WRT jokes, there are some that I do find extremely funny, but at the same time, feel guilty at laughing at them. With the best will in the world, there are racist/misogynistic/homophobic jokes that are hilarious, even though many are not.
I once went to Bernard Manning's club. He was alternately both hilarious and grossly offensive. Often twice in the same sentence.
"As soon as Greta discovers cock, she'll stop complaining about the single use plastic it's wrapped in."
Anybody (i.e. several on here) who doesn't find that grossly offensive has no moral compass. This is a man in his 50s addressing a woman of 18. Without a named subject, it wouldn't be quite so bad - just juvenile. Try imagining it was directed at your own daughter? Misogynistic doesn't begin to describe it.
Bollocks. That’s a funny joke.
It’s not an old guy fantasising about a young woman, it’s a comment on how our priorities and relative values change as we mature.
Bollocks to you too. The idea that "maturing" means "discovering cock" is just pathetic.
I would be appalled if that was directed at my 18 year old granddaughter
It’s really not a joke aimed at the young woman personally, even though she is a public figure.
It’s a social commentary on how we (both individually and collectively) are prepared to sacrifice our lofty opinions once the reality of life intervenes.
No. Lee Hurst finds himself angered by all elements of "wokery"; racism, sexism, Eco-warriors, Remainers, Mask-wearers, Liberals, Socialists and anyone else that offends his sensitivities. There was an incident last year when he objected vehemently to not being allowed onto premises without a mask, I can't recall the exact circumstances. On the other hand people who don't laugh hysterically at his calling out this "wokery" are considered humourless.
WRT jokes, there are some that I do find extremely funny, but at the same time, feel guilty at laughing at them. With the best will in the world, there are racist/misogynistic/homophobic jokes that are hilarious, even though many are not.
It's very difficult to tread the line or define it. Some things are very funny in delivery precisely because they are so offensive, but of course not everything offensive is funny. Twitter will find people to be offended regardless so is not a good way of determining if something, in the way it was delivered, was on the right side of the line. But equally unfunny people can seek to defend themselves on the basis people are getting offended, as if by itself offense is all you need.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
Frankie Boyle can still be seriously gross and undeniably funny at the same time, when he's on form
The problem with that fat fuck is that he can dish it out but is absolutely unable to take it. Ego the size of a planet but it's made of glass.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
I agree with you, but sometimes I fear we are viewed as 20th Century neanderthals as a result.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
For me, the humorous part of the joke is underdeveloped. I would imagine that there could be a hilarious joke around Greta Thunberg (Thunberg is a funny character inherently), condoms, and single-use plastics, and it would be awkward, crass, and inappropriate but would be funny. This isn't it.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
Frankie Boyle can still be seriously gross and undeniably funny at the same time, when he's on form
The problem with that fat fuck is that he can dish it out but is absolutely unable to take it. Ego the size of a planet but it's made of glass.
Is he the guy who did "why does everyone hate the english"? That was seriously dull.
"As soon as Greta discovers cock, she'll stop complaining about the single use plastic it's wrapped in."
Anybody (i.e. several on here) who doesn't find that grossly offensive has no moral compass. This is a man in his 50s addressing a woman of 18. Without a named subject, it wouldn't be quite so bad - just juvenile. Try imagining it was directed at your own daughter? Misogynistic doesn't begin to describe it.
Bollocks. That’s a funny joke.
It’s not an old guy fantasising about a young woman, it’s a comment on how our priorities and relative values change as we mature.
Bollocks to you too. The idea that "maturing" means "discovering cock" is just pathetic.
I would be appalled if that was directed at my 18 year old granddaughter
It’s really not a joke aimed at the young woman personally, even though she is a public figure.
It’s a social commentary on how we (both individually and collectively) are prepared to sacrifice our lofty opinions once the reality of life intervenes.
