Lord Reforms

[Lord Duckhunter]

If we follow the Lib/Dems reforms, we would end up with more and more Warsi's. Not only would the party lists be full of bootlicking professional politicans, but they would all tow the party line. At least the hereditary's didn't owe their position to any party leader and were also not professional politicans. Admittedly some of them were barking mad, but some of them were independant thinkers. I personally dont think that you can have a party list system and then expect the House of Lords to work as a check to the Commons. It will be stuffed full of placemen and women.

 

As for another point made on here;

 

It does make me laugh how the "right on" Labour and Lib/Dem parties, who are so much more progressive than the male dominated Torys, are still no nearer to a women leader than they were 35 years ago, when a women , Maggie Thatcher became Tory leader.

[pap]

If we follow the Lib/Dems reforms, we would end up with more and more Warsi's.

 

What a terrifying idea. Hopefully, there aren't that many.

 

Not only would the party lists be full of bootlicking professional politicans

 

You don't know that.

 

but they would all tow the party line.

 

Or that.

 

At least the hereditary's didn't owe their position to any party leader

 

Nope. They owe their position to the diligence of a sperm. That's somehow better?

 

and were also not professional politicans.

 

Indeed not. Who needs a job when you're born into wealth?

 

Admittedly some of them were barking mad,

 

Would you let a barking mad person serve your beer? Look after your kids?

 

but some of them were independant thinkers. I personally dont think that you can have a party list system and then expect the House of Lords to work as a check to the Commons. It will be stuffed full of placemen and women.

 

That may happen, but it also provides an excellent opportunity for smaller parties to have a voice in the Lords. If the Lords goes on the popular vote (which the party list system essentially is) then no party will get a majority. The yes men argument doesn't really stack up if they can't collectively overturn everyone else.

 

As for another point made on here;

 

It does make me laugh how the "right on" Labour and Lib/Dem parties, who are so much more progressive than the male dominated Torys, are still no nearer to a women leader than they were 35 years ago, when a women , Maggie Thatcher became Tory leader.

 

 

Yep, it's a shame. I think a big part of the problem is that Labour really doesn't know what it is. Depending on which faction has been in charge, different people have come to the forefront. I haven't been particularly impressed with the likes of the Hazel Blears or Harriet Harmans of this world. Yvette Cooper is their brightest female prospect.

 

The Conservatives have done no better since Thatcher. The only distinguishing things about Teresa May are her rank incompetence, rapid ageing abilities and the fact that she shares her name with a porn star. We've talked about Warsi, a complete disaster. Louise Mensch is probably the Tories' best female shout in the age of TV debates, and even she comes across as plastic, heartless and clueless. The Tories haven't managed to produce another Thatcher either.

[Thedelldays]

Can someone tell me how the libdems or milliband choosing an idiot will work better now with the idiots who are there?

 

Cheers

[Verbal]

Why does the Lords need reforming ?

 

Good grief.

[dune]

Good grief.

 

You could perhaps explain instead of your incessant trolling?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Can someone tell me how the libdems or milliband choosing an idiot will work better now with the idiots who are there?

 

Cheers

 

It's really democractic because the idiots on the party list will stay there for 15 years, whereas at present the idiots stay there for life.

 

The lib dems seem to want to pick and choose what parts of the constituation they think are fair, and which ones aren't. I'm against any part of our constituation being based on heredity principles, not just some of it.

[Verbal]

You could perhaps explain instead of your incessant trolling?

 

Says the one who started the thread but has shown no understanding at all of the reforms proposed, or interest in discussing the detail.

