Jools and RTB must be on the list

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Johnson continues his nepotism and crusade to reward many of his Brexit supporters by naming so many of them in his Peerage list.

If Bleddy Tony Belair had got rid of that damn chamber then we wouldn't be having to put up with the thought of Lord "Don't get me started about the EU" Botham.

[Herman 9,691]

 

[MooreMarriot 304]

Good business opportunity for Botham.......should be able to sell some of his foot massage machines to the old duffers in the Lords . All 830 of them.

[Herman 9,691]

830?! FFS.

[The Raptor 1,196]

This is as bad as trump giving his entire unqualified family jobs. Just embarrassing.

[Herman 9,691]

It bears repeating but I am glad we took back control from those unelected elites.🤨

[Bill 1,788]

I do remember those over excited righties on here, and elsewhere howling to the moon about how wrong the house of lord s was

Though among all the toadies and cronies, there appears one name missing

.... Lord Farage of Kent lorry parks. The poor fellow is still waiting for his appointment as an ambassador by Trump. Hopkins has been booted out of her job at LBC (as well as her house). And our own Hans Christian Anderson, Professor Nuttall has handed his Toad of Toad Hall costumes back to Farage - who has also been booted out of LBC.

All useful idiots, who have now served their purpose and so have now been quietly dropped,

Something our correspondent in France might echo, with his undoubted knowledge of Joseph Darnand

[A Load of Squit 5,108]

FUN FACT: Sir Ian @BeefyBotham lives in Alméria, Spain. To take up his Lords seat, he'll have to become ordinarily resident in the UK (incl tax). As you can't be resident in two places, he'll lose his Transition Agreement-protected Spanish residency rights.

Ian 'England is and island' Botham has an interesting choice to make.

[Herman 9,691]

Another fun fact. He's not called Beefy because of his size but because of his overriding stench of Bovril. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

12 hours ago, The Raptor said:

This is as bad as trump giving his entire unqualified family jobs. Just embarrassing.

Doubly so I would say - although Johnson is clearly the prime culprit, the Queen has to take some responsibility for this for signing off on them.

Seems the Queen (and her advisers) have learnt nothing from her very poor decisions as Head of State last year, and very sad to see her tarnishing her own reputation in this way.

Whether you agree with the situation of an unelected Head of State or not, she has in many ways been a great public servant to this country for many years but she really should have abdicated a few years ago. Would have been better for both her and the rest of us.

12 hours ago, Herman said:

It bears repeating but I am glad we took back control from those unelected elites.🤨

Yes, indeed and you know what - there were also rumours, indeed accusations, of corruption and nepotism within the EU but we've certainly sorted that out for them by taking that back as well. 🤨

 

[Aggy 747]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Doubly so I would say - although Johnson is clearly the prime culprit, the Queen has to take some responsibility for this for signing off on them.

Seems the Queen (and her advisers) have learnt nothing from her very poor decisions as Head of State last year, and very sad to see her tarnishing her own reputation in this way.

Whether you agree with the situation of an unelected Head of State or not, she has in many ways been a great public servant to this country for many years but she really should have abdicated a few years ago. Would have been better for both her and the rest of us.

Yes, indeed and you know what - there were also rumours, indeed accusations, of corruption and nepotism within the EU but we've certainly sorted that out for them by taking that back as well. 🤨

 

The queen by convention acts on her PM’s advice. Her singlehandedly saying “Hmm Nah I don’t fancy this chap put forward by the head of the elected government, so let’s not bother giving him a peerage” just doesn’t and won’t happen. 
 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

The queen by convention acts on her PM’s advice. Her singlehandedly saying “Hmm Nah I don’t fancy this chap put forward by the head of the elected government, so let’s not bother giving him a peerage” just doesn’t and won’t happen. 
 

Your first sentence is obviously true but that doesn't mean that she always has to blindly accept it.

I don't know if it is still the case nowadays but it certainly used to happen that the honours list was quite carefully vetted by the Queen and her advisers before approval, and that occassionally past PMs were made aware that someone on the list was not considered suitable and removed.

In any case convention is a guide not an unbreakable rule, otherwise the Queen's role as Head of State would be utterly meaningless other than for ceremonial purposes. But the role is not meaningless - she is ultimately the guardian of our 'democracy' and the constitution (that we don't have).

Although this latest failure is less serious than agreeing to prorogue Parliament on the basis of Johnson fatuous pretexts (and I'm being exceptionally polite about him there) it is still extremely unfortunate and brings both herself and the country into disrepute.

[Nuff Said 5,078]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

The queen by convention acts on her PM’s advice. Her singlehandedly saying “Hmm Nah I don’t fancy this chap put forward by the head of the elected government, so let’s not bother giving him a peerage” just doesn’t and won’t happen. 
 

Yeah, I'm no fan of the royal family, but the moment the Queen blocks a 'request' from the government of the day there would be uproar and the beginning of end of the monarchy.

 

Which begs the question what are they there for exactly?

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

2 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Yeah, I'm no fan of the royal family, but the moment the Queen blocks a 'request' from the government of the day there would be uproar and the beginning of end of the monarchy.

 

Which begs the question what are they there for exactly?

Exactly - time for a written constitution and an elected Head of State.

Thirty or forty years ago I would have been rather lukewarm about the first and dead against the second but how wrong I was!

[Yellow Fever 3,732]

16 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Yeah, I'm no fan of the royal family, but the moment the Queen blocks a 'request' from the government of the day there would be uproar and the beginning of end of the monarchy.

 

Which begs the question what are they there for exactly?

