Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I know I'm right Barry, he told me as much when I took him to task for his vote on the EU referendum.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
he has blotted his copybook with dave on the issue of changed terms over the sale of the port, another reason to toe the party line for a while.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
on the motion that the Bill be read a second time Charlie voted with the 'Ayes'
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
that info picked up from Hansard
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well well, our honourable member, just a puppet for cameron in reality
it's easy to use it as an excuse not to vote against the govt.
we know where our charlie stands now.
now to the lords issue in total another 50 tory backbenchers abstained, not good for cameron, who is now seeing his days becoming even shorter.
he has 2 choices;
go with the lib dems in the hope of clinging on desperatly for power, but the tory backbenchers have already given him notice to december of a leadership election if he doesnt change course
or go with his ever rising number of rebel tories who are happy to see the co olition fall apart and with it the govt.
sadly cameron cant win whatever he does
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
The shame of it all is the taxpayers are still shelling out £300 an appearance for over 800 unelected individuals.
If these people are as good as they are claimed to be, they would have no problem getting elected to the House of Commons, whereby they could get legislation correct first time round.
Ps .
Some on this forum seem to think the wasting of public money on hangers-on is a good thing, amazing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
couldn't agree more although i am in favour of a second chamber as long as there are no hereditary peers.
peter carrington and tony benn were both from the aristocracy but stood on their own two feet and stood for election.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith (B) -
1/ They only get that money on days they attend and not all attend every day
2/ It is a lot cheaper than any elected House and certainly a lot cheaper than the proposals placed before the Commons this week
3/ You do not have to be any good at all to be selected and elected on a Party list system, you just have to toady enough to the party machine to get yourself towards the top of the list. Neither does any personal merit have any influence on getting on the list in the first place. That is why the proposals were so appalling and had to be defeated.
4/ Far from being hangers on the House of Lords do a vital role in reviewing and amending legislation and is an important part of the checks and balances in the constitution.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
So let's examine this Barry,
Well paid MPs, mostly conservative.
Won't a second well paid chamber, to get the job right, that they may get wrong first time round.
If this happened in any privet company somebody would be getting the boot!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well said keith b and howard
of course the H.O.L. is outdated, and time for an elected second chamber
Although the bill wasn't perfect, the protection of the present failing system needs urgent change.
There are no checks and balances as the political parties overload the place with there own cronies to make sure there legislation get through.
time for reform,,,,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith B - you are ignoring the point. MPs of any Party or all cannot be trusted with absolute power and there is a need for checks and balances. There is also a need for a 'House of Experts' who can add their insight into legislation.
The HoL has performed valuable and important work, look only at stopping the 42 day detention as one example. It does need reform but not reform that just adds another bunch of politicians to the mix.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I used to refer to the Dover Job-centre as the House of Parliament:
The ground floor is the court of appeals, through which you must pass to access common rights.
The first floor is the house of commons, where crowds of people go regularly to sign on.
The second floor is the house of lords, where you go on special occasions, such as requesting an anticipated JSA payment prior to a string of bank holidays.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The five minutes prior to the Act of Signing is variously known as "the General Haranguing" and "Confessions", depending on which side of the table you are sitting.
After making your confessions, you humbly recognise your impotence in the face of the State, and in an Act of Prostration sign your destinies into the hands of the Unreachable Powers that will assure you a 2 weeks reprieve.
Now let me wonder, whether 93 Tory rebels have already had their eye on the custard that mounts the pudding - or is it the gravy train - when, on quitting the House of Commons, they may ascend to the House of Lords.
Bah Humbug, I say!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
we may well agree here!!!!!!!!!
if we had a truely independent house of lords, then the keeping the commons to account would be a reality.
at present its an outdated system and many in it are failed or favoured politicians or others born into it.
whilst the bill isn't perfect it needs reform
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Yep Keith, we're agreeing on something again!
The Houses of Parliament need revising as much as the Job centre does
As a commoner, I have nothing against the House of Commons.
But all these unelected lords! That's not Democracy!
We could do with a House that examines Laws passed in The Commons, to make sure they are in line with standing policy and regulations, I would say: something like a House of Constitution. People versed in technical detail, modern, normal people, who would need to know the laws and the various parts of the written and unwritten Constitution.
There would no doubt be judges among these people, though not exclusively. But all members of such a House would need be experts, and sincerely dedicated.
I am working on this, and will eventually present a work-sheet.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just spotted posts 52 and 53, seems very perceptive.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander
sure you mean the house of lords but its ok
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
So Barry, you class john Prescott an expert ??
Or lord Longford gone but not forgotten, worthy of unelected power
Theirs as many fools in the lords as in the commons.
I believe in democracy, so cannot except this chamber as it stands,
If there experts. Let them stand on there merits, not on the Financial contribution they give to the parties, or the friends they represent.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
its out of date
and needs reform
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Definitely, Keith, I'm referring to the House of lords above. It needs changing, and drastically.