 

I'll put it in baby words especially for you. We live in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. You could say we invented it, and this movement for democratic rights reached its zenith with the 1832 Reform Act. Representative democracy emerged from a battle between the oligarchs of the day and those demanding these democratic rights. Ever since the Magna Carta, compromises have had to be made to either appease the oligarchs or neutralise them. Hence the House of Lords. The fudges that have been made to the chamber, mostly in the 20th century, have still not dealt with the basic problem that it is a ludicrously anachronistic way for a modern parliamentary democracy to organise a political institution. No one actually defends the Lords on he grounds of representativeness. The best you get, aside from the knee jerkers like you, is that the Chamber is full of 'experts'. It actually isn't; if you spend any time there, it's pretty clear it's full of retirees who have long ago lost touch with the modern world.

 

Hence 'good grief'.

[dune]

Says the one who started the thread but has shown no understanding at all of the reforms proposed, or interest in discussing the detail.

 

I'll put it in baby words especially for you. We live in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. You could say we invented it, and this movement for democratic rights reached its zenith with the 1832 Reform Act. Representative democracy emerged from a battle between the oligarchs of the day and those demanding these democratic rights. Ever since the Magna Carta, compromises have had to be made to either appease the oligarchs or neutralise them. Hence the House of Lords. The fudges that have been made to the chamber, mostly in the 20th century, have still not dealt with the basic problem that it is a ludicrously anachronistic way for a modern parliamentary democracy to organise a political institution. No one actually defends the Lords on he grounds of representativeness. The best you get, aside from the knee jerkers like you, is that the Chamber is full of 'experts'. It actually isn't; if you spend any time there, it's pretty clear it's full of retirees who have long ago lost touch with the modern world.

 

Hence 'good grief'.

 

Just because many have retired doesn't mean they don't have sound judgement. Personally I think the current set up is fine, and "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

[View From The Top]

Just because many have retired doesn't mean they don't have sound judgement. Personally I think the current set up is fine, and "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

 

So you think people who believe in talking snakes deserve their place in the 2nd chamber?

[View From The Top]

I really don't know what model we need to adopt for our 2nd chamber but one thing is certain & that is I'd sooner a degree of reform to the current model than a house full of career politicians.

[Verbal]

Just because many have retired doesn't mean they don't have sound judgement. Personally I think the current set up is fine, and "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

 

With experts, sound judgement and up-to-date knowledge are one and the same thing. There's nothing more dangerous than a medical 'expert', for example, whose training has not been updated in 20-30 years.

 

So if you don't buy the expertise guff, what floats your boat? What it is about the Lords that works as a shining example of representative democracy?

[dune]

So you think people who believe in talking snakes deserve their place in the 2nd chamber?

 

I believe in having a government that governs and a house of Lords that goes over legislation with a fine tooth comb and then points out flaws etc, but the commons ultimately has the final say. That is what we've got and it works. If we change the system and have elected Senators what we'll end up with is competing houses and much like in America battles between them.

 

As John Reid says:

 

"Anyone who believes they can introduce a new chamber of elected senators with a term three times as long as MPs', and constituencies much larger than MPs', without that becoming the superior house is deluding themselves."

 

Imagine the situation of a Tory majority in the commons and a Labour majority in the Lords or vice versa.

[alpine_saint]

Says the one who started the thread but has shown no understanding at all of the reforms proposed, or interest in discussing the detail.

 

I'll put it in baby words especially for you. We live in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. You could say we invented it, and this movement for democratic rights reached its zenith with the 1832 Reform Act. Representative democracy emerged from a battle between the oligarchs of the day and those demanding these democratic rights. Ever since the Magna Carta, compromises have had to be made to either appease the oligarchs or neutralise them. Hence the House of Lords. The fudges that have been made to the chamber, mostly in the 20th century, have still not dealt with the basic problem that it is a ludicrously anachronistic way for a modern parliamentary democracy to organise a political institution. No one actually defends the Lords on he grounds of representativeness. The best you get, aside from the knee jerkers like you, is that the Chamber is full of 'experts'. It actually isn't; if you spend any time there, it's pretty clear it's full of retirees who have long ago lost touch with the modern world.

 

Hence 'good grief'.

