dec 25 1921 Gainford B
Jan 11 1922 Leighton of St. Mellons B
March 28 1922 Shaughnessy B
April 17 1922 Margesson V
June 19 1922 Suffield B
July 8 1922 Samuel V
(July 10 1922 Durham E)
July 16 1922 Westbury B
August 18 1922 Kinloss B
August 24 1922 Harrington E
Sept 8 1922 Lothian M
Sept 12 1922 Allendale V
Oct 8 1922 Anglesey M
Oct 13 1922 Galway V
Nov 3 1922 Lonsdale E
Dec 5 1922 Nathan B
Dec 20 1922 Harrowby E
Jan 14 1923 Catto B
Feb 1 1923 Vernon B
Feb 7 1923 Harewood E
Feb 13 1923 Manners B
March 11 1923 Mowbray,Segrave,& Stourton B
March 27 1923 Aylmer B
May 29 1923 Morley E
June 11 1923 Wise B
June 25 1923 Ravensdale B
August 2 1923 Kennet B
August 9 1923 Foley B
Sept 1 1923 Thomson of Fleet B
Sept 13 1923 Herschell B
Sept 21 1923 Barnard B
Sept 28 1923 Buccleuch & Queensberry D
Oct 9 1923 Plymouth E
Oct 24 1923 Gainsborough E
Nov 17 1923 Craigmyle B
Nov 26 1923 Strathcona and Mount Royal B
Dec 31 1923 Elibank B
Jan 9 1924 Carnarvon E
Jan 22 1924 Macpherson of Drumochter B
Jan 22 1924 Manton B
Jan 22 1924 Wardington B
Jan 23 1924 Strathcarron B
Feb 14 1924 Mountbatten of Burma E
Feb 17 1924 Elgin & Kincardine E
March 13 1924 Conyngham M
March 31 1924 Ashcombe B
(April 15 1924 Altrincham B)
April 26 1924 Dartmouth E
April 28 1924 Lloyd George of Dwyfor E
May 12 1924 Kimberley E
May 13 1924 Leven & Melville E
June 20 1924 Stuart of Findhorn V
June 27 1924 Burton B
July 17 1924 Monk Bretton B
July 24 1924 Digby B
July 25 1924 Ravensworth B
July 28 1924 Scarsdale V
August 12 1924 Annesley E
Sept 21 1924 Ironside B
Sept 22 1924 Moran B
Oct 2 1924 Temple of Stowe E
Oct 23 1924 Shannon E
Oct 26 1924 Arbuthnott V
Nov 9 1924 Brabourne B
Dec 21 1924 Balfour of Inchrye B
Jan 1 1925 Swansea B
Feb 21 1925 Walsingham B
(April 3 1925 Stansgate V)
May 25 1925 Hampton B
June 14 1925 Grimston of Westbury B
July 29 1925 Ridley V
August 27 1925 Rothermere V
Sept 23 1925 Wakehurst
Dec 3 1925 Plunket B
Dec 23 1925 Balfour E
Jan 14 1926 Ellenborough B
Feb 18 1926 Northbourne B
March 1 1926 Latymer B
March 2 1926 Dickinson B
March 21 1926 Munster E
March 31 1926 Ailesbury M
April 13 1926 Marlborough D
April 26 1926 Lucas of Chilworth B
May 17 1926 Airlie E
May 17 1926 Graves B
May 22 1926 Dunrossil V
May 31 1926 Ingleby V
June 23 1926 Auckland B
July 5 1926 Monteagle of Brandon B
Aug 30 1926 Brain B
Sept 20 1926 Cochrane of Cults B
Oct 6 1926 Waterpark B
Oct 20 1926 Montagu of Beaulieu B
Oct 27 1926 Glendyne B
Nov 19 1926 Ashton of Hyde B
Nov 19 1926 Crook B
Dec 1 1926 Glenconner B
Dec 16 1926 Alvingham B
Dec 27 1926 Knutsford V
(Dec 30 1926 Archibald B)
Jan 6 1927 Balfour of Burleigh B
Jan 22 1927 Cottesloe B
Feb 27 1927 Belhaven and Stenton,B
March 5 1927 Crawford E
March 19 1927 Morton E
March 22 1927 Bolingbrooke & St. John B
May 1 1927 Bathurst E
May 11 1927 Kilmarnock B
June 18 1927 Wrenbury B
July 1 1927 Gisborough B
July 13 1927 Calthorpe B
July 20 1927 Slim V
August 2 1927 Gorell B
August 8 1927 Donoughmore E
Sept 3 1927 De Freyne B
Sept 28 1927 Sheffied & Stanley of Alderley & Eddisbury B
Oct 3 1927 Denham B
Nov 7 1927 Tenby V
Nov 8 1927 Raglan B
Nov 10 1927 Radnor E
Nov 27 1927 Bridges B
Feb 2 1928 Trimlestown B
Feb 12 1928 Harding of Petherton V
Feb 13 1928 Moray E
Feb 23 1928 Beaufort D
May 16 1928 Wraxall B
(May 27 1928 Reith B)
June 6 1928 Rea B
June 8 1928 De Clifford B
June 18 1928 Morris of Kenwood B
June 19 1928 Minto E
July 16 1928 Nunburnholme B
August 6 1928 Swaythling B
August 12 1928 Southampton B
August 18 1928 Castle Stewart E
August 18 1928 Montgomery of Alamein V
Sept 5 1928 Hemphill B
Sept 17 1928 Somerleyton B
Sept 29 1928 Avebury B
Oct 14 1928 Galloway E
Nov 2 1928 Ashburton B
Nov 21 1928 Westmeath E
Dec 17 1928 Strange B
Dec 22 1928 Davidson V
Dec 25 1928 Teynham B
Jan 4 1929 Ranfurly E
Jan 19 1929 Atholl D
Jan 30 1929 Long V
Feb 11 1929 Rosebery E
March 21 1929 Trevethin & Oaksey B
May 10 1929 Downshire M
June 8 1929 Ferrers E
June 18 1929 Parmoor B
July 11 1929 Bolton B
August 8 1929 Combermere V
August 15 1929 Valentia V
