And the answer is ... 42

[dong20]

Sometimes I despair ... it's a sham 'victory' for legislation that will achieve at best, nothing. I can hear Pink Floyd lyrics right about now.

I wonder if the Lords will stick to their guns ... oh the irony!

Brown wins 42-day detention vote by a whisker

 

[HazelGod]

We have always been at war with Eastasia...

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I suspect (and hope) the Lords will kick this to the curb.

 

[dong20]

I suspect (and hope) the Lords will kick this to the curb.

I agree. They may simply reject it or, perhaps more likely amend it and 'send it back' to Parliament as a means to force additional 'safeguards' ... but that's all they can do.

That said, were they to provoke Parliament into using the procedural 'nuke' as means of forcing anti terrorism legislation! through the Lords it would be the end for Brown. I mean, foxes is one thing ...

It's a rod of his own making and an ill judged tactical move given his weakened position. If Brown did 'buy off' the DUP (and I'm darn sure he did), the more shame on him, and them. If so and he was desperate enough to have needed to pay the price that's being bandied around ...

 

[deleted3782]

Hmmm...

 

[2322]

Why would Lords kick it back if it was approved before? I know the law lords vacated indefinite internment provisions in the ATSCA but have they ever ruled on the 42 day provision?

I think it most ironic that the more liberal party in the UK backs legislation which the more conservative party in the US backs.

I would love to see Lords composed, as has been considered, of people who are not primarily politicians, but of important thinkers and leaders drawn from diverse social, economic, and political backgrounds. This is the one thing that I fear was lost by dumping the hereditary peers. An upper house that can put the brakes on a lower house by considering legislation in light of what is best for the society rather than re-election, is invaluable. They can act, as in this case, as a foil for bad law.

If Lords is too weak, as I think it is in its present incarnation, then there's no point to having it at all.

 

[dong20]

Why would Lords kick it back if it was approved before?

Sometimes I think they do it for spite, sometimes because they can, and just occasionally because it's necessary.

I think it most ironic that the more liberal party in the UK backs legislation which the more conservative party in the US backs.

Somewhat...

I would love to see Lords composed, as has been considered, of people who are not primarily politicians, but of important thinkers and leaders drawn from diverse social, economic, and political backgrounds. This is the one thing that I fear was lost by dumping the hereditary peers. An upper house that can put the brakes on a lower house by considering legislation in light of what is best for the society rather than re-election, is invaluable. They can act, as in this case, as a foil for bad law.

Well, I'd have to agree. They didn't dump all the HPs, there's still about 70, predominently Conservative. I'm also inclined to agree with you about the weakened state of the upper house, which state of course was the aim of Blair's early years.

If Lords is too weak, as I think it is in its present incarnation, then there's no point to having it at all.

I don't think it's quite that far gone, but I entirely agree I'd like to see them act with more backbone more often. If they simply send this legislation back unaltered it will require a rare skill with rabbits and hats by Brown to retain any credibility. Perhaps that's all they're aiming to achieve.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

So dong, sliding sideways along the subject a little, do you think David Davis's move is anything other than a stupid stunt? (I said stunt, although...).

I mean the thing is, he isn't going to lose - the Libs aren't contesting and Labour were WAY down in a very low third place in the general election so what is he proving? Nothing. Or perhaps that his constituants haven't been changed in to Labour supporters by the 42-day bill. Shock horror!

It's a pointless and irritating publicity stunt and I personally think the public would have been much better served with decent coverage of the Lords debate - which they probably would have got anyway but which now is going to be diminished by the more sensational reporting the lazy bastard news agencies can do on this fucking circus.

(Clickety, for those who want to know what I am talking about and don't)

 

[ManlyBanisters]

*bump for dong*

Well? :wink:

 

[HazelGod]

*bump for dong*

There's no cause to start throwing elbows...if you want some dong, just ask. :tongue:

You've certainly come to the right place...

 

[dong20]

*bump for dong*

Well? :wink:

Sorry, I missed that, must have slipped to page two.

Well, he's all but asking for the violin, based on that alone I'd say stunt would be appropriate. Playing the political martyr only engenders respect when there's an actual risk of well ... political death.

The day a Conservative Home Sec (even a shadow one) quits over an issue involving civil liberties (other than for not being able to further curtail them that is), and means it - I'll eat my hat. I may have to buy one first though.

Grandstanding is bad enough, but political grandstanding on an issue such as this ... ugh.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

There's no cause to start throwing elbows...if you want some dong, just ask. :tongue:

You've certainly come to the right place...

:slap:

Sorry, I missed that, must have slipped to page two.

Well, he's all but asking for the violin, based on that alone I'd say stunt would be appropriate. Playing the political martyr only engenders respect when there's an actual risk of well ... political death.

The day a Conservative Home Sec (even a shadow one) quits over an issue involving civil liberties (other than for not being able to further curtail them that is), and means it - I'll eat my hat. I may have to buy one first though.

If it happens I'll buy one for you.

Grandstanding is bad enough, but political grandstanding on an issue such as this ... ugh.

Yep - does nothing but detract from the real issue and highlight David Davis. I hope he fades in to the obscurity from whence he came.

 

[dong20]

If it happens I'll buy one for you.

Thanks, though I may require resuscitation before being able to eat it.

 

[2322]

Does Lords have live TV like Commons does? I've only seen Lords televised for the opening of parliament.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Does Lords have live TV like Commons does? I've only seen Lords televised for the opening of parliament.

I watch the odd Lords debate on the BBC Parliament Channel - they are filmed all the time but broadcast less than the Commons.

Hang on *does a quick search*

Here: Parliament Live TV » home

Commons, Lords, committees and Westminster Hall appear to be covered.

You can see archived debates - well, it works for me and I'm not in the UK so it doesn't seem there is any limitation on viewing from abroad. Today is Saturday so I can't test for live streaming but they have a what's on section that might bring you to live coverage when there is something to see.

 

[2322]

Ah, thank you Banly!

I went to the Parliament YouTube homepage and was shocked that I seem to know more about Lords than most people in the UK (if their interviewees were a representative sample). What a shame so many people don't know the value of having such a unique consultative body.