 

Yep, more class warrior stuff, combined with this obsession that democracy is the perfect "one size fits all" solution for every decision making body despite the disaster Iraq and Afghanistan have become.

 

Simple fact of the matter is that the British government system has been around for centuries, has stood the test of time, and has widespread respect around the world, and has worked better than the likes of the US and Russian systems, to cite but two examples. The cliche that the Lords is full of senile old greying men with bad nasal and ear hair, sleeping through important discussions before going back to their country pile to abuse the charwallahs that still work for them is insulting and inaccurate.

 

Oh, and your rude, patronising, arrogant and dismissive style of debating does your side of the argument no good at all, when one considers that what you really want is to pack the Upper House with political clones of yourself.

[dune]

With experts, sound judgement and up-to-date knowledge are one and the same thing. There's nothing more dangerous than a medical 'expert', for example, whose training has not been updated in 20-30 years.

 

So if you don't buy the expertise guff, what floats your boat? What it is about the Lords that works as a shining example of representative democracy?

 

The fact nobody cares about this (aside from a few Lib Dems) says it all. The current set up is not an issue. It works. Leave it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I can see Dune's arguement even if I disagree with it.

 

I can see Vebal's arguement, which I agree with.

 

What I cant get my head round is Paddy Pantsdown and the rest of the tree huggers arguement that nobody should be involved with our consituation on the basis of who their father is, yet still want to retain Queenie. This strange position is also compounded by adding nobody should be involved on the basis of who they are friends with, and then call for a Party list system.

 

If this is a "once in a lifetime" chance to make a real change then let's do it right.

[Verbal]

Yep, more class warrior stuff, combined with this obsession that democracy is the perfect "one size fits all" solution for every decision making body despite the disaster Iraq and Afghanistan have become.

 

Simple fact of the matter is that the British government system has been around for centuries, has stood the test of time, and has widespread respect around the world, and has worked better than the likes of the US and Russian systems, to cite but two examples. The cliche that the Lords is full of senile old greying men with bad nasal and ear hair, sleeping through important discussions before going back to their country pile to abuse the charwallahs that still work for them is insulting

and inaccurate.

 

Oh, and your rude, patronising, arrogant and dismissive style of debating does your side of the argument no good at all, when one considers that what you really want is to pack the Upper House with political clones of yourself.

 

I'm going to wait for you to edit this so that it makes sense.

[solentstars]

Says the one who started the thread but has shown no understanding at all of the reforms proposed, or interest in discussing the detail.

 

I'll put it in baby words especially for you. We live in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. You could say we invented it, and this movement for democratic rights reached its zenith with the 1832 Reform Act. Representative democracy emerged from a battle between the oligarchs of the day and those demanding these democratic rights. Ever since the Magna Carta, compromises have had to be made to either appease the oligarchs or neutralise them. Hence the House of Lords. The fudges that have been made to the chamber, mostly in the 20th century, have still not dealt with the basic problem that it is a ludicrously anachronistic way for a modern parliamentary democracy to organise a political institution. No one actually defends the Lords on he grounds of representativeness. The best you get, aside from the knee jerkers like you, is that the Chamber is full of 'experts'. It actually isn't; if you spend any time there, it's pretty clear it's full of retirees who have long ago lost touch with the modern world.

 

Hence 'good grief'.

don.t forget the crooks like Geoffrey archer and his ilk and tax avoiders like lord ashcroft etc and those who work for the interest of big business who line their own pockets from all the major partys.

[Verbal]

I can see Dune's arguement even if I disagree with it.

 

I can see Vebal's arguement, which I agree with.

 

What I cant get my head round is Paddy Pantsdown and the rest of the tree huggers arguement that nobody should be involved with our consituation on the basis of who their father is, yet still want to retain Queenie. This strange position is also compounded by adding nobody should be involved on the basis of who they are friends with, and then call for a Party list system.

 

If this is a "once in a lifetime" chance to make a real change then let's do it right.

