|
Post by thesensationaljt on Aug 27, 2015 22:33:56 GMT 1
****ing disgrace. We're losing all our local services, yet this lot of unelected free-loaders are continuing to gorge on our taxes, whilst local people who do something useful, are being made redundant. 826 of the A*******s now.
Any Juan want to justify it?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34072201
|
|
|
Post by Scarecrow on Aug 27, 2015 22:57:21 GMT 1
****ing disgrace. We're losing all our local services, yet this lot of unelected free-loaders are continuing to gorge on our taxes, whilst local people who do something useful, are being made redundant. 826 of the A*******s now.
Any Juan want to justify it?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34072201 Mine certainly wont be a popular opinion so count that as your trigger warning! Most of the names on this list are politicians who have held high ranking political offices of one kind or another or been influential ie Hague, Darling etc. Do you not think when it comes to bills being scrutinised having political dinosaurs with an in depth knowledge of how bills work, pass etc is inherently a good thing to ensure we have decent laws being made? It acts as a useful check and balance on the Commons. Also with regards to Westminster do you not think having these Lords around will help ministers settle into their roles if they can consult them on a regular basis. For example having previous Chancellors or Foreign Secretaries means that new leaders can use their previous experiences and connections to help make better decisions in office? In a more extreme example on an international front, say there is a war potentially brewing, a previous Foreign Secretary being utilised to help a dispute. It's never popular to defend anything with politicians but in the case of the Lords they do have some uses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 23:02:39 GMT 1
****ing disgrace. We're losing all our local services, yet this lot of unelected free-loaders are continuing to gorge on our taxes, whilst local people who do something useful, are being made redundant. 826 of the A*******s now.
Any Juan want to justify it?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34072201 Justify what JT , this is , as you so rightly put it , a f...ing disgrace , an absolute insult to the taxpayers of this Country . So much for that s**tebag Camerons reforms . Its a wonder there isn't a bloody revolution . 826 scrounging barstewards now , taking the p**s . Never mind , just keep hammering the disadvantaged . Once again it's trebles all round for the great and good - Cheers .
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Aug 27, 2015 23:07:03 GMT 1
Tend to agree with Tarquin, with the additional comment that when a new intake of Peers is added to the Lords there should be a reduction in other seats, possibly through a compulsory retirement age. There are too many Lords and it's hard to justify so many when a smaller number could be as effective
House of Lords as a Democratic legislator it ain't, and if you were inventing it from scratch you would do it like it is, but as a practical tool of monitoring and correcting legislation it works surprisingly well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 23:26:42 GMT 1
****ing disgrace. We're losing all our local services, yet this lot of unelected free-loaders are continuing to gorge on our taxes, whilst local people who do something useful, are being made redundant. 826 of the A*******s now.
Any Juan want to justify it?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34072201 Mine certainly wont be a popular opinion so count that as your trigger warning! Most of the names on this list are politicians who have held high ranking political offices of one kind or another or been influential ie Hague, Darling etc. Do you not think when it comes to bills being scrutinised having political dinosaurs with an in depth knowledge of how bills work, pass etc is inherently a good thing to ensure we have decent laws being made? It acts as a useful check and balance on the Commons. Also with regards to Westminster do you not think having these Lords around will help ministers settle into their roles if they can consult them on a regular basis. For example having previous Chancellors or Foreign Secretaries means that new leaders can use their previous experiences and connections to help make better decisions in office? In a more extreme example on an international front, say there is a war potentially brewing, a previous Foreign Secretary being utilised to help a dispute. It's never popular to defend anything with politicians but in the case of the Lords they do have some uses. WTF are you on about scarecrow , does it take 826 of the barstewards to provide checks and balances . The House of Lords is , if it hasn't already become so, a vast money pit for the fortunate , most of the recent Lords being Dave's friends . Do we really need such an enormous second house . How many ex MP's do you need to help ministers settle into their roles and what the f.ck do the civil servants do - make the bloody tea. The decisions made in office are made in Cabinet , not in the Lords . A waste of tax payers money if you ask me . Why do you think our Dave is filling the second house with his mates, it's not so they can offer advice to help better decisions is it , oh no. Its so that decisions already made can be guaranteed not to be returned to the Commons with a " think again " post it note attached . Without a doubt the second house is an outdated , archaic institution which needs to be reformed as our Dave promised . Like so many things what Cameron promises and what he actually delivers are miles apart .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 23:31:44 GMT 1
Should the title read Trough or am I toe telly missing the point.
Either way JT, juan is abs o lootly right!
|
|
|
Post by sussexshrew on Aug 27, 2015 23:55:48 GMT 1
And so is severnheaven.
I am not against a 2nd chamber to add wisdom to knee-jerk laws... but so many of them? Why. And as governments invariably top them up in their favour to ensure that their laws do go through, it begins to lose its effect. And the moment it does block a law, the commons threaten to dissolve it anyway or call in an seldom used ancient act that over-rules them.
