New Labour Leader

[Herman 9,764]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

SKS will not change the HoL.

You're probably right although if he has to go into a coalition it could be one issue that comes to the fore. (Saying that, the LibDems record as a coalition partner is appalling.)

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

My compromise solution would be;

For the monarchists the king will stay as head of state, with a pared down household.

For the republicans a massively pared down HOL. Down to about 500 of Britains best in areas such as science, culture, sport, education etc with an addition of local representitives.

So you want an unelected HoL?

[Herman 9,764]

5 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

So you want an unelected HoL?

No, more of a democratically elected upper chamber but we'll call it the HOL for now. I'm not sure how we'd go about choosing people and how long they'd get to sit in there but if you have any suggestions, go ahead.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

11 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

The Shadow of Corbyn speaks! A Norwich MP apparently. Just reinforces Labour full of rebels.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/16/idea-of-monarchy-as-symbol-of-duty-or-sacrifice-a-lie-says-labours-clive-lewis

What a fool is Clive Lewes if he cannot recognise that the Royal Family lacks the basic freedoms that we citizens take for granted on a daily basis. The Queen lies dead in her coffin yet still some idiot attempts to get to her and cause a scene. Something that Lewes and the rest of us never has to face. It's time for this fool to be deselected by the South Norwich Labour Party. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

No, more of a democratically elected upper chamber but we'll call it the HOL for now. I'm not sure how we'd go about choosing people and how long they'd get to sit in there but if you have any suggestions, go ahead.

I was unsure how you would get the best sportsmen, scientists etc into the HoL unless they were appointed, though I would agree with you that the end result is appealing. 

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

I was unsure how you would get the best sportsmen, scientists etc into the HoL unless they were appointed, though I would agree with you that the end result is appealing. 

I've never thought about it in depth but I have wondered for a while if it could be reconstituted as a chamber of the regions and professions.  The regions to be represented by elected reps or appointed by the mayor etc of the region and the professions to be represented by members appointed by the professional body/institute etc.  So bishops keep their place but are joined by reps from other organisations.  

By no means ideal but something doesn't have to be ideal to be better.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

No, more of a democratically elected upper chamber but we'll call it the HOL for now. I'm not sure how we'd go about choosing people and how long they'd get to sit in there but if you have any suggestions, go ahead.

I'm in two minds if it needs to be 'elected' but certainly I would shrink it in size, remove hereditary peers (and bishops) and any and all 'party political' structure and allegiances. It needs to be an honest revising chamber of people who have only the best interests of the country at large in mind with expertise in their various fields. In fact I would remove any patronage of the PM (or governing party) to appoint/replace members which is the root of the issue.

[Herman 9,764]

Liking those suggestions Barbe and YF.👍

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

8 minutes ago, Herman said:

Liking those suggestions Barbe and YF.👍

Yes - I can agree in part with BB. 

I'm just against politics in a 2nd or revising chambers or other bodies that should be independently minded.

You can see where it eventually ends otherwise if you care to look at the American 'Supreme Court'. Disaster.

[Herman 9,764]

14 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - I can agree in part with BB. 

I'm just against politics in a 2nd or revising chambers or other bodies that should be independently minded.

You can see where it eventually ends otherwise if you care to look at the American 'Supreme Court'. Disaster.

I can't see it being popular amongst the powers that be because they wouldn't gain anything from it but I completely agree. No party allegiances, no whips, no appointees by a PM and a strict limit of say 500, with one out, one in.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

On 17/09/2022 at 15:02, Herman said:

I can't see it being popular amongst the powers that be because they wouldn't gain anything from it but I completely agree. No party allegiances, no whips, no appointees by a PM and a strict limit of say 500, with one out, one in.

Replacing the Lords with an elected house, first past the post system with no party affiliations, regional representation would be an excellent idea. In turn, the Commons could go to a fully proportional system with party lists; one chamber for party politics, another chamber for regional representation and independent moderation of the party political programme. 

[horsefly 4,300]

On 17/09/2022 at 11:38, Rock The Boat said:

What a fool is Clive Lewes if he cannot recognise that the Royal Family lacks the basic freedoms that we citizens take for granted on a daily basis. The Queen lies dead in her coffin yet still some idiot attempts to get to her and cause a scene. Something that Lewes and the rest of us never has to face. It's time for this fool to be deselected by the South Norwich Labour Party. 

Perhaps that's because we're not lying dead in a coffin; and you have the audacity to call Lewis a fool. And feel free to identify the "basic freedoms" the Royals lack that the rest of us share.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

15 hours ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps that's because we're not lying dead in a coffin; and you have the audacity to call Lewis a fool. And feel free to identify the "basic freedoms" the Royals lack that the rest of us share.

