Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ban Politicians from HofL?
Topic Started: Aug 31 2015, 06:52 AM (216 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Reforming the upper chamber is one shining opportunity to correct this selection bias. Stuffing the House with unelected former or failed politicians (as happened on Friday) is the worst of both worlds: they’re all politicians and they’re not even elected. If we had a largely-elected second chamber (perish the thought) we’d have even more politicians. Except that because the Lords doesn’t wield as much power, you’d get an even lower calibre of politicians – think the European Parliament and those nameless, faceless MEPs. The undemocratic tyranny of the political animal over the rest of us would only be bolstered.

So the answer is clear: to make the House of Lords a politician-free zone. By all means keep the bishops, the former generals, scientists like Lord (Robert) Winston. But anyone who has stood for election, or worked in politics, should be automatically disqualified. The Lords should be chosen from leaders across all other walks of society – what is referred to in Westminster as ‘real life’ – with the express mandate of keeping the political class in check.

Freed from the corrupting element of government patronage, a system for nominating the Lords suddenly looks much more feasible. Impossible though it may be for our MPs’ political brains to compute, a politician-free appointed chamber could actually be the most democratic solution.


Freddie Sayers is editor-in-chief of YouGov and a former editor of PoliticsHome

LINK

The HofL should be a house of scrutiny not a place for competing political ideas with the HofC, therefore, best keep politicians out and appoint those from the "real World".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
If English people thought for a minute that they could scrap the House of Lordships, that affront to democracy would be consigned to history.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes best thing to do would scrap this unelected house of cronyism and fiddles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The costs far outweigh its value ...... inefficient, over manned, and lazy greedy money grabbers fleecing the tax payer ....... where have I read this before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Since Lloyd George neutered it in the early 1900s all the HoL can do is delay HoC legislation and maybe influence some changes in the original bill passed by the HoC.

That this is done by people who even with the best intent in the world are ultimately unaccountable to people in elections is anathema in a supposed democracy.

We have a de facto unicameral legislature already so lets make it a de jure unicameral legislature and stop this expensive charade.
Edited by Cymru, Aug 31 2015, 10:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 31 2015, 06:52 AM
Quote:
 
Reforming the upper chamber is one shining opportunity to correct this selection bias. Stuffing the House with unelected former or failed politicians (as happened on Friday) is the worst of both worlds: they’re all politicians and they’re not even elected. If we had a largely-elected second chamber (perish the thought) we’d have even more politicians. Except that because the Lords doesn’t wield as much power, you’d get an even lower calibre of politicians – think the European Parliament and those nameless, faceless MEPs. The undemocratic tyranny of the political animal over the rest of us would only be bolstered.

So the answer is clear: to make the House of Lords a politician-free zone. By all means keep the bishops, the former generals, scientists like Lord (Robert) Winston. But anyone who has stood for election, or worked in politics, should be automatically disqualified. The Lords should be chosen from leaders across all other walks of society – what is referred to in Westminster as ‘real life’ – with the express mandate of keeping the political class in check.

Freed from the corrupting element of government patronage, a system for nominating the Lords suddenly looks much more feasible. Impossible though it may be for our MPs’ political brains to compute, a politician-free appointed chamber could actually be the most democratic solution.


Freddie Sayers is editor-in-chief of YouGov and a former editor of PoliticsHome

LINK

The HofL should be a house of scrutiny not a place for competing political ideas with the HofC, therefore, best keep politicians out and appoint those from the "real World".

Personally I'd scrap the HoL and have done with it, an unelected (by the public) second chamber that is little more than a club for old duffers and a polite debating club has no place in a supposedly democratic nation.

Remove this bauble as one bloke once said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
But here's the thing: by and large the HofL works in its role of preventing poorly drafted legislation being passed.

