 |
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
Congratulations to the 13 new peers named in the honours list - I am sure that they are all being rewarded for services rendered.
Congratulations also to the youngest at 27 years old (beating the previous youngest member from only last year who was 30).
A job for life although perhaps not so highly paid.
We now have almost 800 peers - some of them hereditary who vet the decisions of the government.
800 people who were either put in place for services rendered to the outgoing PM, the party or are hereditary.
Essentially 800 people who make decisions on our behalf and attempt to ensure that the government doesn't overstep the mark.
800 people who, like the current PM (and the previous one) were elected by politicians and not the public.
800..
Do we need this many people in the House of Lords?
Should Peers be put in place by the parties and therefore, more than likely, support their backers?
In my opinion, we need to reform the HoL's (and the government) and move into the 21st century.
What sayest thou learned people of the Fab nation? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
"Do you suggest replacing or removing the responsibilities of the HoL?"
I don't think I suggested either option - did I?
Reform was the word I used...
You must have misread what I had written. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Do you suggest replacing or removing the responsibilities of the HoL?
I don't think I suggested either option - did I?
Reform was the word I used...
You must have misread what I had written."
how will you reform it? Removing or replacing their responsibilities? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
"Do you suggest replacing or removing the responsibilities of the HoL?
I don't think I suggested either option - did I?
Reform was the word I used...
You must have misread what I had written.
how will you reform it? Removing or replacing their responsibilities? "
Why the fixation with removing or replacing?
Are there only two options?
Am I under interrogation?
There are many ways to reform a body such as the HoL's, some of which I alluded to earlier in my prose (which was more than one line) such as looking at the numbers, how they are appointed and for how long.
The answer is certainly not as simple as removing it replacing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
"Should be an upper chamber which is selected by proportional representation from the general election.
Then the moderators of our laws truly represent the people."
Good response - I tend to agree with that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
"Not highly paid £300 a day just for signing in "
Roughly £72k per year asummimg they attend five days a week for 48 weeks.
A good salary for most of us but for the majority of people who attain Peerages, this would not be considered as being highly paid.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple
over a year ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
Nigel man-for-all-seasons Farage will sort it!
Vote UKIP! Or is it The Brexit Party? Reform UK? Oh no, it's now Reform UK AND The Brexit Party? What will it be tomorrow? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The lords absolutely must continue, and should be entirely independent of party politics.
And no, not elected in line with a GE - because that’s how you get a partisan second chamber and it becomes a tick-box. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ino the Lords (can) act as a good check and balance to moderate the short termism that arises as a consequence of (non PR) representation based politcis. (Eg laws that are more about winning key votes)
They can also add epxerience based scrutiny to policies. Balancing out career politicans in the lower house.
I'd personally like some form of focus on the skills in the Lords and have a way if electing lords that can beat close gaps or add views. Rather than who went to the cricket with xyz. Oh, and bin the PM resignation ones.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should be an upper chamber which is selected by proportional representation from the general election.
Then the moderators of our laws truly represent the people."
This is exactly how I have always thought it should be done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
"Ino the Lords (can) act as a good check and balance to moderate the short termism that arises as a consequence of (non PR) representation based politcis. (Eg laws that are more about winning key votes)
They can also add epxerience based scrutiny to policies. Balancing out career politicans in the lower house.
I'd personally like some form of focus on the skills in the Lords and have a way if electing lords that can beat close gaps or add views. Rather than who went to the cricket with xyz. Oh, and bin the PM resignation ones.
"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Not highly paid £300 a day just for signing in
Roughly £72k per year asummimg they attend five days a week for 48 weeks.
A good salary for most of us but for the majority of people who attain Peerages, this would not be considered as being highly paid.
"
subsidized bars restaurants travel .expenses . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Not highly paid £300 a day just for signing in
Roughly £72k per year asummimg they attend five days a week for 48 weeks.
A good salary for most of us but for the majority of people who attain Peerages, this would not be considered as being highly paid.
subsidized bars restaurants travel .expenses ."
Can anyone apply  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not highly paid £300 a day just for signing in
Roughly £72k per year asummimg they attend five days a week for 48 weeks.
A good salary for most of us but for the majority of people who attain Peerages, this would not be considered as being highly paid.
subsidized bars restaurants travel .expenses .
Can anyone apply "
ofc.
Just send your application with a cheque for 30k to CCHQ.
The positive discrimination route was removed when Boris left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Not highly paid £300 a day just for signing in
Roughly £72k per year asummimg they attend five days a week for 48 weeks.