Perhaps you need some time out to realise Royals do not get a vote. 

[horsefly 4,300]

9 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Perhaps you need some time out to realise Royals do not get a vote. 

Oh dear! You and 7HAR really aren't very bright are you! 

"Can the Queen vote in an election?

Technically, the Queen and members of the Royal Family can vote as there’s no law against it.

However, they voluntarily choose not to in order to remain politically neutral."

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/13/can-the-queen-or-the-rest-of-the-royal-family-vote-in-a-general-election-11822274/

 

Now feel free to list all those freedoms you claim the Royals don't share with the rest of the population.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! You and 7HAR really aren't very bright are you! 

"Can the Queen vote in an election?

Technically, the Queen and members of the Royal Family can vote as there’s no law against it.

However, they voluntarily choose not to in order to remain politically neutral."

https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/13/can-the-queen-or-the-rest-of-the-royal-family-vote-in-a-general-election-11822274/

 

Now feel free to list all those freedoms you claim the Royals don't share with the rest of the population.

Www.royal.uk

 

As Head of State, The Monarch has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters.

[horsefly 4,300]

Just now, Rock The Boat said:

Www.royal.uk

 

As Head of State, The Monarch has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters.

You aren't even bright enough to stop digging when you have so miserably proven your ignorance. The Monarch rightly CHOOSES to not vote despite the fact that he/she is FREE to do so. The "has to" in the above quote is NOT a legal restriction on his/her freedom. It is recognition that the constitutional legitimacy of monarchy rests entirely on its political neutrality. FFS use your brain for once.

[Naturalcynic 631]

15 hours ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps that's because we're not lying dead in a coffin; and you have the audacity to call Lewis a fool. And feel free to identify the "basic freedoms" the Royals lack that the rest of us share.

Well, to start with they can’t do a lot of the things you and I take for granted.  They can’t nip out to the pub for a beer or three, go for a nice quiet meal in a restaurant, watch a film at the cinema, have a mooch around the garden centre, go for a walk in the Peak District, spend a few hours looking round the shops, have a pleasant drive out somewhere on a Sunday, sit on the seafront eating fish and chips, or any of the other things we all like to do.  They have no anonymity, they cannot decide on a whim to do the spontaneous things that for the rest of us make life enjoyable, they are permanently in the public eye and everything they do is scrutinised by the media.

[horsefly 4,300]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Well, to start with they can’t do a lot of the things you and I take for granted.  They can’t nip out to the pub for a beer or three, go for a nice quiet meal in a restaurant, watch a film at the cinema, have a mooch around the garden centre, go for a walk in the Peak District, spend a few hours looking round the shops, have a pleasant drive out somewhere on a Sunday, sit on the seafront eating fish and chips, or any of the other things we all like to do.  They have no anonymity, they cannot decide on a whim to do the spontaneous things that for the rest of us make life enjoyable, they are permanently in the public eye and everything they do is scrutinised by the media.

Perhaps you had better inform William and Kate about this. Bumped into them myself on one of their many visits to Holkham beach (although I don't know if they ordered fish and chips at Wells harbour). I also loved that picture of the Queen hiking up the hills in Scotland (although, thanks to you, I now know that must have been photoshopped).

https://pagesix.com/2021/09/27/prince-william-kate-middleton-lunch-at-beer-garden-with-kids/

 

https://www.hellomagazine.com/travel/2020082095663/kate-middleton-prince-william-favourite-norfolk-hangouts/

Where Prince William and Kate Middleton like to eat, shop and drink in Norfolk

Fakenham Garden Centre

 

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by horsefly

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

17 hours ago, horsefly said:

You aren't even bright enough to stop digging when you have so miserably proven your ignorance. The Monarch rightly CHOOSES to not vote despite the fact that he/she is FREE to do so. The "has to" in the above quote is NOT a legal restriction on his/her freedom. It is recognition that the constitutional legitimacy of monarchy rests entirely on its political neutrality. FFS use your brain for once.

You are a complete idiot who brings Twitter style toxicity to this message board without adding anything of value. You asked for one thing that the Queen cannot do that the rest of us can do, and I gave you a perfectly correct answer. That you wish to wrap it up in a load of waffle means that you are not wanting to be taken seriously as a poster but wish to engage in toxic trolling. I was foolish to engage with you in the first instance. I will not make that mistake a second time. You are blocked.

