How and who determines the "real" expert in any field. For example looking back to the advice on dealing with Covid, there were lots of highly qualified individuals in the medical profession who had alternative views to Van Tam and Twitty.
How do you determine the members pay, is it hourly rate or fixed annual sum? Do different expertises attract variable pay?
Are the individuals determined by ??? prepared to sacrifice earning huge money in their chosen business/profession/trade to spend sufficient time in the second chamber?
Who monitors the performance and decisions of these "experts" and has the authority to sack them.
All in all, I don't think it is realistically possible to replace the current HofL with another significantly improved body.
Only to be usurped by a pretender? Benny Hill missing out on presiding over history by a matter of days to someone who reads out loud like it's her class's school assembly is the only bright spot of this for me.
All legislatures require adequate, appropriate & robust checks & balances to ensure that legislation is fit for purpose, achieves its aims without obvious side effects & where possible the risks of unintended consequences are mitigated or avoided.
Most countries opt for a bicameral system of a lower & upper house, with the latter providing the checks & balances, almost all are elected chambers. They differ in function as some have legislative powers too (e.g. US Senate) & most do not or it is incredibly limited (e.g. HoL) but all are there to ensure primary legislation from the lower house is sensible, reasonable & fit for purpose; some have the right of veto others do not.
The role of experts is important but it is almost impossible to fill your second chamber with a wide enough sample for it to be balanced & cover all legislative eventualities; therefore you take expert advice as part of the consultative process when drafting legislation as well as inviting them to the committee stages to input on the legislation as it moves through the various legislative approval stages.
I see little option but to move to an elected second chamber but there is a need to avoid the party allegiance problem; which coul dbe achieved by the rules that will frame a second chamber & its roles & functions, e.g. it could be stipulated that only independents could stand, or that their candidacy must be endorsed by the relevant professional body for their profession etc. thus removing party influence to an extent. There is no perfect answer and most countries have tweaked the basics to fit their culture, environment, experience etc. & we must do the same.
Finally, the other key change I would like to see is moving away from the existing system of senior career civil servants/whitehall mandarins running departments on behalf of ministers to the US system of these senior positions being political appointments who move on when government changes.
Sadly, I suspect, there is little political will to make changes at this time or for the forseeable future, especially as there will be a GE in the next 2 years. Equally, the bigger imperative in restoring faith in our democracy would be to move away from FPTP to some form of PR that results in a parliament more representative of the broad church of views held by the electorate, if that means it is harder for one party to have the sort of overwhelming majority enjoyed byt the current Conservative administration then that can only be a good thing. For those who doubt PR leads to overall majorities or strong governments you only need to look at Sweden since the 50's where for 40 years they elected a majority social democrat government.
I’m not familiar with the 16 over format but the way the current Test Match is going, it’s not going to last much longer than a 50 over a side match (aka a one day game).
Having said that, if we could find a couple of opening batsmen who don’t throw their wickets away with quite such aplomb, we’d be getting off to better starts.
FAO @Chris in particular. Seems unbelievable to me that our Kentish hero (?) has kept his place. Today, he has shown a commendable determination not to wave his bat outside the off stump. Trouble is, he seemed to have opted not to play the vast majority of balls at all with the inevitable consequence that he was out plumb lbw after amassing 5 runs from 34 balls.
Made me laugh all the people complaining about the test match only being for 3 days... forgetting that the last 2 tests lasted.... er, 3 days !
But then people do like to complain these days don't they. The one bonus for me today with the football not being on is that I've been able to sit and watch it all day !
Thanks @Baldric. I thought you were doing a slightly inaccurate conversion of 100 balls into overs!
I’m borderline @EddieMonsoon when it comes to the Hundreds. A travesty of ‘true’ cricket but, to be fair, they really pull in the crowds and those that attend (including whole families) obviously thoroughly enjoy themselves.
I only recently worked out that there are only eight city based teams competing in the Hundreds. Each one a mish mash of players from different Counties and, I wouldn’t be surprised, a few overseas players as well. Difficult to generate an enduring allegiance, I would have thought.
I’ve been supportive of T20 since it started but never had any desire to watch the hundred. I think it’s because it isn’t the counties so I have no allegiances rather than the format itself.
Crawley is clearly a talented player but perhaps needs some time out of the team.
That is the day for everything to be cancelled and the focus to be solely on the Queen passing - it is quite right for people to have the day off to grieve/celebrate her life that day and for the attention to be solely on her. That makes perfect sense.
In my opinion, football shouldn’t have been cancelled this weekend, especially grass roots and kids football. It has further denied a generation to exercise that has already been stymied by the covid enforced house arrests.