A good salary for most of us but for the majority of people who attain Peerages, this would not be considered as being highly paid.
subsidized bars restaurants travel .expenses .
Can anyone apply ofc.
Just send your application with a cheque for 30k to CCHQ.
The positive discrimination route was removed when Boris left. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
"
what are your concerns and why ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
"I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
what are your concerns and why ?"
Why ask me?
I suggest that you read the initial post.
Looking back at your comments you are only concerned about my comment about the fees that Peers are paid.
If that is all that concerns you then it would appear that you are happy with 800 non-elected peers having an influence on how this country is run but you would prefer that they are paid less.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
"
Why did you start a thread and then get pissed off that barely anyone has engaged  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
what are your concerns and why ?
Why ask me?
I suggest that you read the initial post.
Looking back at your comments you are only concerned about my comment about the fees that Peers are paid.
If that is all that concerns you then it would appear that you are happy with 800 non-elected peers having an influence on how this country is run but you would prefer that they are paid less.
"
I suspect you are confusing me with someone else. I've not mentioned money.
I'm asking you as you're the OP and asked us. And thought it may help the thread gain traction as you seemed miffed no one was commenting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdive OP Man
over a year ago
France / Birmingham |
"I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
Why did you start a thread and then get pissed off that barely anyone has engaged "
I am simply summarising what appears to be the feelings of those who have engaged.
I am neither pissed off or otherwise - this is a swingers forum and little else.
People contribute (or not) if interested.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
"
Would you remove the archbishops from the house.? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can only conclude that the majority on here are happy with the status quo.
Perhaps some would prefer that the Peers were paid less and some prefer to discuss replacing rather than reforming however, overall it would seem that the majority accept the status quo and are happy that an unelected Peers in the House of Lords have an influence in how the country is governed.
The 800 (almost) non-elected Peers appear to be of little concern.
Personally, I am disappointed that this is the case but hey ho, this is a forum in on a swingers web portal so why should I worry!
"
It’s tough to envisage what the lords should look like, but elected by the public isn’t the answer if you want a second chamber that isn’t simply a tick-box that aligns with the commons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The ability of politicians to nominate their donors and time-servers loyal to party for peerages, knighthoods and other titles of the creaking outdated state, is an insidious form of corruption.
The revising chamber should include people, ideally non-partisan if possible, with expertise in the different areas of legislation.
An end to titles and the outdated, morally unjustifiable monarchy which sits atop the whole corrupt system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The lords absolutely must continue, and should be entirely independent of party politics.
And no, not elected in line with a GE - because that’s how you get a partisan second chamber and it becomes a tick-box. "
Using proportional representation from the GE is highly likely to give a different mix of views than the first past the post system for the lower house.
I am not sure PR is a good idea for the lower house as it tends to result in weak coalition government however for the upper house I think it would give good balance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I am neither pissed off or otherwise - this is a swingers forum and little else.
"
-----------------------------
Given the history of fetishists and libertines from the higher echelons I wouldn't be surprised if there were members of the House of Lords here!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Congratulations to the 13 new peers named in the honours list - I am sure that they are all being rewarded for services rendered.
Congratulations also to the youngest at 27 years old (beating the previous youngest member from only last year who was 30).
A job for life although perhaps not so highly paid.
We now have almost 800 peers - some of them hereditary who vet the decisions of the government.
800 people who were either put in place for services rendered to the outgoing PM, the party or are hereditary.
Essentially 800 people who make decisions on our behalf and attempt to ensure that the government doesn't overstep the mark.
800 people who, like the current PM (and the previous one) were elected by politicians and not the public.
800..
Do we need this many people in the House of Lords?
Should Peers be put in place by the parties and therefore, more than likely, support their backers?
In my opinion, we need to reform the HoL's (and the government) and move into the 21st century.
What sayest thou learned people of the Fab nation?"
We need to lose The Monarchy too-every corrupt piece of legislation becomes law because of The Royal Prerogative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The lords absolutely must continue, and should be entirely independent of party politics.
And no, not elected in line with a GE - because that’s how you get a partisan second chamber and it becomes a tick-box.
Using proportional representation from the GE is highly likely to give a different mix of views than the first past the post system for the lower house.
I am not sure PR is a good idea for the lower house as it tends to result in weak coalition government however for the upper house I think it would give good balance."
Ah, yes. I missed the PR idea - that would be better than a FPTP system for the lords (I believe in PR for the commons as well, but that’s another debate.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
