Search this site
Recent posts
- Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No.
- Stop Brexit! Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted
- More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos
- The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences
- How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome
- Notes for May (not Her, 2017)
- Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript)
- The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal
- The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger
- Farewell to Brexit: some valedictory reminders
- Next story The Rambouillet Agreement
- Previous story Flash-Light
Recent comments
- Christopher Barder { I have an obituary of your father given by mine, the latter is no longer with us, and he talked ... }
- Robert Marcus { Can anyone connect me to the Barders of Bolney Hall in Sussex who rescued my father Hans Marcus from persecution ... }
- Abhinav { If there is another election this year, they will likely keep all of their current seats and may well gain ... }
- Abhinav { The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, ... }
- V9Poker { Great post. “I have an almost complete set of photos of the south and north banks of the river between ... }
- Sarah Wray { Hello. My name is Sarah i am the grandaughter of John Barder. Brother of Sam Barder. So Donald Barder and ... }
- Hilda McDonnell { My mother's printer / compositor grandfather James or Jim Foster (b. Bethnal Green 1839-d. Invercargill, New Zealand, 1916) emigrated to ... }
- xMarine1066 { Brain Now that more information on the staged Chemical Attack have come to the for, maybe a follow-up artical on ... }
- John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Thoughts { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
- John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Updates on Law Matters { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
- John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Ramblings { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
- John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Law Blog { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
- Peter Martin { @Brian, You say: <em>"And secondly, my rough guess is that 10 per cent or more of the votes cast for ... }
- Brian { Brian replies to Peter Martin: I don't accept for a minute that criticism of the leader of the Labour party, ... }
- Peter Martin { I suppose the key concession would have to be on freedom of movement. By far the majority of people in ... }
- Kevin Jones { Cameron was dead meat by the time he tried to get concessions from the EU and May is going about ... }
- William Spurgeon { I think the EU is prepared to make concessions - in fact, it made concessions to Cameron on migrants' benefits ... }
- Acilius { The referendum was a paradoxical idea from the start. Leave was always going on about the importance of Britain's constitutional ... }
- Peter Martin { I don't believe it would be too hard to get a majority for staying in the EU, but there would ... }
- Don Knibbs { Thanks for sharing all of that information. I'm related to Sarah's husband, Edwin George Knibbs. }
- Older »
Harry Barder and his ancestors (5 comments)
The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences (6 comments)
A new angle on House of Lords reform (3 comments)
The Barders of Krakow and London in the 18th century (5 comments)
The Quartly Engravers (3 comments)
Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript) (8 comments)
A scandalous injustice: 4,614 IPPs stranded indefinitely in our prisons, 77% of them for crimes... (12 comments)
More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos (9 comments)
Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. (5 comments)
Margaret Annie Wood (3 comments)
Currently the House of Lords draws its membership from a limited strata of society, politicians, judiciary, clergymen, and Heredity Peers. The House of Lords must be made more representative and effective by broadening it membership.
One purpose of the House of Lords is to improve legislation by amendment. Legislation impacts many areas where professional experts could make a valuable contribution to this task. The professional knowledge & experience of represents from chartered Institutes could provide expert insight into the consequences of legislation governing their fields.
Each Chartered Institute would have one seat filled by election from amongst its members and elected by its members.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/chartered-peers/
Brian writes: There are all sorts of 'experts' whose expertise could come in useful for debates in the second chamber, members of Chartered Institutes no doubt among them. But that doesn't mean that such experts should have a passport to unelected membership of the national legislature. A wholly elected second chamber (which could be imaginatively re-named 'the Senate') is long overdue and it should be empowered to summon such experts as it likes to give evidence to it. If some of the Chartered Institute people felt that they should be full members of it, there should be nothing to stop them standing for election to it. Even under existing arrangements, however weird they might be, the Chartered Instituters could always become C of E bishops in their spare time and become members of the House of Lords that way. (Just a modest suggestion for you, Martin. Oh, and by the way, 'strata' is a plural noun, so please don't write "a strata" again, OK? And they are hereditary peers, not heredity peers. And incidentally, that sentence beginning "The professional knowledge & experience of represents from chartered Institutes could provide expert insight…" seems to have something wrong with it, doesn't it? Then again, what do you mean, exactly, when you write about impacting areas and governing fields? 2 out of 10, maximum. Careless work. Must try harder — if you're going to cash in on other people's blogs again like this, eh, Martin?)