My lad’s team chose to train today and the two minutes silence they impeccably observed was more powerful than them being stuck on their Xboxes and PlayStations all day resenting the decision.
They aren’t allowed to play matches tomorrow, but we can go to a trampoline park and make a racket of noise. It makes little sense to me and certainly feels like an opportunity lost to respect the Queen’s memory whilst “keeping calm and carrying on”.
I’d gallantly surrendered the TV to mrs micra and started listening to Test Match Special (whilst cooking the evening meal) by the time England began their second innings and I couldn’t believe the transformation of Zak Crawley’s performance compared with his five runs from 34 balls in the first innings, albeit apparently aided by an element of good fortune.
I was surprised by how philosophically the vast majority of the crowd seemed to take what to me seemed a nonsensical decision to abandon play for the day in a match which looked like being wrapped up within about another half an hour. But I gather the decision had to be made because the umpires’ light meters showed the same (or worse) readings as when they abandoned play yesterday. I suppose there would have been hell to pay if a player was seriously injured during those last 30 or 40 minutes.
I've heard about a Sunday football team locally who, after finding out their league match was called off, arranged a friendly with the same opposition. However, someone told their local FA and were told to cancel or face further punishment. The club did but arranged training for the same date & time and invited that same team along. Both sets of players turned up in their kit & had a 'training match' instead!
Comments
Civil war? That took a bit of a turn. Anyone kniw if its Buck House, No10 or the EFL who refund my parking fiver?
Still probably not even in the top 10 weirdest turns the Gasroom has ever taken
I bet the Football authorities are kicking themselves as cricket and rugby soldier on through their patriotic tears.
There’s a top ten!
Didn't the summer transfer thread turn into a debate about the meaning of time at one point?
How and who determines the "real" expert in any field. For example looking back to the advice on dealing with Covid, there were lots of highly qualified individuals in the medical profession who had alternative views to Van Tam and Twitty.
How do you determine the members pay, is it hourly rate or fixed annual sum? Do different expertises attract variable pay?
Are the individuals determined by ??? prepared to sacrifice earning huge money in their chosen business/profession/trade to spend sufficient time in the second chamber?
Who monitors the performance and decisions of these "experts" and has the authority to sack them.
All in all, I don't think it is realistically possible to replace the current HofL with another significantly improved body.
I think in this particular multiverse it was the Nathan Bishop thread. Or was that the only summer transfer post we had.
(But on the subject of the original Civil War thread, where did we get three from? I’m sure back when I was at school there was only one?)
Edit: I’ve just looked. So there were. Definitely changed from what I remember.
Was Blur vs Oasis one of them @bookertease ?
And how Johnson slayed Corbyn from more recent history.
And a "Glorious Revolution" too, @bookertease, who knew?
Only to be usurped by a pretender? Benny Hill missing out on presiding over history by a matter of days to someone who reads out loud like it's her class's school assembly is the only bright spot of this for me.
All legislatures require adequate, appropriate & robust checks & balances to ensure that legislation is fit for purpose, achieves its aims without obvious side effects & where possible the risks of unintended consequences are mitigated or avoided.
Most countries opt for a bicameral system of a lower & upper house, with the latter providing the checks & balances, almost all are elected chambers. They differ in function as some have legislative powers too (e.g. US Senate) & most do not or it is incredibly limited (e.g. HoL) but all are there to ensure primary legislation from the lower house is sensible, reasonable & fit for purpose; some have the right of veto others do not.
The role of experts is important but it is almost impossible to fill your second chamber with a wide enough sample for it to be balanced & cover all legislative eventualities; therefore you take expert advice as part of the consultative process when drafting legislation as well as inviting them to the committee stages to input on the legislation as it moves through the various legislative approval stages.
I see little option but to move to an elected second chamber but there is a need to avoid the party allegiance problem; which coul dbe achieved by the rules that will frame a second chamber & its roles & functions, e.g. it could be stipulated that only independents could stand, or that their candidacy must be endorsed by the relevant professional body for their profession etc. thus removing party influence to an extent. There is no perfect answer and most countries have tweaked the basics to fit their culture, environment, experience etc. & we must do the same.
Finally, the other key change I would like to see is moving away from the existing system of senior career civil servants/whitehall mandarins running departments on behalf of ministers to the US system of these senior positions being political appointments who move on when government changes.