Plus filling it with ex-politicians who are experienced in law making doesn't guarantee good laws, when many of those same politicians were guilty of making or supporting crap ones.
Simply jobs for the boys, and don't make any waves.
And 826 of the buggers, popping in for a few minutes a day for their £300 attendance allowance, on their way to their clubs, following their monthly meeting at one of the companies on whose board they sit and draw a whopping salary as they discuss ways in which to hide more taxable profits offshore.
Yep... we're all in together. The ruling elite... they must have a right chuckle about us.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Aug 28, 2015 4:34:24 GMT 1
The Lords is the biggest unelected chamber in the world outside China. It is a national embarrassment, just about summed up by the fact that the muppet who charged the taxpayer for cleaning his moat - Douglas Hogg - is one of the new intake. Truly a man with his snout in the trough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 7:41:18 GMT 1
Interesting proceedings when Blair managed eventually to halve the number of peers and a certain William Hague does not come out of it in a good light
"In order to convince some peers to vote for reform, Tony Blair announced that he would compromise by allowing a number of hereditary peers to remain in the House of Lords on an interim basis. On 2 December 1998, the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, rose in the House of Commons to attack Tony Blair's plans. He suggested that Mr Blair's changes indicated his lack of principles, claiming that Blair wanted to turn the House of Lords into a "House of Cronies". Hague further suggested that the Conservative Party would never agree to such constitutional reforms that were "based on no comprehensive plan or principle."[25] Mr Hague's remarks backfired when Blair revealed that the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, rather than oppose his reforms, would definitely support them, and that he had done a secret deal with the Conservative leader in the House of Lords, Viscount Cranborne.[25] Hague immediately removed Cranborne from office,[26] but, in protest, several Conservative Lords who held front-bench positions resigned.[27]"
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Aug 28, 2015 10:36:26 GMT 1
Not sure what Hogg (of the claiming for the cleaning of the moat as expenses fame) or Jowell (6 years separation from her corrupt husband (mate of Berlasconi) but regularly seeing him during that period and now reconciled..nothing to do with saving her political career of course) bring to the party.
Am amazed David Laws was knocked back. Still, I'm sure he'll get in soon, as will the fragrant Esther McVey if she can't find a safe seat in a bye election soon. Perhaps also Viggers of duck house fame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 13:29:18 GMT 1
Esther McVey. Jesus , I'd forgotten about that piece of s**te . Bloody hell, if she gets in then the loonies really have taken over the asylum .
p.s . Just in case there's any doubt I'm not a big fan of the fragrant Esther .
|
|
|
Post by jimmelrosesjaw on Aug 28, 2015 14:38:09 GMT 1
Unfortunately, snouts in the trough isn't limited to national Government. We have to endure this at local level. Telford's infamous flop concert organising, AFC Tinpot members and part time labour councillors are the epitome of a free loading 'we're all in it together' bunch who have noses firmly in the trough.
In addition to personal 'gains', councillors personal interests do very well in Telford too, particularly AFC Tinpot who are now almost totally funded by the council, recently receiving nearly £300k from the sale of a council asset. A decision made behind closed doors by two AFC Tinpot members and who happen to be senior councillors. The groundsmen are council employees who are paid by the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Aug 28, 2015 14:56:21 GMT 1
We need a second chamber, no question.
It should be much smaller, no question.
It's a good idea to have nominated, expert members, but they should be in the minority and everyone else should be elected.
It's a national embarrassment that it's the 21st century and we still have hereditary peers and it's just as big an embarrassment that so many life peers are simply stuffed in there by the old boy network.
It's also time we stopped moaning and blaming others. We have the political system we deserve because, as a nation, we're too apathetic to change it. Demand reform and don't vote for anyone that doesn't promise it. Maybe enough of these immigrants will show a bit more spirit than our flabby, complacent native population!
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Aug 28, 2015 19:21:04 GMT 1
Should the title read Trough or am I toe telly missing the point. Marrvelus. 62 years posting on Glue and Ambler, and I make Juan spelling Miss Take, and some Juan is ready to Pownce.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Aug 28, 2015 19:26:33 GMT 1
Remove all the hereditary peers and bishops and jobs done in one foul swoop. Oh and retirement at say 75....
Have to admit that my favorite uncle (well my mums cousin but she was brought up by her aunt his mum) was made a lord in dear Harolds resignation 'appointments'. He was working class, lived in a modest house in Oxford and remained there until his demise a couple of years ago..... Didn't have a flash car or any other trappings associated with other 'lords' he was just good at what he did and had lots to offer in setteling disputes between unions and employers in many ways he kept the country going whilst getting a fairer deal for employees
|
|
|
Post by Matt Keynes on Aug 28, 2015 21:09:55 GMT 1
I never have liked the Lords. However I cannot see a better way of checking an undemocratic commons. With a proper voting system The commons would check itself with no overall majority and I would feel better at scrapping the Lords. By the way we also did not vote for the Queen.
|
|