No. Lee Hurst finds himself angered by all elements of "wokery"; racism, sexism, Eco-warriors, Remainers, Mask-wearers, Liberals, Socialists and anyone else that offends his sensitivities. There was an incident last year when he objected vehemently to not being allowed onto premises without a mask, I can't recall the exact circumstances. On the other hand people who don't laugh hysterically at his calling out this "wokery" are considered humourless.
Like a spinner who has to accept they are going to see the ball smashed over their heads a few time, if you are going to seek to cause offensive, even to people who might need it in some eyes, you have to accept you'll get that reaction, you cannot whinge too much about it.
Few things are as annoying as people who dish out vile stuff but get huffy and defensive when it is returned.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
"As soon as Greta discovers cock, she'll stop complaining about the single use plastic it's wrapped in."
Anybody (i.e. several on here) who doesn't find that grossly offensive has no moral compass. This is a man in his 50s addressing a woman of 18. Without a named subject, it wouldn't be quite so bad - just juvenile. Try imagining it was directed at your own daughter? Misogynistic doesn't begin to describe it.
Bollocks. That’s a funny joke.
It’s not an old guy fantasising about a young woman, it’s a comment on how our priorities and relative values change as we mature.
Bollocks to you too. The idea that "maturing" means "discovering cock" is just pathetic.
I would be appalled if that was directed at my 18 year old granddaughter
It’s really not a joke aimed at the young woman personally, even though she is a public figure.
It’s a social commentary on how we (both individually and collectively) are prepared to sacrifice our lofty opinions once the reality of life intervenes.
No. Lee Hurst finds himself angered by all elements of "wokery"; racism, sexism, Eco-warriors, Remainers, Mask-wearers, Liberals, Socialists and anyone else that offends his sensitivities. There was an incident last year when he objected vehemently to not being allowed onto premises without a mask, I can't recall the exact circumstances. On the other hand people who don't laugh hysterically at his calling out this "wokery" are considered humourless.
Indeed. ISTR it was a Morrissons worker asking him to wear a mask. That is doing his job. Which provoked him to a foul mouthed tirade on Twitter.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
No, someone else who is largely unfunny for similar reasons, but from the opposite end of the political spectrum to Lee Hurst.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
...Within that, the hereditary group is a large bloc, boasting more representatives than all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties, plus the Lib Dems and Greens, have MPs.
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
Before the 2016 locals UKIP were over 10% of the vote and the Tories under 40% and Labour actually led those local elections by 1% as David Cowling states so therefore the Tories might even make gains in those district seats up again.
Before the 2017 local elections though the UKIP vote had largely gone Tory, the Tories were polling over 40% as now and actually led Labour by 11%, an even bigger margin than current polling gives them, so if Starmer Labour are going to make gains it will most likely be in the county elections
WRT jokes, there are some that I do find extremely funny, but at the same time, feel guilty at laughing at them. With the best will in the world, there are racist/misogynistic/homophobic jokes that are hilarious, even though many are not.
I once went to Bernard Manning's club. He was alternately both hilarious and grossly offensive. Often twice in the same sentence.
The whole point of Bernard Manning was to be offensive and funny at the same time. I don't think he did anything else.
Something needs to change. They are not bad players, but nothing is clicking. Doesn’t help that they’ve picked up a reputation for giving penalties and it’s sticking. Some today have been very tight. Must be the crowd swaying the ref...
...Within that, the hereditary group is a large bloc, boasting more representatives than all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties, plus the Lib Dems and Greens, have MPs.
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
I was surprised to find they are all males, but on checking the Countess of Mar retired last year.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Bollocks, you saw the opprobrium heaped upon Miriam Margolyes, from all sides, for her comments about Boris Johnson and when he had Covid-19.
I have no issues WRT his Brexit support, his Covid-19 denialism is another issue.
...Within that, the hereditary group is a large bloc, boasting more representatives than all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties, plus the Lib Dems and Greens, have MPs.