Sadly, I suspect, there is little political will to make changes at this time or for the forseeable future, especially as there will be a GE in the next 2 years. Equally, the bigger imperative in restoring faith in our democracy would be to move away from FPTP to some form of PR that results in a parliament more representative of the broad church of views held by the electorate, if that means it is harder for one party to have the sort of overwhelming majority enjoyed byt the current Conservative administration then that can only be a good thing. For those who doubt PR leads to overall majorities or strong governments you only need to look at Sweden since the 50's where for 40 years they elected a majority social democrat government.
I’m not familiar with the 16 over format but the way the current Test Match is going, it’s not going to last much longer than a 50 over a side match (aka a one day game).
Having said that, if we could find a couple of opening batsmen who don’t throw their wickets away with quite such aplomb, we’d be getting off to better starts.
FAO @Chris in particular. Seems unbelievable to me that our Kentish hero (?) has kept his place. Today, he has shown a commendable determination not to wave his bat outside the off stump. Trouble is, he seemed to have opted not to play the vast majority of balls at all with the inevitable consequence that he was out plumb lbw after amassing 5 runs from 34 balls.
Pope and Root now going well.
@micra Shorter version of The Hundred but with 96 balls as a way of honouring the late queen. :)
Made me laugh all the people complaining about the test match only being for 3 days... forgetting that the last 2 tests lasted.... er, 3 days !
But then people do like to complain these days don't they. The one bonus for me today with the football not being on is that I've been able to sit and watch it all day !
Such a normal country https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1568552570813046786?t=jSsaoFZ65VQTP-raXlr1zA&s=19
Oh cripes. How did I miss that connection.
Thanks @Baldric. I thought you were doing a slightly inaccurate conversion of 100 balls into overs!
I’m borderline @EddieMonsoon when it comes to the Hundreds. A travesty of ‘true’ cricket but, to be fair, they really pull in the crowds and those that attend (including whole families) obviously thoroughly enjoy themselves.
I only recently worked out that there are only eight city based teams competing in the Hundreds. Each one a mish mash of players from different Counties and, I wouldn’t be surprised, a few overseas players as well. Difficult to generate an enduring allegiance, I would have thought.
I’ve been supportive of T20 since it started but never had any desire to watch the hundred. I think it’s because it isn’t the counties so I have no allegiances rather than the format itself.
Crawley is clearly a talented player but perhaps needs some time out of the team.
That is the day for everything to be cancelled and the focus to be solely on the Queen passing - it is quite right for people to have the day off to grieve/celebrate her life that day and for the attention to be solely on her. That makes perfect sense.
In my opinion, football shouldn’t have been cancelled this weekend, especially grass roots and kids football. It has further denied a generation to exercise that has already been stymied by the covid enforced house arrests.
My lad’s team chose to train today and the two minutes silence they impeccably observed was more powerful than them being stuck on their Xboxes and PlayStations all day resenting the decision.
They aren’t allowed to play matches tomorrow, but we can go to a trampoline park and make a racket of noise. It makes little sense to me and certainly feels like an opportunity lost to respect the Queen’s memory whilst “keeping calm and carrying on”.
https://twitter.com/Millar_Colin/status/1568554719676715008
Out of interest, do the other sports he mentioned have fans singing abusive songs, screaming at players and opposition fans?
Do you get fans scuffling with other fans in those sports?
This, from you, given all you've had to say about England supporters is pretty breathtaking
Eh?
Never been to Headingley?
Bet I know who gave you that thumb down !
Or not
I’d gallantly surrendered the TV to mrs micra and started listening to Test Match Special (whilst cooking the evening meal) by the time England began their second innings and I couldn’t believe the transformation of Zak Crawley’s performance compared with his five runs from 34 balls in the first innings, albeit apparently aided by an element of good fortune.
I was surprised by how philosophically the vast majority of the crowd seemed to take what to me seemed a nonsensical decision to abandon play for the day in a match which looked like being wrapped up within about another half an hour. But I gather the decision had to be made because the umpires’ light meters showed the same (or worse) readings as when they abandoned play yesterday. I suppose there would have been hell to pay if a player was seriously injured during those last 30 or 40 minutes.
I've heard about a Sunday football team locally who, after finding out their league match was called off, arranged a friendly with the same opposition. However, someone told their local FA and were told to cancel or face further punishment. The club did but arranged training for the same date & time and invited that same team along. Both sets of players turned up in their kit & had a 'training match' instead!
Also, did any see Trevor Sinclair's tweet after the Queen died? If there is one way of making yourself unemployable in any media setting, thats it!
In case you haven't seen it, posted 20 mins after the Queen's death was announced
He's been sacked in the past for racially abusing a policeman so the irony of this is mad anyway.
But this is utterly abhorrent in its own right.