August 18 1929 Kindersley B
August 19 1929 Louth B
August 26 1929 Mayo E
August 27 1929 Milford B
Sept 15 1929 Norwich V
Sept 19 1929 Richmond & Lennox & Gordon D
Sept 23 1929 Fife D
Sept 30 1929 Berners B
Oct 22 1929 Birkett B
Oct 24 1929 Dacre B
Nov 3 1929 Clitheroe B
Dec 19 1929 Queensberry M
March 2 1930 Elton B
March 3 1930 Gladwyn B
March 7 1930 Snowdon E
March 11 1930 Congleton B
March 16 1930 Moyne B
March 29 1930 Hertford M
April 2 1930 Hambleden V
April 6 1930 Kenswood B
April 12 1930 Limerick E
May 2 1930 Silsoe B
May 18 1930 Sinha B
June 23 1930 Newall B
July 4 1930 Buchan E
July 7 1930 Mansfield & Mansfield E
July 17 1930 Margadale B
July 21 1930 Milverton B
August 13 1930 Camden M
August 14 1930 Chorley B
Sept 14 1930 Southwell V
Oct 18 1930 Saltoun B
Oct 23 1930 Remnant B
Oct 30 1930 Derwent B
Dec 5 1930 Bridgeman V
Dec 5 1930 Napier & Ettrick B
Dec 8 1930 Robertson of Oakridge B
Jan 8 1931 Lilford B
Jan 9 1931 Talbot of Malahide B
(Jan 12 1931 Sanderson of Ayot B)
Feb 14 1931 Rossmore B
March 7 1931 Chelmsford V
March 19 1931 Hill V
April 20 1931 Allenby V
May 5 1931 Ogmore B
May 16 1931 Mexborough E
June 3 1931 Blyth B
June 12 1931 Knollys V
June 28 1931 Lindsey & Abingdon E
July 3 1931 Gray B
July 7 1931 Farnham B
July 21 1931 Sandys B
July 22 1931 Methuen B
August 8 1931 Coleraine B
August 15 1931 Burnham B
Sept 26 1931 May B
Nov 8 1931 Heytesbury B
Nov 24 1931 Kirkwood B
Jan 12 1932 Cunliffe B
Jan 20 1932 Headfort M
Jan 28 1932 Windlesham B
Jan 29 1932 Braybrooke B
Feb 20 1932 Bicester B
Feb 28 1932 Dilhorne V
May 3 1932 Monson B
May 6 1932 Bath M
May 10 1932 Rothes E
June 13 1932 Hylton B
July 14 1932 Iddesleigh E
Sept 16 1932 Brassey of Apethorpe B
Sept 30 1932 Belstead B
Nov 4 1932 Hereford V
Nov 24 1932 Alanbrooke V
Dec 5 1932 Scarbrough E
Jan 13 1933 Luke B
Jan 28 1933 Ashbourne B
Feb 2 1933 Clarendon E
March 25 1933 Crawshaw B
April 7 1933 Brentford V
May 6 1933 Pender B
June 20 1933 Cranbrook E
July 14 1933 Waterford M
July 19 1933 Colville of Culross V
Sept 1 1933 O'Neill B
Sept 22 1933 Guilford E
Nov 9 1933 Weir V
Nov 24 1933 Kensington B
Jan 7 1934 Oxfuird V
Jan 18 1934 Delamere B
Jan 25 1934 Coverntry E
Feb 8 1934 Ebury B
Feb 20 1934 Wharton B
March 19 1934 Charlemont V
April 4 1934 Stratheden & Campbell B
April 5 1934 Rockley B
April 9 1934 Gage V
April 22 1934 Portman V
June 24 1934 Bledisloe V
July 4 1934 Abercorn D
July 8 1934 Mersey V
July 25 1934 Hemingford B
July 30 1934 Cowley E
July 31 1934 Churchill V
Oct 7 1934 Clinton B
Nov 10 1934 Runciman of Doxford,V
Dec 1 1934 Willoughby de Eresby B
Dec 2 1934 Revelstoke B
Dec 16 1934 Teviot B
Dec 18 1934 Lucan E[if living;son Sept 21 1967]
Dec 29 1934 Churston B
Jan 2 1935 Clwyd B
Jan 18 1935 Downe V
Feb 2 1935 Chetwynd B
Feb 3 1935 Antrim E
March 20 1935 Burgh B
March 26 1935 Kinnoull E
March 27 1935 Suffolk & Berkshire E
April 4 1935 Inchyra B
April 6 1935 Montrose D
April 21 1935 Glentoran B
May 8 1935 Falkland V
May 23 1935 Grenfell B
May 29 1935 Rankeillour B
June 19 1935 Dynevor B
June 28 1935 Rennell B
June 30 1935 Alexander of Tunis E
Sept 1 1935 Exeter M
Sept 3 1935 Powerscourt V
Sept 11 1935 Leigh B
Sept 18 1935 Stamp B
Oct 10 1935 Renwick B
(Nov 29 1935 Merthyr B)
Dec 9 1935 Ashbrook V
Dec 11 1935 Vivian B
March 25 1936 Brownlow B
April 27 1936 Norrie B
April 29 1936 Rothschild B
May 6 1936 Leicester E
May 12 1936 Kershaw B
May 14 1936 Grey of Codnor B
May 22 1936 Marchwood V
Sept 26 1936 Strafford E
Oct 15 1936 Baden-Powell B
Oct 21 1936 Rosse E
Nov 8 1936 Mountgarret V
Nov 16 1936 Fairhaven B
Nov 17 1936 Winchilsea & Nottingham E
Jan 14 1937 Drogheda E
Feb 25 1937 Head V
March 21 1937 Swinton E
March 25 1937 Stradbroke E
March 26 1937 Chetwode B
April 15 1937 Russell E
April 24 1937 Eldon E
May 7 1937 Hampden V
May 28 1937 Melville V
June 18 1937 Coleridge B
July 3 1937 Faringdon B
July 9 1937 Erne E
July 14 1937 Cobbold B
July 19 1937 Reay B
August 28 1937 Argyll D
Sept 3 1937 Geddes B
Sept 4 1937 Lawrence B
Sept 7 1937 Londonderry M
