horsefly

F**k me you really are a sad old man with too much time on your hands and too little brain to contribute anything useful. Trawl back again and you will find I didn't initiate that diversion from the subject. Do grow up.

I guess Farage will read this then slag off the fishermen for being a taxi service for migrants: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/british-fisherman-tells-sky-news-how-crew-saved-dozens-screaming-for-help-from-sinking-boat/ar-AA15gMzo?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2065fac537924772ae4bfe700403d6e5

And to think people still claim there is a cost of living crisis! Bloody fools, turn on all your heaters open the windows, and loudly sing, "Sterling to USD is $1.24!!! Hurrah!!!!"

Spot on Sonyc! It's not as if this Keynesian economic strategy hasn't been proven time and again to be the way to wrest an economy out of dire failure (you need little more than a passing acquaintance with 20th century history). Yet so pervasive has the free market low-taxation dogma been in UK politics that we actually had a Tory government that further trashed an already broken economy with a plan to borrow billions, not to invest in infrastructure and public projects, but to pay for unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy. Truly unbelievable!

Dreadful breaking news: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/channel-rescue-people-feared-dead-after-migrant-boat-incident-off-kent-coast-latest-updates/ar-AA15ghhM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ad1209546ec74de7a83b7caa24b47413

Now post that on a thread titled: "Reform of the House of Commons".

Probably the most important economist in modern history, John Maynard Keynes, was said to be frequently disillusioned by economics as a discipline because all to often it discussed the "science" of money separately from the fundamental social purpose of money (see Robert Skidelsky's excellent biography). He believed economic strategy must be fundamentally informed by social purpose rather than be seen as some abstract science concerned with maximising money supply for its own sake. Low-tax right-wing dogma ignores this fundamental link, indeed, seeks to repress it. It should come as no surprise that many of the countries that rank above the UK on the "Happiness index" https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world are also countries with a higher tax burden on the individuals living there. It seems that high tax regimes are positively embraced by individuals when the revenue raised is put to palpable socially valuable use. It is a sad indictment of the paucity of debate about the economy in the UK that it has for so long been dominated by an intellectually flawed assumption that a free market low-tax economy is the starting point for economic strategy.

The appalling levels to which journalism has descended in much of the national press deserves a thread of its own showcasing the most egregious examples. This piece from the Express demonstrates a prime example: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/david-baddiel-blasts-orgy-of-bad-faith-claiming-meghan-markle-was-mocking-royals-in-doc/ar-AA15eqS8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=77d501da792a477392ac2332f92fd96c The author (Samantha Leathers) begins by claiming Baddiel, "has blasted Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's new documentary, saying that Meghan's exaggerated curtsy is blatant mockery... David slammed the royal couple, particularly the scene where Meghan explains her first meeting with the late Queen Elizabeth." Then, utterly oblivious to her crass misinterpretation of Baddiel, she actually quotes his tweet saying, "That clip where Meghan demonstrates how she overdid her first curtsey to the Queen - that's what she's doing - showing how *she* overdid it - laughing at herself for getting it wrong." It's absolutely astounding that a journalist writing in a National newspaper, and her editor, are incapable of seeing that Baddiel was criticising the sort of idiots who couldn't see that Markle was ridiculing herself for her laughable curtsey performance (FFS! He even highlighted "she" with stars to avoid any confusion. Hilariously, leather has just published an article pointing out that she is one of those idiots that Baddiel is criticising. You couldn't make it up.

It is absolutely true that this is a public forum, and within the limits of the rules anyone can post whatever they like. However, the putative point of a public discussion is that specific issues can be discussed in a cooperative and constructive fashion. Disagreement is an important part of that process but it is only constructive disagreement when there is mutual agreement to attend to a clear issue for discussion. An intelligent person would accept the centuries-old fundamental principle that debate is only made genuinely possible by interlocuters focussing on clear discrete issues. Indeed, academic advancement is premised in large part upon the permanent activity of dispelling the confusion caused by those who entangle several questions/issues together in a mishmash of obfuscation. It is clear to anyone willing to use their brain that HOL reform can be discussed entirely separately from HOC reform. Indeed that is precisely what Labour has been trying to do. That doesn't preclude in the slightest the case that can be made for HOC reform too, and indeed I'd be stunned if anyone didn't think that was also necessary. Sadly, it is clear (as many others have pointed out throughout several threads) that all too frequently you don't have the slightest interest in actual debate, and simply intend obstinately to sabotage the possibility of any kind of rational constructive discussion about certain particular issues. It's a real shame because abolition of the HOL would be the biggest constitutional change since women got the vote and deserved a genuine debate on this thread about the possibilities such a momentous change could bring for advancing and regenerating democracy in this country. I'm sure many contributors on the site might have enjoyed contributing but have been put off doing so by your pointless aggressive obstinacy in trying to confuse HOL reform with the separate issue of HOC reform. Sadly, I have allowed myself to be drawn into playing your game by becoming irritated by your perpetual lying about what I have actually said. So I'll leave you to indulge in your pathetic little game without further comment.

