howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#2
rid she say ," duck you you tory barstalls" or did I miss read her lips. lol
howard mcsweeney1 likes this
Guest 1881- Registered: 16 Oct 2016
- Posts: 1,071
#3
That'll look interesting for students of Hansard in the years to come.
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you. PERICLES.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,397
#4
Makes a change. What's a vowel between friends. The chamber is usually full of 'cant'.
"The world is still a weird place, despite my efforts to make clear and perfect sense of it".
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#5
time to get rid of the lords
Guest 1881 likes this
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#6
time to get rid of present government me thinks, all we got at the moment is a waste of space.
Guest 1881- Registered: 16 Oct 2016
- Posts: 1,071
#7
Currently, there are about 800 members who are eligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords. The majority are life peers. Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/
Bearing in mind that the boundary review for
ELECTED representatives will endeavour to reduce the 650 MPs to a mere 600, I think this ratio is all wrong.
I don't agree with a House of Lords per se, I do agree that there needs to be a second chamber though. So, arguments for the abolition of the Lords aside, what do the forum members believe to be a better ratio?
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you. PERICLES.
Paul M- Registered: 1 Feb 2016
- Posts: 393
#8
400 of each. Increase their salaries by 20% and remove their rights to any expenses. MP's to serve no more than three parliamentary terms , no more hereditary peers and any Lord's who do not put in a shift get the sack.
Guest 1881- Registered: 16 Oct 2016
- Posts: 1,071
#9
#8 I think your Lords suggestion makes sense. I would have more MPs than Lords - you can vote them out after all.
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you. PERICLES.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#10
We need an elected second house but much like the House of Commons no where near as many seats. Cut all of the perks for both Houses completely and demand a minimum number of days full attendance prior to payment.
The Lords is full of those who got there because of 'he/she was on my side when I had that little bit of trouble' regardless of which party we are talking about, very few are there solely on merit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------