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
I support, in general, the principle of an appointed second chamber, but I couldn't work up outrage about them getting rid of the heriditaries. It would free them all up to stand as MPs like John Thurso. At the very least given it was supposed to be a temporary arrangement the numbers should have been whittled down over time as Lord Alderdice suggests.
However, losing the utterly hilarious possibilities of by-elections to replace certain heriditaries like that to replace Lord Avebury (7 candidates, 3 eligible voters) would indeed be a loss.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Bollocks, you saw the opprobrium heaped upon Miriam Margolyes, from all sides, for her comments about Boris Johnson and when he had Covid-19.
I have no issues WRT his Brexit support, his Covid-19 denialism is another issue.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
Frankie Boyle can still be seriously gross and undeniably funny at the same time, when he's on form
The problem with that fat fuck is that he can dish it out but is absolutely unable to take it. Ego the size of a planet but it's made of glass.
Is he the guy who did "why does everyone hate the english"? That was seriously dull.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Bollocks, you saw the opprobrium heaped upon Miriam Margolyes, from all sides, for her comments about Boris Johnson and when he had Covid-19.
I have no issues WRT his Brexit support, his Covid-19 denialism is another issue.
MM was looking for applause rather than laughs. That’s the difference.
Senator John McCain's joke about Chelsea Clinton is one that was pretty foul, but would have had me laughing (and feeling guilty about laughing) had I been in the audience.
Away from the discussion on comedy, can anyone explain what the scientists route is out of the pandemic if having the vast majority of vulnerable adults vaccinated, and even, potentially, the vast majority of all adults vaccinated, doesn't actually lead to any serious ability to engage in normal activity under constant threat of everything being locked down again?
Remember when it was argued that we shouldn't lockdown, but should just isolate the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life. Which was rejected because it wasn't fair on the vulnerable, and anyway implementing isolation to the suggested extent wouldn't be viable. But isn't that almost exactly what mass vaccination of the vulnerable is? Without the downsides.
Or are they just saying that they don't know the extent to which vaccination will offer ongoing protection against serious illness and it could go either way?
It feels to me that at some point we are going to have to gamble with riding out a "casedemic" based on the general level of protection afforded to the population by prior infection and/or vaccination, and see where it leads.
...Within that, the hereditary group is a large bloc, boasting more representatives than all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties, plus the Lib Dems and Greens, have MPs.
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
I quite like it - and the connection to the land. Obviously it's anachronistic, but the criticism rings slightly hollow from political appointees. I'd sort the 'replenishment' and keep the hereditary element. It's not what I expect to happen, but I think that's rather sad.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Bollocks, you saw the opprobrium heaped upon Miriam Margolyes, from all sides, for her comments about Boris Johnson and when he had Covid-19.
I have no issues WRT his Brexit support, his Covid-19 denialism is another issue.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Bollocks, you saw the opprobrium heaped upon Miriam Margolyes, from all sides, for her comments about Boris Johnson and when he had Covid-19.
I have no issues WRT his Brexit support, his Covid-19 denialism is another issue.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Bollocks, you saw the opprobrium heaped upon Miriam Margolyes, from all sides, for her comments about Boris Johnson and when he had Covid-19.
I have no issues WRT his Brexit support, his Covid-19 denialism is another issue.
She said she wanted him dead.
Also, I don't think you're representative of the Twitterati.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
Mind you, I still maintain that it’s up to Twitter to police their platform as they see fit.
Personally I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for simply posting on Twitter. I don’t care how racist or whatever someone is, the police shouldn’t waste time policing it.
...Within that, the hereditary group is a large bloc, boasting more representatives than all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties, plus the Lib Dems and Greens, have MPs.
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
I quite like it - and the connection to the land. Obviously it's anachronistic, but the criticism rings slightly hollow from political appointees. I'd sort the 'replenishment' and keep the hereditary element. It's not what I expect to happen, but I think that's rather sad.