 

Apart from your first sentence, I agree with this. What's proposed won't serve representative democracy well (as opposed to party politicians) nor will it enhance the kind of expertise that can act as a real brake on the lower chamber's battier ideas. There also needs to be more thought on the balance of power between the chamber - the kind of discussion that has been stymied precisely because thje lower house have been able to lord it (pun intended) over the upper chamber. The archaic nature of the Lords has actually been in the narrow political interests of parties in the lower house - hence the failure to really change it. But if it IS changed, there is at least a chance that public cynicism about politics, which is so damaging, would be diminished.

 

And yes, we should take the constitutional knife to the monarchy.

[Thedelldays]

So, will idiots like lord Prescott be gone under these reforms?

[dune]

Apart from your first sentence, I agree with this. What's proposed won't serve representative democracy well (as opposed to party politicians) nor will it enhance the kind of expertise that can act as a real brake on the lower chamber's battier ideas. There also needs to be more thought on the balance of power between the chamber - the kind of discussion that has been stymied precisely because thje lower house have been able to lord it (pun intended) over the upper chamber. The archaic nature of the Lords has actually been in the narrow political interests of parties in the lower house - hence the failure to really change it. But if it IS changed, there is at least a chance that public cynicism about politics, which is so damaging, would be diminished.

 

And yes, we should take the constitutional knife to the monarchy.

 

On the contrary, cynicism would increase as we witness competing houses battling each other and people would wish it was back how it was before.

[Verbal]

On the contrary, cynicism would increase as we witness competing houses battling each other and people wish it was back how it was before.

 

Why?

[dune]

Why?

 

Because it's logical that the situation that John Reid predicts would happen. Just look at America with Republican senators restricting Obama. Our current system works fine.

[Lord Duckhunter]

don.t forget the crooks like Geoffrey archer and his ilk and tax avoiders like lord ashcroft etc and those who work for the interest of big business who line their own pockets from all the major partys.

 

That's why the Lib/Dem proposals wont address the issue. Archer, Ashcroft and the rest of them, will be at the top of the party lists. You'll go into the booth to vote and end up with Ashcroft ect getting an electoral madate, and for 15 bloody years.

 

15 year terms maybe ok for Mugabe and his placemen, but surely a democratic country like ours should be above that.

[Verbal]

Because it's logical that the situation that John Reid predicts would happen. Just look at America with Republican senators restricting Obama. Our current system works fine.

 

And the American one doesn't work? The one that has been at the centre of the world's most successful economy of the last century and a half?

 

There's a lot wrong with the American version of bicameral democracy, but there's nothing wrong with the principle of the separation of powers. However, you can't have a separation of powers in any meaningful sense without 'competing' chambers having some sort of legitimacy. The only legitimacy claimed by the Lords is inherited privilege and cronyism - something the lower house has sought to maintain precisely so that it can sail on unchallenged.

[Verbal]

don.t forget the crooks like Geoffrey archer and his ilk and tax avoiders like lord ashcroft etc and those who work for the interest of big business who line their own pockets from all the major partys.

 

I think Archer has been de-frocked, hasn't he? The same should have happened to Ashcroft of course, but the way the system works, he won't be. Ashcroft is cronyism personified - he was caught up in the 'cash for peerages' scandal of 2006. I wonder what 'expertise' he brings to the table? Advising his Lordships on the latest tax 'schemes'?

[buctootim]

I think Archer has been de-frocked, hasn't he? The same should have happened to Ashcroft of course, but the way the system works, he won't be. Ashcroft is cronyism personified - he was caught up in the 'cash for peerages' scandal of 2006. I wonder what 'expertise' he brings to the table? Advising his Lordships on the latest tax 'schemes'?

 

I know a Belizean lawyer and Senator who was present whaen Ashcroft threatened to have the government overthrown unless they gave him a concession to develop a freeport. The guy is a slimeball in the UK but his behaviour in Belize is beyond belief. Its incredible the Tories keep him on board simly for his donations.