Yes it's full of contradictions, yes that list last week is stacked with the dubious and stupid, yes it should be reduced in size, yes it should have more non politicians

But

I'm very glad that William Hague, George Young, Ming Campbell, David Blunkett, Tessa Jowell, Alastair Darling and even Peter Hain will still be able to contribute their wisdom to our laws.

so to the OP proposition: :nono:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
We need a second chamber as a method of curtailing, reforming and amending legislation from the lower House; as part of the checks and balances our system is based upon. I agree with others that the anachronism that is the House of Lords has had its day, and that we probably need to scrap the entire setup, and start again with a clean sheet. The idea that a prime minister has such patronage in his hands....that he can send virtually anyone he wants, to the upper chamber, is a nonsense. If we were to decide to start afresh, then the first step would be to decide on its size...how many members, what powers they are to have, and the method by which they are to be appointed.

As a starting point, I would suggest no more than (say) 400 members for this new upper house, although a good case could be made to reduce that number. The Yanks, for example, seem to manage with 100 senators in THEIR upper chamber! As for what powers they are to have....that is a tricky one. At present, they can delay legislation, they can suggest amendments, and they can, to a limited extent, block a measure they disagree with. But at present, the will of parliament, the lower chamber, will always prevail, so, to that extent, they are an advisory forum whose powers are limited by legislation. And I cannot see anyone in parliament today who would be willing to give an upper chamber additional powers that would reduce the supremacy of parliament. But what compounds the problem is that many will argue for an elected second chamber of some sort, and if we go down that route, then, as elected members, they would have as much legitimacy as the lower chamber, and would want powers similar to those of the American senate.

Then comes the problem of how they are to be appointed or selected, by whom, and by what method. And here I fail to see how you can debar anyone, politician or not, from standing for election, if elections there are to be. And if not by public election, how else can they be chosen except by patronage of some sort or other; and that is the one thing we all seem to want to get rid of. Wanting to reform the H.of L. is one thing; actually coming up with a method that will suit everyone is another matter entirely. So, for sake of argument, why not rename it as "the Senate", divide the country up into constituencies equalling the membership numbers decide upon, and hold elections every five years for this Senate.

And as in a democracy, you cannot really debar anyone from standing for election, there will undoubtedly be politicians putting their names forward. But at least, the public would have a say, and some of the present members of the House of Lords wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. Anyone got any better ideas? I am open to persuasion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
If the HofL was based on elections then it will be stuffed out with Politicians, mainly failed ones. The sort of people one requires in a revising Chamber are not likely to put themselves up as candidates, expose themselves to media scrutiny and work on having a popular acceptable face for Joe Public. I have nothing much against a system based on appointment as long as this is not governed by Politicians, in fact I would prefer that any involvement with the HofC brings an automatic ban. Alternatively scrap the place and as a consequence expect Ministers to draft Laws with much greater care than hitherto.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 31 2015, 01:02 PM
If the HofL was based on elections then it will be stuffed out with Politicians, mainly failed ones. The sort of people one requires in a revising Chamber are not likely to put themselves up as candidates, expose themselves to media scrutiny and work on having a popular acceptable face for Joe Public. I have nothing much against a system based on appointment as long as this is not governed by Politicians, in fact I would prefer that any involvement with the HofC brings an automatic ban. Alternatively scrap the place and as a consequence expect Ministers to draft Laws with much greater care than hitherto.




:thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 12:52 PM
We need a second chamber as a method of curtailing, reforming and amending legislation from the lower House; as part of the checks and balances our system is based upon. ...
The major flaw in your thinking is your failure to recognize that legislation is supposed to be drafted by the Cabinet and sent to Committee for amending. A government department when considering introducing a new law, can put together a discussion document called a Green Paper. The aim of this document is to allow people both inside and outside Parliament to debate the subject and give the department feedback on its suggestions. A White Paper is meant to solicit feedback from other MPs and debates in the House of Commons can then persuade other members of any need for amendments before passing a Bill. This system is broken and, in the interest of democracy, ought to be fixed. If the Commons worked properly instead of being a dictatorship of the Cabinet using whips to get obedience from their majority holders, there would by no need for unaccountable, unelected, appointed-for-life former politicians, party donors, and hangers-on, to have any authority to mess with, change, or delay legislation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 31 2015, 01:02 PM
If the HofL was based on elections then it will be stuffed out with Politicians, mainly failed ones. The sort of people one requires in a revising Chamber are not likely to put themselves up as candidates, expose themselves to media scrutiny and work on having a popular acceptable face for Joe Public. I have nothing much against a system based on appointment as long as this is not governed by Politicians, in fact I would prefer that any involvement with the HofC brings an automatic ban. Alternatively scrap the place and as a consequence expect Ministers to draft Laws with much greater care than hitherto.