I'd ditch the hereditary element, and beef up requirements to attend (since unlike MPs they cannot ask to be judged by the public for being lazy), including those appointed for 'expertise', since the intention is they shoudl add their expertise to the House generally, not once in a blue moon, and if you just want a reward get a gong.
And the easiest step to seek to at least reduce the political element, and thus making it no different to the Commons, as I have raised before? A 5-10 year gap between being an MP/candidate and entering the Lords. Would require them to be actual grandees, people who have stepped back from the potential of high office some time ago, and give a chance for them to prove after being an MP/candidate that they still have something useful to offer.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
Mind you, I still maintain that it’s up to Twitter to police their platform as they see fit.
Personally I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for simply posting on Twitter. I don’t care how racist or whatever someone is, the police shouldn’t waste time policing it.
Inciting people to commit criminal acts maybe, but that's a higher bar to reach than merely saying nasty things, even if directed at an individual.
...Within that, the hereditary group is a large bloc, boasting more representatives than all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties, plus the Lib Dems and Greens, have MPs.
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
I quite like it - and the connection to the land. Obviously it's anachronistic, but the criticism rings slightly hollow from political appointees. I'd sort the 'replenishment' and keep the hereditary element. It's not what I expect to happen, but I think that's rather sad.
Not all hereditaries will own all that much land now anyway.
Mind you, I still maintain that it’s up to Twitter to police their platform as they see fit.
Personally I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for simply posting on Twitter. I don’t care how racist or whatever someone is, the police shouldn’t waste time policing it.
Inciting people to commit criminal acts maybe, but that's a higher bar to reach than merely saying nasty things, even if directed at an individual.
For sure I’m very much happy for social media posts to be used as evidence. But I’d want the police to think that there was a credible threat rather than it just being the rantings of a keyboard warrior.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
But if it is to exist at all, it should be fully elected and have the power to monitor all legislation including from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Plus, it should have oversight of those bodies to make sure they are not indulging in misfeasance/malfeasance.
Finally, it rather than the Commons or the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutional matters.
And if it is not doing those things, frankly it should be abolished entirely.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
Mind you, I still maintain that it’s up to Twitter to police their platform as they see fit.
Personally I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for simply posting on Twitter. I don’t care how racist or whatever someone is, the police shouldn’t waste time policing it.
There’s specific existing offences, such as making threats to kill and inciting a riot, but outside those parameters the police should get away from Twitter.
...Within that, the hereditary group is a large bloc, boasting more representatives than all Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties, plus the Lib Dems and Greens, have MPs.
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
I quite like it - and the connection to the land. Obviously it's anachronistic, but the criticism rings slightly hollow from political appointees. I'd sort the 'replenishment' and keep the hereditary element. It's not what I expect to happen, but I think that's rather sad.
Not all hereditaries will own all that much land now anyway.
True - and having to be a fabulously wealthy aristocrat would be even worse! It's not a very logical stance.
Personally, I would democratise the appointees system by allocating the spaces to each party based on proportion of the vote achieved at the last election, rather than them all being in the gift of the PM. It just enshrines what is already the convention, but would also allow smaller parties with a lot of support to get a look in.
I'd keep the Bishops and nobs, but try to organise a system whereby the brightest and the best of those classes got to sit and vote.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
But if it is to exist at all, it should be fully elected and have the power to monitor all legislation including from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Plus, it should have oversight of those bodies to make sure they are not indulging in misfeasance/malfeasance.
Finally, it rather than the Commons or the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutional matters.
And if it is not doing those things, frankly it should be abolished entirely.
Eh, I''m a softly softly incremental change kind of person. Get rid of hereditaries first, tighten things up, then see if it needs to become a Senate.
Even if elected I hope it is still called the House of Lords, and the members Lords. Why not? The current lot are mostly not inherited lords, so no need to change that for the elected person just to be boring and use the more common Senator, in my book.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
But if it is to exist at all, it should be fully elected and have the power to monitor all legislation including from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Plus, it should have oversight of those bodies to make sure they are not indulging in misfeasance/malfeasance.