[horsefly 4,300]

7 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

You are a complete idiot who brings Twitter style toxicity to this message board without adding anything of value. You asked for one thing that the Queen cannot do that the rest of us can do, and I gave you a perfectly correct answer. That you wish to wrap it up in a load of waffle means that you are not wanting to be taken seriously as a poster but wish to engage in toxic trolling. I was foolish to engage with you in the first instance. I will not make that mistake a second time. You are blocked.

You were the individual who disgustingly called the victims of a child-abusing billionaire well paid sex-workers. I will take no lessons on morality from your vile depraved mind. That you were not permanently banned for that disgraceful outrage is frankly unfathomable.

As for what the Queen could not do that the rest of us could, you are ENTIRELY WRONG. Nothing in law stopped the Queen voting. She was simply aware that an unelected monarch demonstrating a party-political preference would immediately bring an end to the monarchy. She wasn't chronically stupid like you.

Edited September 22, 2022 by horsefly

[Herman 9,764]

Testing the water....👍

Labour may abolish House of Lords if it wins next election, leaked report reveals.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/22/labour-considering-abolishing-house-of-lords-if-it-wins-next-election-leaked-report-reveals

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

Testing the water....👍

Labour may abolish House of Lords if it wins next election, leaked report reveals.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/22/labour-considering-abolishing-house-of-lords-if-it-wins-next-election-leaked-report-reveals

Blair's attempt at reform was as much use as t.i.t.s on a boar.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

Woman on nationalised train moans 'Why can't we nationalise this train'?

 

[horsefly 4,300]

7 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Woman on nationalised train moans 'Why can't we nationalise this train'?

 

Thanks for that! Nothing more hilarious than an intellectually challenged right-winger making an utter ti*t of himself desperately getting himself into all kinds of contradictory muddles. Sadly, this kind of idiot incapable of understanding detail is all too common on the right: 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/28/network-rail-piublic-sector-dont-call-it-nationalisation

 

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

Can't hep but think SKS could very usefully deploy and  paraphrase part of JFK's inaugural speech given the self centred  rich get richer attitude of Truss - 

Unlike the Tory's, my fellow Britons: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

Has overtones of patriotism too

Edited September 25, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[Van wink 2,994]

Labour preparing for Government. 

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

13 hours ago, Van wink said:

Labour preparing for Government. 

I actually would feel very sorry for ANY competent government having to pick the pieces up from this. Basket case.

Nevetheless I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall on our dash to a US style system  - enforced by the IMF if needed - swinging cuts to services and benefits to balance the books - state pensions too (no triple lock)! 

 

[sonyc 5,517]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

I actually would feel very sorry for ANY competent government having to pick the pieces up from this. Basket case.

Nevetheless I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall on our dash to a US style system  - enforced by the IMF if needed - swinging cuts to services and benefits to balance the books - state pensions too (no triple lock)! 

 

Spot on. It will be a hell of a tab to try and pick up.

And I'm sure that the public sector and public services generally will face massive cuts. Same with benefits. That's what this lot want. It's their ideology. Blame the poorest, punish the poorest. Then wait for the outcomes in societal fractures. Industrial disputes.

After Brexit then Covid then the spectacular chaos of Johnson then the war in Ukraine we badly needed some stability. Some steadying of the ship. But...along comes Truss.

What we need as a nation is for people to gain a broader education away from narrow-minded selfishness....that is a long term project. 

As for people like Andy Burnham ... he speaks so directly. I hope any new Labour government can find room for him and he decides too.

[canarydan23 4,060]

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

As for people like Andy Burnham ... he speaks so directly. I hope any new Labour government can find room for him and he decides too.

I'd have him over Starmer every day of every week of every month of every year. And I'm not even that massive a fan of him.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

19 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Spot on. It will be a hell of a tab to try and pick up.

And I'm sure that the public sector and public services generally will face massive cuts. Same with benefits. That's what this lot want. It's their ideology. Blame the poorest, punish the poorest. Then wait for the outcomes in societal fractures. Industrial disputes.

After Brexit then Covid then the spectacular chaos of Johnson then the war in Ukraine we badly needed some stability. Some steadying of the ship. But...along comes Truss.

What we need as a nation is for people to gain a broader education away from narrow-minded selfishness....that is a long term project. 

As for people like Andy Burnham ... he speaks so directly. I hope any new Labour government can find room for him and he decides too.

This is just naked, ideologically-driven slash and burn with no regard whatsoever to any pretense at prudence. I really hope the Lib Dems can make themselves sufficiently attractive to push the Conservatives into third, because the Conservative party genuinely deserves oblivion at this point. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie