Categories
Sir Gavin Williamson speaks for the Tories and the nation – politicalbetting.com
Sir Gavin Williamson speaks for the Tories and the nation – politicalbetting.com
? @GavinWilliamson has said he’ll seek to amend the hereditary peers bill to remove the “unfairness” and “injustice” that is the bishops’ bench in HoL. He’s right – there’s no justification for automatic seats for clerics in our legislature! pic.twitter.com/UIz54aXBwK
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Not because the House of Lords isn't a ridiculous anachronism that needs to go, but because these reforms would turn it into a chamber solely appointed by the government of the day. With members appointed for life with all the perks and privileges thereto despite their manifest and utter lack of merit (looks hard at Charlotte Owen, Claire Fox, Ben Houchen and Shaun Bailey).
Which is a genuine democratic outrage.
There should be no more piecemeal reform. Either get rid of the bloody thing altogether or reform it properly.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/18/italy-migration-refugees-albania-giorgia-meloni/
Interested to hear Egypt and Bangladesh aren't safe countries! If that is the bar, you are never going to be able to send anybody back to any country. I reckon I could find some right unsafe parts of the UK on a Friday / Saturday night....
Remind me again how that went.
So you can be a 21st century Conservative and not support Bishops in the Lords as Roman Catholic Williamson does but you cannot be a true Tory unless you also support Bishops in the Lords, hereditary peers in the Lords, retention of our constitutional monarchy and support for our landed gentry and large farming estates. TSE is of course an 18th and 19th century Whig/Liberal and not a Tory either.
I am also gravely concerned by Williamson aligning with Corbynites in Labour and Green and SNP MPs to try and remove the Bishops. Even Starmer to be fair to him only wishes to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords not the Bishops too but true Tories should oppose him on that as well, supporting the inherited wisdom and experience the hereditaries bring as well as the diocesan Bishops and Archbishops who represent the role our established church has in our nation.
Fellow Roman Catholic Sir Edward Leigh was far more sensible, suggesting 12 C of E bishops remain in the Lords, ie based on seniority but adding some representatives of other denominations and faiths in the upper house as well.
https://x.com/EdwardLeighGB/status/1846552053360849116
Note too a plurality of Tories want to keep at least a partly appointed House of Lords with an elected element as well.
The majority of Labour and LD voters who join the majority of Reform voters in wanting a fully elected upper house should be wary what they wish for. An elected upper house would likely often have a Conservative and Reform majority if elected midterm of a Labour government and would use that mandate to block outright bills coming from the Labour majority or Labour and LD majority commons
Just from the CofE, there are another 80 or so available.
Within a year or so, there will be a higher % of female bishops than there are female peers in the HoL.
Democracy just happened to be the system in place when he arrived. No one believes it's a universal panacea.
And note that it didn't last once he was in power.
The hand car wash is a symbol of 21st century Britain as the steam engine was of the 19th.
Life peerages and disclaiming peerages came in in the 1960s. But again, nothing else changed.
Blair said the same in 1998. But again, here we are 25 years later.
Incremental reform works if you're willing to think in terms of centuries. The House of Lords is now a good three centuries out of date. It's really not good enough to propose to make it worse by getting rid of the only two elements outside government control.
My criticism of this is that the removal of the hereditaries and the removal of the Bishops doesn't go far enough and it is past time that we abolished the Lords or replaced it with some sort of assembly that could represent the Regions more effectively. These are both sticking plasters on a weeping sore in our democracy and the retention of the right to appoint chums by the PM supposedly pushing these "reforms" is a disgrace. In my view SKS should promise that he will not appoint or support the appointment of any other placemen until we have worked out what comes next.
You have your view, I have mine and I was confirmed by a Bishop, served as a COE server at communion services until I was 16 and know the service inside out but do not support the Bishops in the HOL
Indeed the whole thing needs reform and elected accountability
Let the Bishops stand for election
I support an appointed upper chamber. Routes into it to be many and varied and designed such as to get a good micro facsimile of the population as a whole. Young, old, male, female, arts, crafts, scientists, business, tech, finance, white collar, blue collar, all in there if they are willing and sufficiently able. Part time only, modestly remunerated, serve one fixed term of two years then replaced with somebody else. No parties (political or otherwise).
