49 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Don't forget that after the election and when she retires from the HoC that will be "Baroness Diane Abbott" to you as she sticks her oversized snout into the HoL trough.

I agree its time the HoL was transformed into a fully elected chamber. Give Blair his due he was the only PM who made any attempt to reform it by throwing out the inbuilt Tory majority encapsulated in the hereditary system and drastically reducing the number of people entitled to turn up on a whim. It certainly shouldn't be a place for Commons rejects, or a retirement home or for those not prepared to subject themselves to some sort of ballot. 

3 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

I agree its time the HoL was transformed into a fully elected chamber. Give Blair his due he was the only PM who made any attempt to reform it by throwing out the inbuilt Tory majority encapsulated in the hereditary system and drastically reducing the number of people entitled to turn up on a whim. It certainly shouldn't be a place for Commons rejects, or a retirement home or for those not prepared to subject themselves to some sort of ballot. 

I feel ill. I agree with you.

 

The HoL should be drastically cut back, maybe to 100 members. they do not represent any constituency, just their own interests.

 

I think there is a place for a number of religious leaders (moral side, although that is  debatable) alongside ex PMs and the rest to be voted on.

10 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Wereas if you keep it in the safe you obviously forget where it is. Is this the logic that will lead us towards the sunny uplands post-Brexit?

I too started to reply, but then quickly realised it was tongue in cheek .....

5 minutes ago, Flustered said:

I feel ill. I agree with you.

 

The HoL should be drastically cut back, maybe to 100 members. they do not represent any constituency, just their own interests.

 

I think there is a place for a number of religious leaders (moral side, although that is  debatable) alongside ex PMs and the rest to be voted on.

Well I am glad that you feel the presence of religious leaders is debatable. although why on earth any sort of religious denomination should be represented is beyond me. If people want them there then nothing stopping them standing for election.

2 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Well I am glad that you feel the presence of religious leaders is debatable. although why on earth any sort of religious denomination should be represented is beyond me. If people want them there then nothing stopping them standing for election.

Believe it or not, there are one or two very good religious leaders that frequent the HoL. When you look a the free loading politicians and inbred aristocrats that have made it through the door, you need someone to counteract their excesses.

Just now, Flustered said:

Believe it or not, there are one or two very good religious leaders that frequent the HoL. When you look a the free loading politicians and inbred aristocrats that have made it through the door, you need someone to counteract their excesses.

You think religious leaders are any better??

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

You think religious leaders are any better??

When you look at the HoL Religious Peers, they tend to be more politically neutral and represent a much wider cross section of the public.

 

Those free loading, snout in the trough ex MPs need someone to keep them in line. When I think of the likes of John Prescott, I cringe.

Just now, Flustered said:

When you look at the HoL Religious Peers, they tend to be more politically neutral and represent a much wider cross section of the public.

 

Those free loading, snout in the trough ex MPs need someone to keep them in line. When I think of the likes of John Prescott, I cringe.

Know what you mean, but when I think of  'religious leaders', I similarly cringe.  Surely they should be living their lives amongst those who support them - certainly not in the HOL.....

21 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Believe it or not, there are one or two very good religious leaders that frequent the HoL. When you look a the free loading politicians and inbred aristocrats that have made it through the door, you need someone to counteract their excesses.

I agree and I have no objection to them being there so long as they can get enough votes.

11 minutes ago, Flustered said:

When you look at the HoL Religious Peers, they tend to be more politically neutral and represent a much wider cross section of the public.

 

Those free loading, snout in the trough ex MPs need someone to keep them in line. When I think of the likes of John Prescott, I cringe.

The weirdly named Lords Spiritual do not represent the public or any representative cross-section of it. They are bishops of the Church of England. Mind you not a giant step for some forum hard Brexiteers who were last seen actively campaigning for Royal Prerogative in decision-making.

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The weirdly named Lords Spiritual do not represent the public or any representative cross-section of it. They are bishops of the Church of England. Mind you not a giant step for some forum hard Brexiteers who were last seen actively campaigning for Royal Prerogative in decision-making.

Digging with a straw again?

14 minutes ago, Flustered said:

When you look at the HoL Religious Peers, they tend to be more politically neutral and represent a much wider cross section of the public.

 

Those free loading, snout in the trough ex MPs need someone to keep them in line. When I think of the likes of John Prescott, I cringe.

Henry VIII had the right idea -- separating the parliament from the church(es) but even now we are saddled with religion at every turn, to the considerable detriment of government.  Mind you -- it's not the worst example of religion interfering with politics.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Ever so occasionally you bark up the wrong tree and bay at the moon.

Howwww?

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Henry VIII had the right idea -- separating the parliament from the church(es) but even now we are saddled with religion at every turn, to the considerable detriment of government.  Mind you -- it's not the worst example of religion interfering with politics.

 

 

 

 

Which is why as soon as politicians start spouting about how religious they are - I find it a good reason to realise they are hypocritcal liars, and definitely to be avoided.

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Howwww?

You have been fraternising with the undesirables on another topic.

But time to get back on-topic again!

 

The Manchester bombing has over-ridden the general election, and consequently politicians are right in stalling the election process for a while.

 

No doubt it will start again soon.

I can see May blowing this election.

 

She is utterly hopeless.

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, In the jungle said:

I can see May blowing this election.

 

She is utterly hopeless.

 

 

 

 

You think Corbyn & Co are better?

I am not a Corbyn fan but he has principles whereas May does not. 