[dune]

And the American one doesn't work? The one that has been at the centre of the world's most successful economy of the last century and a half?

 

I would suggest that the driving factor in Americas success is the people, primarily of Northern European British ancestry running the show. In fact everywhere we went we made a success.

[pap]

That's why the Lib/Dem proposals wont address the issue. Archer, Ashcroft and the rest of them, will be at the top of the party lists. You'll go into the booth to vote and end up with Ashcroft ect getting an electoral madate, and for 15 bloody years.

 

15 year terms maybe ok for Mugabe and his placemen, but surely a democratic country like ours should be above that.

 

At the moment, there is no public input as to who becomes a Lord, and the peerages are for life. Life meaning life, not this short term 15 year nonsense.

[alpine_saint]

And the American one doesn't work? The one that has been at the centre of the world's most successful economy of the last century and a half?

 

There's a lot wrong with the American version of bicameral democracy, but there's nothing wrong with the principle of the separation of powers. However, you can't have a separation of powers in any meaningful sense without 'competing' chambers having some sort of legitimacy. The only legitimacy claimed by the Lords is inherited privilege and cronyism - something the lower house has sought to maintain precisely so that it can sail on unchallenged.

 

Jesus. And I am accused of having a distorted agenda-driven screwed-up perspective of the world.

 

You dont have a chip on your shoulder, you have a length of 2 x 4...........

[Guided Missile]

Democracy doesn't work any more and the sooner people start realising this, the better. The reason it doesn't work is that too many voters failed to inform themselves about the issues that may lead them to vote in an educated manner, beyond the front page of the Sun. They are at the mercy of professional politicians who are better at pandering to the masses and employing public sector workers who will support their socialist dreams. Anyone with a brain cell can see that the burden these state workers, a result of a socialist democracy, have caused, is the breakdown of the economies of countries like Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Their policies are now dictated by the unelected leaders in the EU, who have even, as is the case in Italy, replaced the whole government with unelected officials.

 

What we need is representatives that are selected on the basis of their achievements in fields other than taking a political degree at Oxbridge or being a shop steward for Unite. We need successful businessmen, academics, sportsmen, doctors, etc. who have been recognised for their achievements, to represent us, in addition to the elected rabble who have f*** ed this country up since WWII.

 

What we need is the House of Lords, just as it is now.

[pedg]

I think Archer has been de-frocked, hasn't he? The same should have happened to Ashcroft of course, but the way the system works, he won't be. Ashcroft is cronyism personified - he was caught up in the 'cash for peerages' scandal of 2006. I wonder what 'expertise' he brings to the table? Advising his Lordships on the latest tax 'schemes'?

 

Given his apparently shading dealing I am always amazed that Anglia Ruskin University let him put his name to this:

 

 

but I guess money, no matter where it comes from, talks.

[buctootim]

At the moment, there is no public input as to who becomes a Lord, and the peerages are for life. Life meaning life, not this short term 15 year nonsense.

 

 

I'd totally reform the system for awarding honours, introducing a larger public input and taking away the party patronage. You would then draw the House of Lords from this group - a mix of CEOs of Mencap, RSPB, National Trust etc , Nobel prize winners, academics, business people, authors etc. Any system will have its flaws but its much better to have a checking and restraining second house drawn from a wide selection of society (but united by being successful in their field) than to hand more power of croneyism to exisiting politicians of the type we could with less of, not more.

Edited 11 July, 2012 by buctootim

[alpine_saint]

Democracy doesn't work any more and the sooner people start realising this, the better. The reason it doesn't work is that too many voters failed to inform themselves about the issues that may lead them to vote in an educated manner, beyond the front page of the Sun. They are at the mercy of professional politicians who are better at pandering to the masses and employing public sector workers who will support their socialist dreams. Anyone with a brain cell can see that the burden these state workers, a result of a socialist democracy, have caused, is the breakdown of the economies of countries like Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Their policies are now dictated by the unelected leaders in the EU, who have even, as is the case in Italy, replaced the whole government with unelected officials.