Oct 25 1937 Clanmorris B
Oct 27 1937 Selsdon V
Dec 9 1937 Morris B
Dec 28 1937 Zetland M
Dec 30 1937 Howick of Glendale B
Jan 3 1938 Baldwin of Bewdley E
Jan 15 1938 Rochdale V
Jan 25 1938 Blakenham V
Feb 11 1938 Hamilton of Dalzell B
Feb 20 1938 Forester B
Feb 28 1938 Onslow E
March 6 1938 Carew B
April 5 1938 Forteviot B
April 17 1938 Hacking B
May 22 1938 Shaftesbury E
June 12 1938 Herries of Terregles B
June 12 1938 Hankey B
June 28 1938 Darwen B
July 3 1938 Cadman B
July 10 1938 Darcy de Knayth B
July 14 1938 Arran E
July 19 1938 Bethell B
July 20 1938 McGowan B
August 2 1938 Brougham and Vaux B
August 10 1938 Portarlington E
August 19 1938 Broadbridge B
August 25 1938 Roden E
Sept 13 1938 Hamilton & Brandon D
Sept 14 1938 Willoughby de Broke B
Sept 17 1938 Rathdonnell B
Oct 5 1938 Wolverton B
Oct 9 1938 Manchester D
Nov 23 1938 Birdwood B
Dec 8 1938 Walpole B
Dec 14 1938 Swinfen B
Jan 1 1939 Norbury E
Jan 16 1939 Basing B
Jan 19 1939 St. Albans D
Jan 30 1939 St. Davids V
Feb 22 1939 Kintore E
March 5 1939 Grey E
March 20 1939 Seafield E
March 27 1939 Boston B
March 27 1939 Lyell B
April 25 1939 Lichfield E
April 29 1939 Effingham E
May 19 1939 Pembroke & Montgomery E
May 27 1939 Cairns E
June 1 1939 Mount Edgcumbe E
June 4 1939 Sligo M
June 14 1939 Rathcavan B
June 17 1939 Sudeley B
July 20 1939 Harmsworth B
July 30 1939 Glasgow E
August 27 1939 Eglinton & Winton E
Sept 12 1939 Crathorne B
Sept 20 1939 Berkeley B
Oct 21 1939 Hothfield B
Oct 27 1939 Dunraven and Mount-Earl E
Nov 19 1939 Gormanston V
Nov 26 1939 Gowrie E
Dec 7 1939 Boyd of Merton V
Dec 13 1939 Tollemache B
Feb 2 1940 Roborough B
March 17 1940 Bradbury B
March 24 1940 Selborne E
April 16 1940 Camoys B
May 1 1940 Gifford B
May 3 1940 Hotham B
May 24 1940 Cranworth B
May 26 1940 Tryon B
June 3 1940 Massereene & Ferrard V
July 20 1940 Simon V
August 5 1940 Hindlip B
Sept 6 1940 Napier of Magdala B
Sept 19 1940 Mar E
Oct 2 1940 Davies B
Oct 8 1940 Exmouth V
Nov 14 1940 Borthwick B
Dec 8 1940 Noel-Buxton B
Dec 8 1940 Waldegrave E
Dec 28 1940 Amherst of Hackney B
Jan 2 1941 St. Germans E
Jan 27 1941 Kingsale B
March 19 1941 Vestey B
March 31 1941 Trefgarne B
April 19 1941 Annandale and Hartfell E
May 21 1941 Greenway B
July 30 1941 Acton B
August 26 1941 Gough V
August 31 1941 Leathers V
Sept 9 1941 Killearn B
Sept 28 1941 Braye B
Oct 9 1941 Nelson E
Nov 7 1941 Chesham B
Nov 8 1941 Darnley E
Dec 2 1941 Haddington E
Dec 22 1941 Winchester M
Jan 1 1942 Colwyn B
Jan 9 1942 Ullswater V
Jan 29 1942 Kilmorey E
Feb 27 1942 De Ramsey B
April 11 1942 Maclay B
April 28 1942 Enniskillen E
May 18 1942 Reading M
????? 1942 Harris B
July 4 1942 Newburgh E
July 13 1942 Gosford E
July 22 1942 Spens B
July 23 1942 Sherfield B
August 4 1942 Petre B
Jan 23 1943 Inchcape E
Feb 1 1943 Mountevans B
Feb 23 1943 Zouche B
April 1 1943 Amwell B
April 11 1943 Sandwich E
April 22 1943 Castlemaine B
May 28 1943 Ventry B
May 31 1943 Macclesfield E
June 5 1943 Cobham V
July 13 1943 Torrington V
July 17 1943 Inchiquin B
Sept 9 1943 Strathspey B
Sept 23 1943 Kingston E
Oct 10 1943 Stockton E
Oct 13 1943 Winterton E
Oct 26 1943 Nelson of Stafford B
Nov 20 1943 Home E
Jan 30 1944 Westwood B
Feb 4 1944 Huntly M
March 14 1944 Halifax E
April 14 1944 Chichester E
May 2 1944 Dulverton B
June 9 1944 Craigavon V
June 17 1944 Cowdray V
August 29 1944 Devonport V
Sept 1 1944 Cavan E
Oct 7 1944 Glenarthur B
Oct 18 1944 Dufferin and Clandeboye B
Nov 14 1944 Liverpool E
Nov 22 1944 Iliffe B
Nov 25 1944 Phillimore B
Dec 15 1944 Buckinghamshire E
Jan 3 1945 Feversham B
Jan 6 1945 Poole B
Jan 29 1945 Lindsay of Birker B
Feb 16 1945 MacAndrew B
April 2 1945 Skelmersdale B
April 21 1945 De L'Isle V
June 13 1945 Addison V
August 5 1945 Sysonby B
August 21 1945 Normanton E
Sept 6 1945 O'Hagan B
Nov 4 1945 St. Helens B
Jan 19 1946 Piercy B
Feb 16 1946 Hanworth V
April 2 1946 Northampton M
May 16 1946 Forres B
June 3 1946 Cromer E
June 16 1946 Astor of Hever B
July 1 1946 Linlithgow M
August 17 1946 Doneraile V