Just now, vogie said:

You think Corbyn & Co are better?

So many of these posts (including my own) would be better served in the election thread - rather than this thread.

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

So many of these posts (including my own) would be better served in the election thread - rather than this thread.

Except that this election is about Brexit, so there is inevitable crossover. And it is a pleasure to see forum Brexiteers starting to sound a little uncomfortable as the GE approaches.

22 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Except that this election is about Brexit, so there is inevitable crossover. And it is a pleasure to see forum Brexiteers starting to sound a little uncomfortable as the GE approaches.

Re. your last sentence - I suspect you're imagining this....

 

But perhaps I'm wrong and a remain party has leapt into the lead?

But its good to know that Corbyn's version of future negotiations is "We will make sure there is a deal."

 

Presumably, never mind how bad that deal is for the UK.....

40 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Except that this election is about Brexit, so there is inevitable crossover. And it is a pleasure to see forum Brexiteers starting to sound a little uncomfortable as the GE approaches.

I posted earlier regarding the Hobsons CHoice the UK is faced with.  It's futile to try to separate brexit from the GE since the brexit vote is passed and now the decisions are about "how"  -- not "if".   It's like resolving any deal, nobody will get exactly what they want so the aim has to be an equal level of dissatisfaction on all sides.   Merkel and Macron are settling into a track towards EU federalisation with integrated banking, possibly being the first step.  Based on that topic alone, if the brexit referendum was re-run now how do you think it would come out?  The GE was always a strong possibility to give parliament the backing for really strong brexit negotiations -- to the point of walking away if the EU officials are going to try to play hard ball.  One has to remember that the negotiations are between UK politicians elected for the job, and EU beaurocrats who are appointed and protecting their jobs/pensions.   Hardly a recipe for even-handedness......

6 hours ago, pitrevie said:

I will try again since my previous post violated forum rules. I would not even begin to blame Bush as the author of the 2008 crisis but the fact remains he took over following 8 years of growth under the previous incumbent and when he left office we were in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in living memory, brought about initially by the collapse of Lehman Brothers which almost brought down the world's financial system and that evolved into a Euro crisis. As you indicate banker's greed led to the crisis which originated further back when banks and the financial system was were turned into casinos.

As a result of that crisis the EU attempted to introduce much stricter banking regulations but as usual our own terrible twins Cameron and Osborne opposed any such move. What always surprises me is that it is the EU that wants to take tough action whether its tougher banking regulations or preventing the dumping of cheap Chinese steel and its the UK that opposes it. 

It's true that the UK has opposed somethings that appear to make sense to us, but then the US has opposed climate change agreements, russia has opposed moves in the middle East, and all of this is in "The National Interest" of whichever country is in focus.

 

The main reason for UK opposing the EU's proposed banking reforms was not the reforms themselves, but the authority to implement them  which is what the EU wants to have.    There is no way that the UK is going to give up the position it has now in the markets.

Captain Ska - Liar, Liar

 

#2 in the UK chart

 

 

7 minutes ago, jpinx said:

It's true that the UK has opposed somethings that appear to make sense to us, but then the US has opposed climate change agreements, russia has opposed moves in the middle East, and all of this is in "The National Interest" of whichever country is in focus.

 

The main reason for UK opposing the EU's proposed banking reforms was not the reforms themselves, but the authority to implement them  which is what the EU wants to have.    There is no way that the UK is going to give up the position it has now in the markets.

If there is no common authority then it will just be a race to the bottom. The country that offers the loosest regulation will be the one that benefits.

I got bad news for you: the UK is about to lose "the position that it now has in the markets." Look up "passporting".

After watching and listening to that awful hack music I am tempted to join the Theresa May team.

19 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If there is no common authority then it will just be a race to the bottom. The country that offers the loosest regulation will be the one that benefits.

I got bad news for you: the UK is about to lose "the position that it now has in the markets." Look up "passporting".

That's a very narrow view.  One has to remember that banking clients are free to go to whichever bank they want to use.  Passporting is an EU "regulation" -- an attempt by the eurocrats to gain control of financial trade within the EU - exactly why UK needs to leave the EU and retain it's financial sectors independence.

55 minutes ago, jpinx said:

I posted earlier regarding the Hobsons CHoice the UK is faced with.  It's futile to try to separate brexit from the GE since the brexit vote is passed and now the decisions are about "how"  -- not "if".   It's like resolving any deal, nobody will get exactly what they want so the aim has to be an equal level of dissatisfaction on all sides.   Merkel and Macron are settling into a track towards EU federalisation with integrated banking, possibly being the first step.  Based on that topic alone, if the brexit referendum was re-run now how do you think it would come out?  The GE was always a strong possibility to give parliament the backing for really strong brexit negotiations -- to the point of walking away if the EU officials are going to try to play hard ball.  One has to remember that the negotiations are between UK politicians elected for the job, and EU beaurocrats who are appointed and protecting their jobs/pensions.   Hardly a recipe for even-handedness......

Well I certainly agree with the latter part of this post and the reference to EU employee pensions is very relevant - although it should be also seen as shameful - but this shows the real face and concern of the EU masters. 

 

I suppose we might have some idea how the negotiations will go by the end of the year but it may take ages for agreement on any divorce sum to be paid by the UK as the EU don't seem to want to talk about much else first. Hopefully the EU and UK people living outside their home countries will be assured of their status sooner than later. 

 

So, all done in two years? Toss a coin! Merkel is dummy-spitting more and more now so I doubt it! Extra time or straight to penalties?