 

What we need is representatives that are selected on the basis of their achievements in fields other than taking a political degree at Oxbridge or being a shop steward for Unite. We need successful businessmen, academics, sportsmen, doctors, etc. who have been recognised for their achievements, to represent us, in addition to the elected rabble who have f*** ed this country up since WWII.

 

What we need is the House of Lords, just as it is now.

 

Great post. Well done you.

[solentstars]

That's why the Lib/Dem proposals wont address the issue. Archer, Ashcroft and the rest of them, will be at the top of the party lists. You'll go into the booth to vote and end up with Ashcroft ect getting an electoral madate, and for 15 bloody years.

 

15 year terms maybe ok for Mugabe and his placemen, but surely a democratic country like ours should be above that.

15 years is to long and i expect that would have been reduced by the parliamentary house committee stage but at the moment they are there for life.

[badgerx16]

Democracy doesn't work any more and the sooner people start realising this, the better. The reason it doesn't work is that too many voters failed to inform themselves about the issues that may lead them to vote in an educated manner, beyond the front page of the Sun. They are at the mercy of professional politicians who are better at pandering to the masses and employing public sector workers who will support their socialist dreams. Anyone with a brain cell can see that the burden these state workers, a result of a socialist democracy, have caused, is the breakdown of the economies of countries like Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Their policies are now dictated by the unelected leaders in the EU, who have even, as is the case in Italy, replaced the whole government with unelected officials.

 

What we need is representatives that are selected on the basis of their achievements in fields other than taking a political degree at Oxbridge or being a shop steward for Unite. We need successful businessmen, academics, sportsmen, doctors, etc. who have been recognised for their achievements, to represent us, in addition to the elected rabble who have f*** ed this country up since WWII.

 

What we need is the House of Lords, just as it is now.

 

Your last line contradicts much of the previous diatribe. The Lords has the Bishops, ( what exactly have they done to justify their position ? What happened to the separation of Church and State ? ). It also has the remaining hereditary peers - former hoorays who dropped lucky by being descended from land grabbing Norman invaders. Finally, there are all the former members of the Commons, promoted for their loyalty and service - rewarded for time served following the party whip. Back this lot up with businessmen who bought favours from whichever Government they 'donated' their money to, and you end up with the current upper chamber.

Edited 11 July, 2012 by badgerx16

[Verbal]

Jesus. And I am accused of having a distorted agenda-driven screwed-up perspective of the world.

 

You dont have a chip on your shoulder, you have a length of 2 x 4...........

 

You really didn't understand the sentence you highlighted, did you. Go back and read it - don't rush, the point may sink in slowly, although I suspect not at all. Unless you really do mean you think cronyism is a good thing...

[Thedelldays]

Anyone going to say how making all these changes will be better?

[buctootim]

Anyone going to say how making all these changes will be better?

 

They will vote to landfill the channel and scrap the navy.

[solentstars]

I think Archer has been de-frocked, hasn't he? The same should have happened to Ashcroft of course, but the way the system works, he won't be. Ashcroft is cronyism personified - he was caught up in the 'cash for peerages' scandal of 2006. I wonder what 'expertise' he brings to the table? Advising his Lordships on the latest tax 'schemes'?

no hes still called Lord Jeffrey Archer

[badgerx16]

Anyone going to say how making all these changes will be better?

 

They probably won't, but then again it's like the AV vote - a set of unsuitable proposals, put forward by the Tories as a grudging ( at best ) concession to the LDs, that deliberately fails to present any option that might actually prove popular with the wider public. ( But then again, maybe I'm getting cynical in my middle age ).

[alpine_saint]

Anyone going to say how making all these changes will be better?