August 27 1946 Torphichen B
Sept 5 1946 Chilston V
Sept 17 1946 Dunmore E
Oct 2 1946 Calverley B
Nov 21 1946 Beatty E
Dec 20 1946 Brabazon of Tara B
Jan 28 1947 Monkswell B
March 8 1947 Rowallan B
June 2 1947 Norton B
June 26 1947 McNair B
July 13 1947 Kenyon B
July 18 1947 Layton B
July 22 1947 Strathalmond B
August 6 1947 Tweeddale M
Oct 3 1947 Bradford E
Oct 3 1947 Peel E
Nov 28 1947 MacDonald B
Jan 4 1948 Somers B
Jan 30 1948 Huntingdon E
Feb 5 1948 Haden-Guest B
Feb 18 1948 Dowding B
Feb 24 1948 Melchett V
March 17 1948 Bridport V
March 17 1948 Clifford of Chudleigh B
March 26 1948 Muskerry B
April 2 1948 Kilmaine B
April 10 1948 De La Warr E
April 20 1948 Erroll E
April 21 1948 Leconfield & Egremont B
May 30 1948 Dunalley B
June 9 1948 Aldenham and Hunsdon B
June 12 1948 Cromartie E
August 2 1948 Shuttleworth B
August 5 1948 Decies B
August 9 1948 Bangor V
Nov 3 1948 Caithness E
Nov 27 1948 Cottenham E
Jan 27 1949 Lifford V
Feb 15 1949 Carlisle E
Feb 25 1949 Sempill B
March 10 1949 (Mar and) Kellie E
April 8 1949 Clydesmuir B
June 3 1949 Rathcreedan B
June 5 1949 Dundee E
August 4 1949 Midleton V
August 28 1949 Croft B
Oct 1 1949 Kinross B
Oct 27 1949 Malvern V
Oct 31 1949 Waverley V
Dec 3 1949 Gerard B
Jan 11 1950 Newton B
Jan 22 1950 Bearsted V
Jan 25 1950 Hawke B
Feb 7 1950 St. Aldwyn E
Feb 10 1950 Meston B
March 6 1950 Glendevon B
April 5 1950 Byron B
May 24 1950 Hatherton B
June 7 1950 Lytton E
Oct 28 1950 Hesketh B
Nov 16 1950 Baillieu B
Jan 29 1951 Howe E
March 12 1951 Trenchard V
April 8 1951 Grantchester B
April 21 1951 Verulam E
May 4 1951 Rugby B
May 10 1951 Fortescue E
June 7 1951 Lucas of Crudwell & Dingwall B
June 17 1951 Crofton B
July 12 1951 Rootes B
July 31 1951 Inglewood B
August 1 1951 Westmorland E
Oct 8 1951 Palmer B
Sept 4 1951 Belmore E
Sept 20 1951 Ducie E
Oct 24 1951 Gort V
Nov 26 1951 Lovelace E
Dec 22 1951 Westminster D
Dec 27 1951 Astor V
Dec 29 1951 Beaverbrook B
Feb 12 1952 Brocket B
May 1 1952 Clancarty E
May 19 1952 Powis E
June 30 1952 Brookeborough V
August 30 1952 Russell of Liverpool B
Dec 18 1952 Shrewsbury & Waterford E
Dec 30 1952 Somerset D
Jan 3 1953 Rodney B
Jan 6 1953 Sinclair of Cleeve B
Jan 9 1953 Carrick E
Feb 12 1953 Chandos V
April 2 1953 Monck V
May 26 1953 Wharncliffe E
June 1 1953 Portland E
June 18 1953 Daresbury B
June 28 1953 Joicey B
July 29 1953 Banbury of Southam B
Sept 10 1953 Thurso V
Nov 22 1953 Henley & Northington B
Feb 21 1954 Northbrook B
Feb 24 1954 Normanby M
March 12 1954 Rotherwick B
March 13 1954 Harlech B
March 13 1954 Stafford B
March 19 1954 Courtown E
June 16 1954 Kenilworth B
June 29 1954 Annaly B
July 25 1954 Portsmouth E
August 10 1954 Huntingfield B
Sept 15 1954 Bristol M
Sept 20 1954 Latham B
Sept 20 1954 Wedgwood B
Nov 3 1954 Northesk E
Nov 18 1954 Roxburghe D
March 15 1955 Holm Patrick B
April 6 1955 Tedder B
May 6 1955 Caledon E
Sept 13 1955 Moynihan B
Oct 8 1955 De Vesci V
Nov 19 1955 Lindsay E
Jan 4 1956 Fairfax of Cameron B
Jan 30 1956 Grantley B
March 14 1956 Ffrench B
May 20 1956 Mills V
August 13 1956 De Saumarez B
August 22 1956 Gridley B
August 25 1956 Hardinge V
Sept 13 1956 Ailsa M
Oct 3 1956 Attlee E
Oct 18 1956 Tannkerville E
Nov 16 1956 Northumberland D
Jan 30 1957 Brooke & Warwick E
March 15 1957 Granard E
May 16 1957 Mancroft B
May 16 1957 St. John of Bletso B
May 22 1957 Jeffreys B
June 7 1957 Strathmore & Kinghorne & Strathmore and Kinghorne E
June 8 1957 Poltimore B
March 31 1958 Rosslyn E
April 26 1958 Bute M
May 7 1958 Colyton B
May 24 1958 Woolton E
Sept 9 1958 Mackintosh of Halifax V
Oct 27 1958 Ponsonby of Shulbrede B
Dec 23 1958 De Ros B
April 8 1959 Biddulph B
July 2 1959 Londesborough B
July 20 1959 Burden B
Sept 10 1959 Granville E
Feb 22 1960 Strathclyde B
March 12 1960 Cromwell B
June 4 1960 Rayleigh B
June 27 1960 Cholmondeley M
Feb 17 1961 Dundonald E
May 23 1961 Hawarden V
June 6 1961 Milford Haven M
Sept 4 1961 Stair E
June 30 1962 Cawdor E
Oct 10 1962 Derby E
July 10 1963 Martonmere B
August 24 1963 Addington B
Nov 5 1963 Yarborough E