Finally, it rather than the Commons or the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutional matters.
And if it is not doing those things, frankly it should be abolished entirely.
Eh, I''m a softly softly incremental change kind of person. Get rid of hereditaries first, tighten things up, then see if it needs to become a Senate.
Even if elected I hope it is still called the House of Lords, and the members Lords. Why not? The current lot are mostly not inherited lords, so no need to change that for the elected person just to be boring and use the more common Senator, in my book.
Who needs a silly name like ‘Senate?’ Not to mention the confusion it would cause in Wales.
Call it the Great Council of State or Magnam Concilium, like in the old days. Admittedly it hasn’t been summoned since 1640, but that only goes to show it’s a bit overdue.
Away from the discussion on comedy, can anyone explain what the scientists route is out of the pandemic if having the vast majority of vulnerable adults vaccinated, and even, potentially, the vast majority of all adults vaccinated, doesn't actually lead to any serious ability to engage in normal activity under constant threat of everything being locked down again?
Remember when it was argued that we shouldn't lockdown, but should just isolate the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life. Which was rejected because it wasn't fair on the vulnerable, and anyway implementing isolation to the suggested extent wouldn't be viable. But isn't that almost exactly what mass vaccination of the vulnerable is? Without the downsides.
Or are they just saying that they don't know the extent to which vaccination will offer ongoing protection against serious illness and it could go either way?
It feels to me that at some point we are going to have to gamble with riding out a "casedemic" based on the general level of protection afforded to the population by prior infection and/or vaccination, and see where it leads.
One part of a return to a semblance of normality interests me quite a lot: How are we/the scientists going to know when the population needs to be vaccinated again? What will they be monitoring to ascertain when immunity levels are dropping again?
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
What was the name of the lunatic hereditary peer who mounted some sort of quixotic "demonstration" at losing his "natural right" to vote in the chamber in the late '90s, swinging around some item of the chamber in fury ? i fondly remember the dark but also comical, tragi-comic scene.
I do like the wiki page on the London mayoralty race. One chap supposedly running is summarised simply as 'YouTuber seeking to win more votes than Laurence Fox'. Another's last name is London, so I like to think they will get some votes just for that. There's a rapper named Drillminister, Count Binface of course, and more.
Best way to stop people using it would be to band the rent-seeking behaviour of the publishers. When I was a student I used it, despite having legal access, because the publishers' log-in portals were all hellish nightmares.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
Away from the discussion on comedy, can anyone explain what the scientists route is out of the pandemic if having the vast majority of vulnerable adults vaccinated, and even, potentially, the vast majority of all adults vaccinated, doesn't actually lead to any serious ability to engage in normal activity under constant threat of everything being locked down again?
Remember when it was argued that we shouldn't lockdown, but should just isolate the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life. Which was rejected because it wasn't fair on the vulnerable, and anyway implementing isolation to the suggested extent wouldn't be viable. But isn't that almost exactly what mass vaccination of the vulnerable is? Without the downsides.
Or are they just saying that they don't know the extent to which vaccination will offer ongoing protection against serious illness and it could go either way?
It feels to me that at some point we are going to have to gamble with riding out a "casedemic" based on the general level of protection afforded to the population by prior infection and/or vaccination, and see where it leads.
That's the only logical endgame. The lunatic zerocovidians want to keep us locked up for twenty years whilst they try to eliminate the disease everywhere on the planet; the sensible fraction amongst the scientific community knows that we need to learn to live with it.
I don't necessarily trust the Government to deliver on the draft timetable they've presented - there's too much to go wrong and too great a likelihood of SPI-M terrifying them into slowing down with yet another new model - but once we get as far as vaccinating the vulnerable twice and everyone else once then there's realistically little more that can be done to protect society. They might, just possibly, row back on sunshine holidays, but domestically they are going to have to let us out of prison.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
I think that's always part of the problem when people quite rightly point out that people would never dream of saying in real life the awful things they say on twitter, and it is true that it is not as though it being said on line has no impact, as it can.