But therein is the problem, RJD. Who will make the appointments, and on what basis? And how do we keep politicians out of it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Aug 31 2015, 02:38 PM
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 12:52 PM
We need a second chamber as a method of curtailing, reforming and amending legislation from the lower House; as part of the checks and balances our system is based upon. ...
The major flaw in your thinking is your failure to recognize that legislation is supposed to be drafted by the Cabinet and sent to Committee for amending. A government department when considering introducing a new law, can put together a discussion document called a Green Paper. The aim of this document is to allow people both inside and outside Parliament to debate the subject and give the department feedback on its suggestions. A White Paper is meant to solicit feedback from other MPs and debates in the House of Commons can then persuade other members of any need for amendments before passing a Bill. This system is broken and, in the interest of democracy, ought to be fixed. If the Commons worked properly instead of being a dictatorship of the Cabinet using whips to get obedience from their majority holders, there would by no need for unaccountable, unelected, appointed-for-life former politicians, party donors, and hangers-on, to have any authority to mess with, change, or delay legislation.
Another cop-out. We are seeking solutions. We all KNOW the system is a crock of shit. As for telling me about white papers and green papers...no shit Sherlock, comes to mind!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 02:58 PM
Heinrich
Aug 31 2015, 02:38 PM
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 12:52 PM
We need a second chamber as a method of curtailing, reforming and amending legislation from the lower House; as part of the checks and balances our system is based upon. ...
The major flaw in your thinking is your failure to recognize that legislation is supposed to be drafted by the Cabinet and sent to Committee for amending. A government department when considering introducing a new law, can put together a discussion document called a Green Paper. The aim of this document is to allow people both inside and outside Parliament to debate the subject and give the department feedback on its suggestions. A White Paper is meant to solicit feedback from other MPs and debates in the House of Commons can then persuade other members of any need for amendments before passing a Bill. This system is broken and, in the interest of democracy, ought to be fixed. If the Commons worked properly instead of being a dictatorship of the Cabinet using whips to get obedience from their majority holders, there would by no need for unaccountable, unelected, appointed-for-life former politicians, party donors, and hangers-on, to have any authority to mess with, change, or delay legislation.
Another cop-out. We are seeking solutions. We all KNOW the system is a crock of shit. As for telling me about white papers and green papers...no shit Sherlock, comes to mind!
Forgive me; it sounded like you hadn't clue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Aug 31 2015, 03:00 PM
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 02:58 PM
Heinrich
Aug 31 2015, 02:38 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Another cop-out. We are seeking solutions. We all KNOW the system is a crock of shit. As for telling me about white papers and green papers...no shit Sherlock, comes to mind!
Forgive me; it sounded like you hadn't clue.
Is there no end to your fucking arrogance? :facepalm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 31 2015, 03:03 PM
Heinrich
Aug 31 2015, 03:00 PM
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 02:58 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Forgive me; it sounded like you hadn't clue.
Is there no end to your fucking arrogance? :facepalm:
Only matched by his shallowness, Mary. Our Heinrich is a bit of a sciolist, when all is said and done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 04:13 PM
marybrown
Aug 31 2015, 03:03 PM
Heinrich
Aug 31 2015, 03:00 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Is there no end to your fucking arrogance? :facepalm:
Only matched by his shallowness, Mary. Our Heinrich is a bit of a sciolist, when all is said and done.
But there is no such thing as socialism except in the dreamworlds of the right wingers!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 04:27 PM
But there is no such thing as socialism except in the dreamworlds of the right wingers!
ROFL

He said Sciolist: a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed.