Oh dear! You really are determined to prove your stubborn and shameless ignorance. I couldn't have been more clear in saying PRECISELY that any replacement for the Lords will have to perform the same revising function of the Lords. I couldn't have been clearer in saying that because the current regional tiers of government (councils, regional parliaments etc) institute actual policy they WON'T perform that role. None of that rules out the formation of a new kind of regional assembly that will perform precisely the role of revising alone. How can you not understand simple English you buffoon?

Shall we count the number of posters across all the other political threads who take a very clear exasperated view on your contributions.

More lies to cover your remarkably inadequate attempt to understand politics. And still you bring up reform of the commons in a thread about abolition of the Lords. NOTHING STOPS YOU STARTING A THREAD ON COMMONS REFORM. So why don't you do just that FFS and let the adults attend directly to the issue with which this thread is concerned.

You really are extraordinarily dumb sometimes. The idea in principle is stunningly simple to grasp. The second chamber of government has the primary function of being a revising chamber. It has NO legislative role whatsoever, and it has NO role in instituting policy. Abolition of the HOL will not alter that primary function of the second chamber remaining a revising chamber (no matter how many bodies it is dispersed across). Local parliaments, councils etc, exist to institute policy, THEY ARE NOT REVISING CHAMBERS. FFS! What is so difficult to understand about this?

Only a buffoon could possibly think that there is nothing to discuss in relation to the proposal to abolish the Lords. This could have been an interesting thread discussing the possibilities of how to make the second chamber a truly democratic voice of the UK population. Sadly you have no other interest than to derail such discussion with your obstinate idiocy.

Are you really that ignorant or just pretending in order to play your standard childish games? There is nothing in the expression "second chamber" when discussing our political structure that means it can only be located in one place. Even a child can understand a fact as simple as that. As for your laughably absurd "raised eyebrow" claim, perhaps even you should be capable of correlating a few dates to be able to see that my comments pre-dated the release of Brown's report. It really isn't difficult for anyone with an IQ that escapes double figures to work out that the principle of making the second chamber representative of the "regions and nations" of the UK must inevitably involve dispersing the second chamber across political bodies throughout the nation.

FFS! Read what I ACTUALLY said. I merely suggested that one possible way of constituting a second chamber representative of the regions and nations would be to disperse the second chamber through bodies like reginal assemblies. It is ENTIRELY a point connected to what might replace the HOL. Now please block me again instead of posting this utterly disingenuous and irritating irrelevance.

Not remotely accurate! I discussed the possibility of regional parliaments as constituting the second chamber when the Lords is abolished, so quite clearly that is directly related. You keep raising the very separate issue of PR and reform of the Commons. It really isn't difficult to grasp.

I don't think anyone on here is so naïve as to not think that political power by its very nature opens up enormous potential for corruption. There is not a country in the world free of its temptations (even Vatican City!!!). Frankly we should all be delighted to see it exposed wherever it occurs. Particular focus on the UK by posters here is justified because this is where we live, and because Boris Johnson descended to new levels of depravity in modern UK politics to the degree to which he nakedly and unashamedly sought to corrupt the standards of parliamentary process and privilege for his own and his party's personal gain.

I see Boris Johnson is taking another beach holiday: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/walrus-appears-on-hampshire-beach-more-than-2-000-miles-from-home-in-arctic-ocean/ar-AA15bhes?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=01e0b39b4ffe4ed9be873fc5f43f1624

The artist Christo found them and put them to good use:

Truly one of the funniest people ever to grace the planet. Very sad! https://www.msn.com/en-gb/tv/other/victor-lewis-smith-dead-broadcaster-writer-and-satirist-dies-aged-65/ar-AA15bf9o?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f94402328bf24abd843365e5841079c9

Like most of his constituents I didn't realise he was still alive.

So what! It merely says HOL reform is necessary before it moves on to discuss possible reforms elsewhere. This thread is specifically about abolition of the Lords NOT reform of the Commons. Nothing prevents you starting up a separate thread about HOC reform.

Start a thread on Commons reform then FFS! This one is about abolition of the Lords.

And which players missing today would those be?