Jan 7 1964 Netherthorpe B
May 20 1964 Spencer E
June 28 1964 Listowel E
May 27 1965 Boyne V
July 16 1965 Albemarle E
Nov 16 1965 Goschen V
Nov 16 1966 Inverforth B
July 18 1967 Redesdale B
Sept 21 1967 Selby V
Oct 11 1967 Fermoy B
July 27 1968 Marchamley B
Aug 10 1968 Wrottesley B
Sept 19 1968 Wimborne V
August 10 1969 Iveagh E
Jan 8 1970 Trevor B
Nov 4 1970 Denbigh & Desmond E
Dec 15 1970 Freyberg B
Feb 3 1971 Hardwicke E
Jan 6 1973 Dillon V
April 17 1975 Gretton B
Louis Epstein
Andrew Adams (Andrew...@btinternet.com) wrote:
:
: Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote in article <EAB7v...@nonexistent.com>...
: > Peter Ramm (peter...@spam.btinternet.com) wrote:
: > :
: > : Given the amount of in-breeding in the aristocracy I would suspect
: > : that the mental competence of 10 people selected at random would be
: > : greater than that of the chinless wonders which under the current
: > : system we are blessed with.
: > pervasive among the aristocracy.
: >
: >
:
: Leaving aside the issue of inbreeding, there is no reason to
: believe that the average level of mental competence among
: hereditary peers is any higher than in the population as a
: whole.
: Therefore, if you support the principle of an unelected
: second chamber, why not go for the random selection
: method?
Inheritance allows better preparation for the duties involved,
and smooths institutional continuity.
Guy Herbert
Louis Epstein wrote:
> What people need is more important than what they want.
... And who are they to judge what they need? The General Will of
Society - as devined by the New Puritans - does that. Choice should
only be allowed if it is a *correct* choice, such as voting New Labour.
Nigel Ashton
In article <3377B5...@prodigy.net>, DKM <D...@prodigy.net> writes
>Stuart Honan wrote:
>>
>> DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Stuart Honan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> DKM <D...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >> >But how did the people vote? Labour may have 65% of the seats but I
>> >> >beleive they only received 44% of the popular vote. And what did the
>> >> >people want, the Labour reforms or the Tories out of power? Are the
>> >> >reforms the 'people' want really the same reforms Labour is proposing?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hence in some cases referenda. But >50% of the people did vote for
>> >> parties advocating constitutional reform including to differeing
>> >> extents reform of the Lords.
>> >
>> >But again I ask do >50% agree on the type of reform or how much? I
>> >agree reform is needed, but I do not agree with the plans that Labour
>> >has stated.
>> >
>>
>> My reply would be that you can't pick and choose policies but if you
>> were so against part of a manifesto then you would probably vote
>> against it. IMO Labour's plans to finally renovate the HoL (and dump
>> the hereditary peers in just over 18 months) are long overdue.
>
>They may vote for one of the reform plans of one of the other parties,
>but they did not vote for the Labour manifesto.
Don't forget that Labour and the LibDems had agreed a common
constitutional reform package prior to the election, so about 59% of the
votes were cast for parties that supported that reform package. That
sounds like a mandate to me.
--
Nigel Ashton
ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk
http://www.ashton.demon.co.uk/
I love the smell of ballot papers
Nick
>
>Don't forget that Labour and the LibDems had agreed a common
>constitutional reform package prior to the election, so about 59% of the
>votes were cast for parties that supported that reform package. That
>sounds like a mandate to me.
>
>--
>Nigel Ashton
>ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk
>http://www.ashton.demon.co.uk/
Again, flawed logic. Since you don't know the manifold reasons why
people voted Labour or LD, you can't proved that a majority did
because of the constitutional part of their platform.