Which, ironically, is just what you have shown yourself to be.

Well done Alberich: two birds with one stone.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 31 2015, 06:52 AM
Quote:
 
Reforming the upper chamber is one shining opportunity to correct this selection bias. Stuffing the House with unelected former or failed politicians (as happened on Friday) is the worst of both worlds: they’re all politicians and they’re not even elected. If we had a largely-elected second chamber (perish the thought) we’d have even more politicians. Except that because the Lords doesn’t wield as much power, you’d get an even lower calibre of politicians – think the European Parliament and those nameless, faceless MEPs. The undemocratic tyranny of the political animal over the rest of us would only be bolstered.

So the answer is clear: to make the House of Lords a politician-free zone. By all means keep the bishops, the former generals, scientists like Lord (Robert) Winston. But anyone who has stood for election, or worked in politics, should be automatically disqualified. The Lords should be chosen from leaders across all other walks of society – what is referred to in Westminster as ‘real life’ – with the express mandate of keeping the political class in check.

Freed from the corrupting element of government patronage, a system for nominating the Lords suddenly looks much more feasible. Impossible though it may be for our MPs’ political brains to compute, a politician-free appointed chamber could actually be the most democratic solution.


Freddie Sayers is editor-in-chief of YouGov and a former editor of PoliticsHome

LINK

The HofL should be a house of scrutiny not a place for competing political ideas with the HofC, therefore, best keep politicians out and appoint those from the "real World".

Its wrong to assume that politicians are not of the 'real world'
. I thought their whole purpose was to scrutinise and to be informed about the 'real world' the everyday affairs and needs They also havbe private lives of their own to draw upon.. Their sources of information is wider than the rest of us, and their constituents are always contact6ing them about matters relating to themselves in their real world. I would suggest that they arte better informed about the 'real world' than the majority with their more narrow view of life.
To be fair, no one can know the ins and out of all the words affairs, or the private lives of individuals. The system works, its the mending of it that seems to have created the inner problems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 04:27 PM
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 04:13 PM
marybrown
Aug 31 2015, 03:03 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Only matched by his shallowness, Mary. Our Heinrich is a bit of a sciolist, when all is said and done.
But there is no such thing as socialism except in the dreamworlds of the right wingers!
The right winger are operating a socialist society, and the Conservative party is fully supporting it, though they arte modifying it to fit the modern age, and within what is truly.affordable.
Deny that if you can. The best that can be done is to deny your own expectations of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 31 2015, 06:52 AM

The HofL should be a house of scrutiny not a place for competing political ideas with the HofC, therefore, best keep politicians out and appoint those from the "real World".

The problem with your summary is that if both chambers are of the same ideology what genuine scrutiny can there possibly be ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 31 2015, 04:59 PM
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 04:27 PM
But there is no such thing as socialism except in the dreamworlds of the right wingers!
ROFL

He said Sciolist: a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed.

Which, ironically, is just what you have shown yourself to be.

Well done Alberich: two birds with one stone.

All The Best
Au contraire.

Have to get the small print upped in size on my iPad. My eyes are going!

However isn't that what the rabid right whingers comprise, as well as pretending that socialism exists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 31 2015, 05:28 PM
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 04:27 PM
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 04:13 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
But there is no such thing as socialism except in the dreamworlds of the right wingers!
The right winger are operating a socialist society, and the Conservative party is fully supporting it, though they arte modifying it to fit the modern age, and within what is truly.affordable.
Deny that if you can. The best that can be done is to deny your own expectations of it.
Oh god if the Tories are now 'socialist' as you state. You will have Scammers and Giddie beating down your door, trying to prove otherwise!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 06:07 PM
Tytoalba
Aug 31 2015, 05:28 PM
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 04:27 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The right winger are operating a socialist society, and the Conservative party is fully supporting it, though they arte modifying it to fit the modern age, and within what is truly.affordable.
Deny that if you can. The best that can be done is to deny your own expectations of it.
Oh god if the Tories are now 'socialist' as you state. You will have Scammers and Giddie beating down your door, trying to prove otherwise!
Open your mind Lewis. What do you think the NHS and DHSS and our pension schemes, care homes and helping the homeless all about. are all about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 31 2015, 09:26 PM
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 06:07 PM
Tytoalba
Aug 31 2015, 05:28 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Oh god if the Tories are now 'socialist' as you state. You will have Scammers and Giddie beating down your door, trying to prove otherwise!
Open your mind Lewis. What do you think the NHS and DHSS and our pension schemes, care homes and helping the homeless all about. are all about.
The homeless get very little help at all, with charities on the frontline mostly.