*whisper it*
cash....
Just for a day, of course...
Will copy it here once released. If I can get on pb.com in Turkmenistan. Not a given.
He became a great dic.
If the answer is no, then the same answer applies to hereditary peers.
Good evening, everybody.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Australian_parliamentary_eligibility_crisis
What about politicians who are elected with no qualifications?
And there are plenty of people in the Commons right now who owe their position to their father's (usually) influence. Ed Miliband springs to mind.
The prime minister himself has seen his personal approval ratings plummet from plus 10 immediately after Labour’s landslide election victory to minus 17 today.
The last time he was that unpopular was back in 2021, in the wake of the disastrous Hartlepool by-election, which Labour lost to the Tories.
Reeves, meanwhile, is now the most unpopular member of the cabinet, with an approval rating of minus 19 (compared to plus 4 on July 5).
The poll also makes grim reading for deputy PM Angela Rayner (approval rating minus 15), David Lammy (minus 13), Yvette Cooper (minus 11) and Wes Streeting (minus 10).
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-ministers-popularity-in-freefall-as-make-or-break-budget-looms_uk_67125050e4b0ef3c927489e7?d_id=8266508&ncid_tag=tweetlnkukhpmg00000008&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=uk_politics
I seem to remember it was a load of balls.
You cannot put me in one of your ludicrous boxes
Ironically, I have given more years of service to the conservatives than you have
"There are new entry requirements you must know before you travel to the UK, even if just for a holiday/vacation. Never before have tourists from the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia had to do anything to be let into the UK but that's changing very soon. Watch to find out how."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0vM4nEkhbQ
Why not abolish life peerages and just keep the hereditaries: on condition they take no party whip and must have a full time job?
And then, when there's a vacancy, the other 91 elect somebody else?
It would still be undemocratic but it would be more democratic than what Starmer and Williamson are proposing.
On the plus side it will, eventually, allow more countries to use the eGates.
The House of Bastards.
The 100 closest illegitimate descendants of Charles II.
Titles going in reverse complexity of degree
So the lowest is "The Right Honourable and Most Noble Bastard".
Duke = "Right Bastard"
As extreme, extra privilege, the title of "Bastard" can be granted.
What's not to like?
Something funny going on as well - flights delayed everywhere.
Now @Anabobazina re cash !!!
Most nations which have an upper house either have a partly appointed membership of it or elect its members indirectly by local councillors or regional assemblies
I first suggested the idea when Cameron and Clegg proposed a HoL based upon party lists.
Press release:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-expand-digital-travel-to-more-visitors
One off fee of £10 which lasts until your passport expires. The charges are like those operated by Oz and USA.
"Two hours of our lives that we’re never getting back"
https://conservativehome.com/2024/10/18/two-hours-of-our-lives-that-were-never-getting-back/
Forward to the Past!
But that was "Lotd" Barwell, or Boris Johnson's brother.
My oft mentioned proposals to, among other things, weed out party doners, fossilised ex-MPs, and the lazy status seekers, should be done first, and would require very little adjustment.
I'll get my coat....
I'd need a big country residence to work from, too, ofcourse, like Disraeli's.
There might be more rebels/bandits, probably of Irish origin, as per the original tories.
Wasn't he shouting something about his eternal, Norman birthright, and the end of civilisation, and Britain , as we knew it
1) The City of London Corporation
2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about?
3) Faith schools
There is an argument that removing the bishops opens up a whole can of worms about the Church's relationship with the state. Good: open it.
- No ex-MPs until two parliamentary terms or 10 years has passed.
- No one who has donated more than £1000 to a political party to be given a peerage until 2 parliamentary terms or 10 years has passed.
- Required levels of vote attendance
- Maximum service period (so as not to discriminate against younger or older peers, but to prevent lifetime appointment)
No bishops? Eh, maybe, or just have other religious leaders too. Co-opt them into the organisms of the state.The idea of having a second house that is wholly appointed by the government should be anathema to any democrat