Nigel Ashton
In article <3381a341...@news.spectranet.ca>, Nick
<cho...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 19 May 1997 01:57:09 +0100, Nigel Ashton
><ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Don't forget that Labour and the LibDems had agreed a common
>>constitutional reform package prior to the election, so about 59% of the
>>votes were cast for parties that supported that reform package. That
>>sounds like a mandate to me.
>
>
>people voted Labour or LD, you can't proved that a majority did
>because of the constitutional part of their platform.
According to your logic, no party anywhere would ever have a mandate for
anything, as you could never prove exactly why anyone voted for it.
--
Nigel Ashton
ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk
http://www.ashton.demon.co.uk/
I love the smell of ballot papers
Louis Epstein
Louis Epstein (l...@put.com) wrote:
: Alan Gould (agol...@agolincs.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : In article <EAC5E...@nonexistent.com>, Louis Epstein <l...@put.com>
: : writes
: : >What people need is more important than what they want.
: :
: : Providing of course that they can decide for themselves what they need
: : and what they want. Or were you proposing that someone else decides that
: : for them?
: I was saying that they can not be trusted to place their needs ahead of
: their desires.
^^^^^^^
(Corrected word above)
Nick
>According to your logic, no party anywhere would ever have a mandate for
>anything, as you could never prove exactly why anyone voted for it.
Not at all.
Fact: The Labour Party won the election because they got the most
seats.
Speculation: They won because the voters liked their constitutional
spiel.
Speculation: They liked Tony Blair.
Speculation: They hated John Major.
Speculation: It rained/It was sunny.
Louis Epstein
Mike Dickson (mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk) wrote:
: Louis 'Fullwit' of Epstein (l...@put.com), from the land beyond the hills
: of Ng-Rah-Gagagagar, seventh sperm of Ashglop the Shagger of Balrogs and
:
: > : leaving the USA and its intolerable democratic system?
: >
: > Better to use it to change it!
: Like how? What exactly have you done to 'change it'?
I maintain my active participation in the monarchist cause,thank you for
reminding me to renew my Constantian membership...
Mike Dickson
Louis 'Fuckwit' of Epstein (l...@put.com), from the land beyond the hills
of Ng-Rah-Gagagagar, seventh sperm of Ashglop the Shagger of Balrogs and
> : Like how? What exactly have you done to 'change it'?
>
> I maintain my active participation in the monarchist cause,thank you for
> reminding me to renew my Constantian membership...
If Avoiding The Question ever becomes an Olympic Sport then you ought to
be in the American team.
Can you actually answer what I asked of you? What have you *done*? What
does this 'monarchist cause' of yours actually *do*?
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6NL
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
'I..do..*not*..fuck..my..dog' - Doug (p...@noid.demon.co.uk) 21/5/97
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
Guy Herbert <wa...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Louis Epstein wrote:
>> What people need is more important than what they want.
>... And who are they to judge what they need? The General Will of
>Society - as devined by the New Puritans - does that. Choice should
>only be allowed if it is a *correct* choice, such as voting New Labour.
Sir, I applaud your exposition of the point. The truth of the matter
is that there are very few philosophies (liberalism is the only one I
can think of offhand) that suggests, "I don't know what is good for
you, nor am I going to decide...do as you will, just so long as you
don't hurt other people by doing so."
Now, this boils down to a question of "who decides"? Who decides what
people need, and that this is more important than what they want?
Quite frankly, Louis' assertion that he knows better what people need
than they do is right up there with Stalinists and Fascists. The
point of a liberal democracy is that no one holds the one "right"
answer. There needs to be plurality, tolerance, moderation,
pragmatism. And I would suggest to Mr. Epstein, this will not be
acheived by telling people to whom they should bow.
Yours etc., Ivan Ivanovich
Louis Epstein
Simon Gardner (simon....@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk) wrote:
: In article <EAB7v...@nonexistent.com>,
: l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
:
: > :
: > : Given the amount of in-breeding in the aristocracy I would suspect
: > : that the mental competence of 10 people selected at random would be
: > : greater than that of the chinless wonders which under the current
: > : system we are blessed with.
: >
: > Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
: > pervasive among the aristocracy.
:
"pervasive",I said.
Show that it's the norm.
William Addams Reitwiesner
simon....@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <EAB7v...@nonexistent.com>,
>l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
>
>> Peter Ramm (peter...@spam.btinternet.com) wrote:
>> :
>> : Given the amount of in-breeding in the aristocracy I would suspect
>> : that the mental competence of 10 people selected at random would be
>> : greater than that of the chinless wonders which under the current
>> : system we are blessed with.
>>
>> Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
>> pervasive among the aristocracy.
>
>Haemophilia in the Monarchy? George III??
1. Classic haemophilia is a sex-linked recessive and is not affected by
inbreeding.
2. George III was much less inbred than (say) Edward VII.
3. The two examples you gave were of royals, not aristocrats.
Care to try again?
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Netscum and proud! http://www.netscum.net/reitwiw0.html
Gareth
On Fri, 23 May 1997, William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
> >> Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
> >> pervasive among the aristocracy.
> >
> >Haemophilia in the Monarchy? George III??
>
> 1. Classic haemophilia is a sex-linked recessive and is not affected by
> inbreeding.
Right, first question, for the benefit of non-scientists, what does that
mean in English ?
> 2. George III was much less inbred than (say) Edward VII.
So you admit that at least one royal, Edward VII, was inbred ?
> 3. The two examples you gave were of royals, not aristocrats.
Oh, come off it. If you don't accept the royals, what is your
qualification for being an aristocrat ?
> Care to try again?
If the defences above are the best you can manage, I wouldn't say he needs
to.
____ ____
{ }------------------------------------------------{ }
{ }Gareth Marklew, { }
{ } G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk { }
{ }University of Durham. { }
{____}------------------------------------------------{____}
William Addams Reitwiesner
Gareth <G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 May 1997, William Addams Reitwiesner wrote:
>
>> >> Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
>> >> pervasive among the aristocracy.