Care homes are mostly businesses.

Pensions are paid for by the individual through taxation or private funding mostly.

The NHS is steadily being privatised by the incompetents, so won't exist in a few years hence.

No fundamental evidence there of socialism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 09:49 PM
Tytoalba
Aug 31 2015, 09:26 PM
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 06:07 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Open your mind Lewis. What do you think the NHS and DHSS and our pension schemes, care homes and helping the homeless all about. are all about.
The homeless get very little help at all, with charities on the frontline mostly.

Care homes are mostly businesses.

Pensions are paid for by the individual through taxation or private funding mostly.

The NHS is steadily being privatised by the incompetents, so won't exist in a few years hence.

No fundamental evidence there of socialism.
Closed mind I see, They are all part of a socialist agenda. Care home may be privately run, but they take in residents paid for by the local authorities paid for by local taxation. The NHS is not being privatised and is still free at the point of need. Pensions are being supported by the state No matter how you interpret it we still have a socialist state, one that was in place and supported by the last Labour government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 09:49 PM
Tytoalba
Aug 31 2015, 09:26 PM
Lewis
Aug 31 2015, 06:07 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Open your mind Lewis. What do you think the NHS and DHSS and our pension schemes, care homes and helping the homeless all about. are all about.
The homeless get very little help at all, with charities on the frontline mostly.

Care homes are mostly businesses.

Pensions are paid for by the individual through taxation or private funding mostly.

The NHS is steadily being privatised by the incompetents, so won't exist in a few years hence.

No fundamental evidence there of socialism.
" Labour has clearly sold it's soul to the corporate powerbrokers"

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyNN/posts/414632211998161
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Aug 31 2015, 02:55 PM
RJD
Aug 31 2015, 01:02 PM
If the HofL was based on elections then it will be stuffed out with Politicians, mainly failed ones. The sort of people one requires in a revising Chamber are not likely to put themselves up as candidates, expose themselves to media scrutiny and work on having a popular acceptable face for Joe Public. I have nothing much against a system based on appointment as long as this is not governed by Politicians, in fact I would prefer that any involvement with the HofC brings an automatic ban. Alternatively scrap the place and as a consequence expect Ministers to draft Laws with much greater care than hitherto.




But therein is the problem, RJD. Who will make the appointments, and on what basis? And how do we keep politicians out of it?
I am not going to attempt to draft a Law, but it should not be difficult to ban appointments to the HofL of those that have been MPs or worked directly for MPs in the previous 5 or 10 years say. As for those that make the Appointments then clearly a committee from within the HofL can be established with guidelines. Yes we need Bishops and Doctors and Teachers and Lawyers etc. that have real World experience, but those appointed need to fit in with the Job Description. Yes the Press will watch them like hawks. Must be better than what we have now. I would also rid the HofL of Whips and any of the Political Party trappings. This Chamber needs to be apolitical and learn to guard such.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
FRANCE Senate has 348 members elected for six-year terms by 150,000 state officials known as ‘grandes electeurs’.
GERMANY Bundesrat is made up of 69 members delegated by governments of individual states.
ITALY Senate composed of 321 members, of whom 315 are elected for five-year terms by voters aged 25 and above, and 6 appointed as senators for life.
JAPAN House of Councillors composed of 242 members elected for six-year terms under a system of proportional representation.
UNITED STATES Senate has 100 members, two for each state excluding Washington DC, directly elected by the public.


A bit of perspective wrt our burgeoning HofL.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply