Hurricane Sandy

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Since the Republi-cons won't pass much of anything nowadays, the only way to get something passed is as a rider on something that must pass.

That's very interesting. I don't make any claims for the UK political process over the US one, but we don't have that kind of mixing up of issues on the same bill here - I think. I watched the first series of Boss recently and in it the Mayor of Chicago (himself presumably a Republican, but that's by the by) attaches his plan for the expansion of O'Hare airport to a bill about refuse collection - because it's something that has to go through. While the Council remains at impasse over it, the streets fill with trash. I wasn't sure if this was poetic licence on the part of the writers, but it sounds like it's a perfectly normal turn of political events.

[9876543210]

MrInBetween,

Originally Posted by MrInBetween

I watched the first series of Boss recently and in it the Mayor of Chicago (himself presumably a Republican, but that's by the by) attaches his plan for the expansion of O'Hare airport to a bill about refuse collection - because it's something that has to go through.

Haven't heard of a series called "Boss" but it is kind of a fitting description for some of Chicago's mayor's. I'm mainly thinking about the first Richard Daley who, I think, was nicknamed the "boss". He kind of ran that city with an iron fist and really surprised he never went to jail (probably because they never caught him). Oh, I'm not really sure but I don't know if Chicago has ever had a Republi-con mayor. If they have it was a long time ago.

One would think it much smarter to have a bill dealing with only one thing but that doesn't seem to be the way things work here (especially lately). Almost every bill has some type of "pork" attached but its become really bad lately because the Republi-cons won't pass anything they think will allow Obama to look half way good. So now, if a bill must be passed (like the Sandy assistance) they fill it up with all kinds of junk that has nothing to do with hurricane relief. The same thing will happen here no matter what the Senator from Oklahoma says. If it has to pass, it has to pass. So watch out for all the pork.

While the Council remains at impasse over it, the streets fill with trash. I wasn't sure if this was poetic licence on the part of the writers, but it sounds like it's a perfectly normal turn of political events.

That does sound somewhat familiar. Is the fictitious mayor's name Richard Daley? If so, he was actually a real person who ran Chicago in the 60's and 70's. His son (also Richard I think) was also mayor of Chicago but was never as powerful as his dad.

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Is the fictitious mayor's name Richard Daley? If so, he was actually a real person who ran Chicago in the 60's and 70's. His son (also Richard I think) was also mayor of Chicago but was never as powerful as his dad.

The character in Boss is called Tom Kane (Citizen Kane?) and played by Kelsey Grammer, whose well-known Republicanism led me to assume it was shared by his character. The story is concerned with internal rather than party politics - though perhaps if I weren't an outsider, it would be obvious what political stripe Kane was. Kelsey Grammer denies any connection with (the younger) Daley in this article I've just found, but...

...his mayor of Chicago talks about being in charge for 22 years – the exact time Daley spent in office. For both men the job is also the family business, with Grammer's Tom Kane following his father-in-law and Daley his father. And if Grammer's character really wanted a disguise that nobody would have recognized, he would have put on a Cubs hat and not one bearing the logo of Daley's beloved White Sox.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

One would think it much smarter to have a bill dealing with only one thing but that doesn't seem to be the way things work here (especially lately). Almost every bill has some type of "pork" attached but its become really bad lately because the Republi-cons won't pass anything they think will allow Obama to look half way good. So now, if a bill must be passed (like the Sandy assistance) they fill it up with all kinds of junk that has nothing to do with hurricane relief. The same thing will happen here no matter what the Senator from Oklahoma says. If it has to pass, it has to pass. So watch out for all the pork.

Although the House of Lords in the UK is often derided for not being elected, I think one can forget how valuable it is as a revising chamber. It has very limited power; the elected House of Commons can overrule the Lords whereas the most the Lords can do is to delay a House of Commons bill by one year. But routinely, what the Lords can do and does do is mark up a Commons bill with lots of red pen like an angry school-teacher, striking out unneccessary amendments which were designed to cost money and make an MP look good to his own constituents at the expense of the wider public good. If the MPs then reinstate the amendments which the Lord removed, the Lords can and frequently do reject the whole bill; and it becomes a big news story if the MPs vote the bill back in and overrule the Lords. The only measure which the Lords (by tradition since the 1911 constitutional crisis) will never overturn is the annual budget; and this is drawn up exclusively by the Chancellor, and no other ministers, not even the Prime Minister, let alone a mere MP, is allowed to amend it.

The bill gets lots of publicity and the manoeverings of MPs attaching "pork" to the bill would be in the news, naming them by name and explaining exactly why the Lords rejected their pet amendment. You'd need to be very sincere and very convinced that the Lords are wrong in order to go down that road. The general effect is that the overall quality of British legislation is maintained at a high level and people who try to sneak through unwanted measures on the back of necessary legisation get named and shamed.

In view of the dysfunctional mutual backstabbing and intentional sabotage which is depressingly usual in Washington, I no longer support an elected second chamber. I think we should fight to hold on to what we now have, even though it's unfairly weighted in favour of the Tories, a party I really and sincerely detest.