>> >
>> >Haemophilia in the Monarchy? George III??
>>
>> 1. Classic haemophilia is a sex-linked recessive and is not affected by
>> inbreeding.
>
>Right, first question, for the benefit of non-scientists, what does that
>mean in English ?
I'd be glad to explain, however this message is currently cross-posted into
the following newsgroups:
alt.talk.royalty
uk.politics
uk.politics.parliament
uk.politics.electoral
uk.politics.constitution
alt.politics.british
A discussion of the intricacies of a medical condition, and the genetic
circumstances which lead to its occurrence, would be off-topic in most of
those groups. If you'd like me to explain it in excruciating detail, then
please move this part of the discussion to a medical or genetic newsgroup
(your choice).
In simple terms, though, classic haemophilia, the kind which is thought to
have existed among the European Royals (the last Royal haemophiliac died in
1945, before genetic testing had advanced to the point where a precise
diagnosis could be made), appears in the victim when he inherits the gene
from *one* of his parents. In fact, because it's a sex-linked recessive,
he can NOT inherit the gene from his father. Because of these factors,
haemophilia cannot be caused by, or exacerbated by, or used to show the
deleterious effects of, inbreeding.
>> 2. George III was much less inbred than (say) Edward VII.
>
>So you admit that at least one royal, Edward VII, was inbred ?
All of them were and are. So are you, so am I. Inbreeding is a *normal*
condition in humans -- most of our ancestors lived in small villages, and
the available spouses were others in the same village, or the next village
over, and after a couple of generations of this everybody in the spouse
pool would be related rather closely.
Because the pedigrees of Royals and Nobles are well-documented and eagerly
studied, it's easy to quantify their inbreeding. However, once you study
the genealogies of the lower classes, you'll see that these folk are
generally *more* inbred than their social superiors.
Urbanization and the fluidity which comes from improved transportation has
widened the current spouse pool, and thus will, in the future, *lessen* the
amount of inbreeding in humans, but this process only started a few
generations ago.
>> 3. The two examples you gave were of royals, not aristocrats.
>
>Oh, come off it. If you don't accept the royals, what is your
>qualification for being an aristocrat ?
The aristocracy is the class of people who are the hereditary upper class
of a country, with inherited wealth and inherited position. Royals are
those persons who inherit (or can inherit) the post of Sovereign of a
country. As a rule, Royals breed only with other Royals, and not with
aristocrats. Similarly, aristocrats tend to breed only with other
aristocrats, and not with persons from lower classes or with Royals. I can
see that, because both Royals and aristocrats inherit their positions from
their parents, you (and others) can easily lump them all together and act
as if there's no difference between them, but it's really an apples/oranges
situation.
>> Care to try again?
>
>If the defences above are the best you can manage, I wouldn't say he needs
>to.
Here's the statement he was responding to:
>l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
>
>> Peter Ramm (peter...@spam.btinternet.com) wrote:
>> :
>> : Given the amount of in-breeding in the aristocracy I would suspect
>> : that the mental competence of 10 people selected at random would be
>> : greater than that of the chinless wonders which under the current
>> : system we are blessed with.
>>
>> Please provide us with specific evidence of harmful inbreeding being
>> pervasive among the aristocracy.
Gardner's response (haemophilia and George III) was, at best, a diversion.
Perhaps *you* can come up with something that supports Ramm's assertions.
Mike Dickson
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95-960729.97...@vega.dur.ac.uk>
G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk wrote...
> > 1. Classic haemophilia is a sex-linked recessive and is not affected by
> > inbreeding.
>
> Right, first question, for the benefit of non-scientists, what does that
> mean in English ?
It means he's an arsehole. Haemophilia ('classic' or otherwise) is a
genetic trait, and like all other genetic malformities is best prevented
by assuring a large mix of chromosomes, something that inbreeding
doesn't provide.
William Addams Reitwiesner
mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk (Mike Dickson) wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95-960729.97...@vega.dur.ac.uk>
>G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk wrote...
>
>> > 1. Classic haemophilia is a sex-linked recessive and is not affected by
>> > inbreeding.
>>
>> Right, first question, for the benefit of non-scientists, what does that
>> mean in English ?
>
>It means he's an arsehole. Haemophilia ('classic' or otherwise) is a
>genetic trait, and like all other genetic malformities is best prevented
>by assuring a large mix of chromosomes, something that inbreeding
>doesn't provide.
And that statement of yours shows that you're quite willing to make stuff
up as you go. You don't know shit about the haemophilias, or genetics, and
you're figuring that I and everybody else knows less than you do. Factor
V, factor VII, factor X, factor XI, and factor XIII haemophilias are all
autosomal recessive conditions, and their incidence can be reduced by
lessened inbreeding, whereas factor VIII and factor IX haemophilias
("classic") are sex-linked recessives whose incidence cannot be affected,
one way or another, by inbreeding.
So go away and try to learn a little about the things you post on before
you post: that way you won't look like a complete idiot. Though from what
I've seen of your posting habits you could almost match Louis Epstein in a
single-sentence opacity contest.
David Stone
> According to your logic, no party anywhere would ever have a mandate for
> anything, as you could never prove exactly why anyone voted for it.
This is the undoubted consequence of negative "tactical" campaigning.
--
David Boothroyd
In article <26LUvIAg...@dmed.demon.co.uk>, Pete Mitchell writes:
> In article <97052122...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
> <da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes
> >So either Simon believes it is acceptable that a government be appointed
> >without a mandate, which means the term itself is meaningless, or he
> >doesn't believe that there should be a government, in which case the whole
> >democratic system is meaningless.