 

You're wasting your time, Mr. Hovis. Message I am getting from posting on here is the proposed changes are just to satisfy the closest thing to blood-lust and petty revenge that a LibDem (and Verbal) will admit to feeling from their elevated and morally-enlightened position in the natural order.

[pap]

I'd totally reform the system for awarding honours, introducing a larger public input and taking away the party patronage. You would then draw the House of Lords from this group - a mix of CEOs of Mencap, RSPB, National Trust etc , Nobel prize winners, academics, business people, authors etc. Any system will have its flaws but its much better to have a checking and restraining second house drawn from a wide selection of society (but united by being successful in their field) than to hand more power of croneyism to exisiting politicians of the type we could with less of, not more.

 

Tim - I'm a massive traditionalist in that I love our ancestral titles. I'm just not a fan of how they get handed out. I'd much prefer this sort of reform, based on service to one's country, than what we have now, where peerages are created for cynical reasons or handed out in return for favours.

[solentstars]

Democracy doesn't work any more and the sooner people start realising this, the better. The reason it doesn't work is that too many voters failed to inform themselves about the issues that may lead them to vote in an educated manner, beyond the front page of the Sun. They are at the mercy of professional politicians who are better at pandering to the masses and employing public sector workers who will support their socialist dreams. Anyone with a brain cell can see that the burden these state workers, a result of a socialist democracy, have caused, is the breakdown of the economies of countries like Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Their policies are now dictated by the unelected leaders in the EU, who have even, as is the case in Italy, replaced the whole government with unelected officials.

 

What we need is representatives that are selected on the basis of their achievements in fields other than taking a political degree at Oxbridge or being a shop steward for Unite. We need successful businessmen, academics, sportsmen, doctors, etc. who have been recognised for their achievements, to represent us, in addition to the elected rabble who have f*** ed this country up since WWII.

 

What we need is the House of Lords, just as it is now.

ha ha this made me laugh tongue in cheek i expect

[Verbal]

no hes still called Lord Jeffrey Archer

 

Oh, you're right. That's amazing - it would take an Act of Parliament to chuck the little criminal out.

[alpine_saint]

They probably won't, but then again it's like the AV vote - a set of unsuitable proposals, put forward by the Tories as a grudging ( at best ) concession to the LDs, that deliberately fails to present any option that might actually prove popular with the wider public. ( But then again, maybe I'm getting cynical in my middle age ).

 

You may be right. But why the f**k should the Tories play ball on headline pet LibDem policies when the LibDems have vetoed and leaked everything the Tories have tried to achieve into extinction ?

[Thedelldays]

They probably won't, but then again it's like the AV vote - a set of unsuitable proposals, put forward by the Tories as a grudging ( at best ) concession to the LDs, that deliberately fails to present any option that might actually prove popular with the wider public. ( But then again, maybe I'm getting cynical in my middle age ).

 

There probably won't you say

 

 

Then why all the fuss?

I want my people in charge putting all their time into more pressing things... Than something that won't probably make a difference

[alpine_saint]

I want my people in charge putting all their time into more pressing things... Than something that won't probably make a difference

 

Isnt that a perfect summary of the LibDems role in this coallition ?

[badgerx16]

Then why all the fuss?

I think it's the only part of the coalition agreement that Nick C says he is unreservedly committed to - no Lords Reform Bill, no coaliton agreement, no Government, ( the Tories won't be able to run as a minority administration ).

[Guided Missile]

ha ha this made me laugh tongue in cheek i expect

True democracy is dead, in Europe. It has withered as a result of the declining standards of education your post demonstrates, that has led to a woefully uninformed electorate who think they are owed cheap credit, to buy sh !t they don't need, paid for by wages they don't earn. To top it all, they expect free healthcare, money when they are not working and a pension. No wonder China looks at the West and laughs.

[pap]

PMQs is worth a watch this week.

 

Cameron proper losing it.