The Windsors - just a soap opera - sell's tabloids (see latest scandals) and helps tourism.  Not much else. 

Edited August 1, 2020 by Yellow Fever
Oh - forgot to add - keep the 'Class' system in place holding the country back.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

The Windsors - just a soap opera - sell's tabloids (see latest scandals) and helps tourism.  Not much else. 

I am a Republican but don't underestimate the wealth that our Royal family, its palaces and history bring in. If they bring in a lot more than they spend then they can stay as a symbol.

[Aggy 747]

9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I am a Republican but don't underestimate the wealth that our Royal family, its palaces and history bring in. If they bring in a lot more than they spend then they can stay as a symbol.

Bit of a myth this imo. Look at the French royal palaces, they attract loads of visitors each year. Versailles gets more visitors than the Eiffel Tower. Would tourists stop going to Buckingham Palace or Windsor castle because we no longer had someone from the royal family as head of state? I don’t think so. 

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Your first sentence is obviously true but that doesn't mean that she always has to blindly accept it.

I don't know if it is still the case nowadays but it certainly used to happen that the honours list was quite carefully vetted by the Queen and her advisers before approval, and that occassionally past PMs were made aware that someone on the list was not considered suitable and removed.

In any case convention is a guide not an unbreakable rule, otherwise the Queen's role as Head of State would be utterly meaningless other than for ceremonial purposes. But the role is not meaningless - she is ultimately the guardian of our 'democracy' and the constitution (that we don't have).

Although this latest failure is less serious than agreeing to prorogue Parliament on the basis of Johnson fatuous pretexts (and I'm being exceptionally polite about him there) it is still extremely unfortunate and brings both herself and the country into disrepute.

She pretty much does have to blindly accept it. I think the Queen’s honours list is what you’re referring to, which is different to the appointment of peers. Convention is realistically unbreakable when it comes to the queen. The queen as head of state is utterly meaningless. If she started breaking convention and doing what she wanted we wouldn’t stand for it. The only reason we still have the queen as head of state is that she does go along with convention.

[Nuff Said 5,078]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

The Windsors - just a soap opera - sell's tabloids (see latest scandals) and helps tourism.  Not much else. 

Actually I do really enjoy The Windsors on TV. Very funny. But inspiration for a comedy series is hardly a justification for the (nominal) power and actual wealth they have.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Aggy said:

Bit of a myth this imo. Look at the French royal palaces, they attract loads of visitors each year. Versailles gets more visitors than the Eiffel Tower. Would tourists stop going to Buckingham Palace or Windsor castle because we no longer had someone from the royal family as head of state? I don’t think so. 

She pretty much does have to blindly accept it. I think the Queen’s honours list is what you’re referring to, which is different to the appointment of peers. Convention is realistically unbreakable when it comes to the queen. The queen as head of state is utterly meaningless. If she started breaking convention and doing what she wanted we wouldn’t stand for it. The only reason we still have the queen as head of state is that she does go along with convention.

Believe me it isn't a myth. cost to the nation is £67M whereas income from the family is quoted at nearly £600M.

It is also the history not just the reigning monarch.

As I said, I would prefer a Republic but there is no reason why the legal entitlements of the Queen can't be taken away.

[Aggy 747]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Believe me it isn't a myth. cost to the nation is £67M whereas income from the family is quoted at nearly £600M.

It is also the history not just the reigning monarch.

As I said, I would prefer a Republic but there is no reason why the legal entitlements of the Queen can't be taken away.

I don’t doubt the tourism outweighs what they spend. I mean more that it’s a myth we need them here for that tourism to exist. Get rid of them and tourists still go to Buckingham Palace etc...

[Rock The Boat 1,322]

5 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Your first sentence is obviously true but that doesn't mean that she always has to blindly accept it.

I don't know if it is still the case nowadays but it certainly used to happen that the honours list was quite carefully vetted by the Queen and her advisers before approval, and that occassionally past PMs were made aware that someone on the list was not considered suitable and removed.

In any case convention is a guide not an unbreakable rule, otherwise the Queen's role as Head of State would be utterly meaningless other than for ceremonial purposes. But the role is not meaningless - she is ultimately the guardian of our 'democracy' and the constitution (that we don't have).

Although this latest failure is less serious than agreeing to prorogue Parliament on the basis of Johnson fatuous pretexts (and I'm being exceptionally polite about him there) it is still extremely unfortunate and brings both herself and the country into disrepute.

I would love to know who has been removed from the list by the Queen. Can you share?

[Herman 9,691]

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

13 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I would love to know who has been removed from the list by the Queen. Can you share?

No, I can't - too long ago to remember I'm afraid and frankly I've never had much interest in our totally archaic and ludicrous system of peerages.

But Johnson seems to have managed to take it to new levels of stupidity and cronyism, and it seems that our Head of State is happy to oblige him (again).

Just the latest example of what a sick joke our 'democracy' has become 😞

 

[Bill 1,788]

I wonder what the bigots would be saying if an IRA supporter, who seems to have agreed with the Warrington bombing, was given a place in the Lords by Corbyn

or Corbyn gave his brother a seat in the Lords

or even the son of a Russian spy

the hypocrisy of the righties stinks...... more than the great stink that affected the House of Lords in 1858

[wooster 134]

On 31/07/2020 at 22:41, Herman said:

It bears repeating but I am glad we took back control from those unelected elites.🤨

It might be reassuring to you that the conservative elites in the HoL are in the minority.

[Herman 9,691]

The conservatives aren't the worry, it's the brexiters that are.