>
> He evidently believes the former, as do many people. As he said, the
> doctrine of the mandate is by no means an axiom of our parliamentary
> system.
It is not express, but it is inferred. There is no special way of opposition
parties presenting Parliamentary Bills. The Government selects the Leader of
the two Houses who decide what is to take place when.
> It is perfectly possible, and was the norm, to have governments
> who do not feel they have the right to pass any legislation outlined
> promised in their manifesto, without further consultation.
But that's the decision of the government involved. Any government which
can get a majority in Parliament has the right to push its legislation
through.
> >IMV, it's a practical term. A mandate is deemed to be given to any party
> >which the electoral system awards a majority of the seats in the House
> >of Commons after an election.
>
> I would dispute that (under any normal meaning of the word 'mandate'.
> Who exactly deemed it, when, and by what authority?
The Constitution deems it, by giving the government the right to put its
program through. If it is your point that a government should not have the
right to put its program through, even though it has the ability to do so,
then you have rendered the constitution useless - it has to be assumed that
what the constitution allows to happen is what should happen.
--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
The House of Commons now: Lab 417, C 162, L Dem 46, UU 10, SNP 6, PC 4, SDLP 3,
SF 2, UDUP 2, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 1 (Uxbridge). Gov't majority is 180
Peter Ramm
On Sat, 24 May 1997 02:07:51 GMT, wr...@127.0.0.1 (William Addams
Reitwiesner) wrote:
<snip>
>So go away and try to learn a little about the things you post on before
>you post: that way you won't look like a complete idiot. Though from what
>I've seen of your posting habits you could almost match Louis Epstein in a
>single-sentence opacity contest.
not true - no match what so ever
Pete Ramm
NB Return address has anti-spam
David Boothroyd
In article <3386122f.5511118@wingate>, Richard Gadsden writes:
> In <97052122...@election.demon.co.uk>, on Wed, 21 May 97 22:19:08
> +0000 (GMT), David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> uk.politics.constitution:
> >In article <AFA869C29...@ttym0f.powernet.co.uk>, Simon Gardner writes:
> >> In article <$YDCPGA7...@ashton.demon.co.uk>,
> >> Nigel Ashton <ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > According to your logic, no party anywhere would ever have a mandate for
> >> > anything, as you could never prove exactly why anyone voted for it.
> >>
> >> Broadly speaking, this is a sentiment with which I agree.
> >
> >Aha! Finally, and in response to someone else, Simon has answered a
> >question I have been putting to him for some months.
> >
> >* If the Conservative Party did not have a mandate after 1992, then what
> > potential government did based on the 1992 voting figures?
> >
> >Now Simon 'broadly agrees' with someone saying that no party could have a
> >mandate.
> >
> >So either Simon believes it is acceptable that a government be appointed
> >without a mandate, which means the term itself is meaningless,
>
> I incline to Simon's view about a mandate, and I do not believe that
> the term is meaningless. A government *with* a mandate has a right to
> force through its manifesto without taking any notice of opposition; ..
Under what circumstances can a government be said to have a mandate?
> .. a government *without* a mandate should be more cautious about
> implementing policy and should be making sure that any major changes
> or highly controversial policies (constitutional changes, freeing the
> Bank of England, devolution, the poll tax, VAT on fuel, etc.) have
> popular support, cross-party consensus, or some greater support than
> "we have a majority in the House of Commons, so nah-nah nah-nah-nah".
> This is of course a political, not a constitutional definition. Does
> this make some kind of sense to you David?
The words make sense, the meaning is haywire. Who is to say when a
government has a mandate, and when a government (with a majority) does
not have a mandate? What exactly is meant by "being more cautious"?
Why ought a government consult with other parties, whose own program
was less popular than its, about what it intends to do? How is a 'highly
controversial policy' defined?
I think all of this boils down to one question. Aren't you just saying
that regardless of who wins an election, you want to prevent any government
doing something you personally disagree with?
Peter Wilton
William Addams Reitwiesner <wr...@127.0.0.1> writes
>>It means he's an arsehole. Haemophilia ('classic' or otherwise) is a
>>genetic trait, and like all other genetic malformities is best prevented
>>by assuring a large mix of chromosomes, something that inbreeding
>>doesn't provide.
>
>And that statement of yours shows that you're quite willing to make stuff
>up as you go. You don't know shit about the haemophilias, or genetics
...or arseholes?
--
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/chant.htm
Nick
On Wed, 28 May 1997 01:51:04 -0700, Morgoth <mor...@nome.net> wrote:
>If 100 heroin addicts were given control of the government, and
>they were given a chance to vote fro a bill giving free heroin to
>everyone, what do you expect them to do?
>
>A totally elected legislative body is often limited by the whims
>of the often short sighted and easy to sway electorate. The same
>people who believe stories in the Super Market Tabloids, would
>you want them to totally decide your fate? I hope not, there has
>to be a balance of some sort.
>
>In the US there is the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch,
>and the Judicial Branch. And to some the Administrative Branch
>(those who are appointed to head agencies/boards/etc that make
>policy/codes/statutes/etc who are not elected).
>Also there is the Govenors/Legislatures/Supreme Courts of the
>States who still play a major part in the US Government.
>
>Who plays the roles stated above in the UK?
Executive Branch = Cabinet and Govt. Depts.
Legislative Branch = Houses of Lords and Commons
Judicial Branch = Courts of Judicature
Difference is: in the US the three branches act independently but act
as checks and balances on each other. In the UK they don't. The House
has to give priority to Government Bills. President can veto
legislation, Queen can't (by convention). Trouble is without a written
UK constitution it's very difficult to do a detailed study of both in
a short space.