Barry, Martin, your thoughts please on the above?:)
Marco.
Printable View
Barry, Martin, your thoughts please on the above?:)
Marco.
I'll replay later - I'm having trouble posting lengthy posts on the laptop at the moment: I get 'Securi Firewall' failure to post warnings. :(
house of lords is often a stablising force although, yes its a trough like all politics is. i am not sure the govt should pick any more than the opposition, and maybe a picked crew from the commoners
Yes, I know, but does it have to be a stabilising force, full of stuck up, chinless wonders?
Marco.
Okay then first off they are not all 'upper-class 'hoity-toities', people from any background can be ennobled and there is a maximum of 92 hereditary (aka 'hoity-toity') peers allowed to be in the HoL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I've met a couple of Lords who were Labour life peers. They weren't from the gutter but they certainly weren't upper class.
Plus there's nothing necessarily wrong with the hereditary peers, you have the concept of noblesse oblige to take into account.
I wouldn't class Boris Johnson as an 'authoritarian' politician - quite the opposite in fact, but I suppose he could still surprise me. I also doubt that he has many pals in the HoL which is possibly why he's just put a couple in there...
you will never get rid of the old boys club, the old school tie and all that so I wouldn't bother. Everyone, everywhere, at any level, does favours for their mates. It's an intrinsic part of life. Obviously misuse of public funds when doing so is wrong, but that is already illegal. You might argue there is not enough scrutiny of that though, and I'd agree.
I think that compared to the vast majority of countries in the world we do have a fair and just society. It's all relative I suppose and there's always room for improvement. But in comparison our system works, Royal Family and all, and if it's not broke then don't fix it; you could create all sorts of unwanted outcomes.
Personally I've no interest in becoming a social justice warrior. In the first place there's already far too many of them, and in the second place they are often total dicks.
As for fixed terms, it's not a good idea in general.. The great thing re lords is once ur on your in.
You can promise the govt etc that you'll vote for their policies but once there you can just do what u want. They can't deselect you.. Afaik
So to prevent the membership ever increasing, you have to have a 'one dead, one new member' policy?
I think a fixed duration of tenure of say 15 to 25 years is ample, for members to do their job.
Regarding the concept of noblesse oblige, I doubt if applies to some of the current hereditary peers. Why should anyone who is conceived in the 'right bed' inherit unearned privilege and status?
Exactly... Excusez-moi, pour mon français, but FUCK THAT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry
I'll reply properly later to Martin, but one of the things I *deeply abhor*, and that irks me beyond belief, is the elitism [born from a financial status-orientated, unjust class system] that's rife in British politics, and UK society as a whole.
You should be 'entitled' to FUCK ALL, in terms of privileges or special treatment, in any walk of life, unless you've earned it, fairly and squarely. Social status/background or class simply shouldn't come into it, only hard work and natural ability.
In that respect, there are WAY too many in-bred, brainless hooray-henries/do-next-to-fuck all [but earn plenty] chinless-wonder hanger-on-ers, occupying top positions in business and politics today, who've got there solely through WHO they know/are, not WHAT they know, and that unfortunate situation needs immediately and grossly redressed!
Marco.
Well, that's 92 too many, IMO, unless they've EARNED the right to be there, not simply inherited it through status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Good stuff. Well then, we need more like them in the HoL, and less snooty, out of touch, hoity-toity fucks.Quote:
I've met a couple of Lords who were Labour life peers. They weren't from the gutter but they certainly weren't upper class.
Fair enough, and I agree about BJ.Quote:
I wouldn't class Boris Johnson as an 'authoritarian' politician - quite the opposite in fact, but I suppose he could still surprise me. I also doubt that he has many pals in the HoL which is possibly why he's just put a couple in there...
I wasn't saying, per se, that HE was authoritarian, but rather that many government policies are, instigated by both the Tories and Labour, but particularly the Tories - as indeed we've seen, in terms of how the current pandemic has been used by the government as a convenient excuse to surveil and impose more control upon the population, and IMO, in some circumstances, unjustifiably remove people's civil liberties.
You can't get much more 'authoritarian' than that!
WHY...?? Is there some 'unwritten rule' I'm unaware of, which prevents that and makes them untouchable?:hmm:Quote:
you will never get rid of the old boys club, the old school tie and all that so I wouldn't bother.
Fuck that, if it were up to me, I'd all send them all tumbling down to where they belong!:trust:
Indeed, but THAT doesn't make it right, nor preclude one from having a desire to fix it.Quote:
Everyone, everywhere, at any level, does favours for their mates. It's an intrinsic part of life.
Indeed... And so why do you think that is, I wonder...? Could it be 'conveniently' covered up, simply to protect the best interests of those misusing them?? If so, that DEFINITELY needs scrutinising!Quote:
Obviously misuse of public funds when doing so is wrong, but that is already illegal. You might argue there is not enough scrutiny of that though, and I'd agree.
Well, I consider that it's fundamentally broken in MANY different ways, and that situation will remain, as long as there exists such an immoral and obscenely unequal division of wealth in our country - and THAT sad state of affairs shouldn't simply be shrugged off and accepted as 'the norm', but tackled HEAD ON and something done about it!!Quote:
I think that compared to the vast majority of countries in the world we do have a fair and just society. It's all relative I suppose and there's always room for improvement. But in comparison our system works, Royal Family and all, and if it's not broke then don't fix it; you could create all sorts of unwanted outcomes.
And just because we're doing ok in the UK, in terms of having a fair and just society, compared with other countries, doesn't mean that we should just sit back and not try and make things better.
Me neither, but it won't stop me pointing out what's wrong, or expressing a desire to do something about it - and trust me - if I had the necessary power, it'd do it in the blink of an eye!!;)Quote:
Personally I've no interest in becoming a social justice warrior. In the first place there's already far too many of them, and in the second place they are often total dicks.
Marco.
Say you did have the power, specifically how would you go about sorting the alleged 'obscene and immoral, unequal division of wealth in our country' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
The wealthiest 1% in UK are reckoned to be worth about 90 billion, which sounds a lot, but it isn't that much once you confiscate it and whack it out amongst the rest of us. It's about £1300 each.
You could spend it on infrastructure but it isn't even enough to pay for HS2.
So you might need to do some more 'levelling out' and go for the next tier of wealthy. How long before it gets to you and me? And pretty soon you effectively have communism and you're having to mine the beaches to stop us from trying to escape the nightmare.