But the thing is there are a lot of things we do online that we don't do in real life, and that's not always a bad thing. I don't argue with peopel about politics in real life as that would be aggravating for all concerned, and I don't talk about by-elections, polling changes and other political minutiae much in real life as I would not want to reveal what a cool person I was and embarrass all those losers who don't have strong opinions about the FTPA or the West of England mayoralty.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
Comments
He was alternately both hilarious and grossly offensive.
Often twice in the same sentence.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.180699589
Or pinged for obstruction in the tunnel.
Few things are as annoying as people who dish out vile stuff but get huffy and defensive when it is returned.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Which provoked him to a foul mouthed tirade on Twitter.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9383261/Dozens-MPs-write-Priti-Patel-demanding-protests-allowed-Covid-crisis.html
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revealed-the-truth-about-the-house-of-lords-peers-who-are-born-to-rule-nbdvcfrv3
However, they are among the least representative of modern Britain.
Nearly half (39) went to Eton. Their average age is 71. And they own at least 170,000 acres between them — an area equivalent to nearly half the size of Greater London.
The fact that they are all men is owed to male primogeniture, which means that most aristocratic titles automatically go to the first-born son and, failing that, the closest male relative. The royal family abandoned the practice in 2013.
The oldest titles represented in the Lords date back more than 700 years. Between them, the 85 sitting hereditary peers and their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber for nearly 19,000 years.
Before the 2017 local elections though the UKIP vote had largely gone Tory, the Tories were polling over 40% as now and actually led Labour by 11%, an even bigger margin than current polling gives them, so if Starmer Labour are going to make gains it will most likely be in the county elections
I have no issues WRT his Brexit support, his Covid-19 denialism is another issue.
However, losing the utterly hilarious possibilities of by-elections to replace certain heriditaries like that to replace Lord Avebury (7 candidates, 3 eligible voters) would indeed be a loss.
Jo Brand is a better comparison.
Remember when it was argued that we shouldn't lockdown, but should just isolate the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life. Which was rejected because it wasn't fair on the vulnerable, and anyway implementing isolation to the suggested extent wouldn't be viable. But isn't that almost exactly what mass vaccination of the vulnerable is? Without the downsides.
Or are they just saying that they don't know the extent to which vaccination will offer ongoing protection against serious illness and it could go either way?
It feels to me that at some point we are going to have to gamble with riding out a "casedemic" based on the general level of protection afforded to the population by prior infection and/or vaccination, and see where it leads.
Also, I don't think you're representative of the Twitterati.
Personally I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for simply posting on Twitter. I don’t care how racist or whatever someone is, the police shouldn’t waste time policing it.
And the easiest step to seek to at least reduce the political element, and thus making it no different to the Commons, as I have raised before? A 5-10 year gap between being an MP/candidate and entering the Lords. Would require them to be actual grandees, people who have stepped back from the potential of high office some time ago, and give a chance for them to prove after being an MP/candidate that they still have something useful to offer.
Plus, it should have oversight of those bodies to make sure they are not indulging in misfeasance/malfeasance.
Finally, it rather than the Commons or the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutional matters.
And if it is not doing those things, frankly it should be abolished entirely.
https://twitter.com/PAImages/status/1373323497624240136?s=20
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1373318282632126474
https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1373335227045658630
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1373341769069395981
Oh and get paid £20 for every F1 race I watch.
Personally, I would democratise the appointees system by allocating the spaces to each party based on proportion of the vote achieved at the last election, rather than them all being in the gift of the PM. It just enshrines what is already the convention, but would also allow smaller parties with a lot of support to get a look in.
I'd keep the Bishops and nobs, but try to organise a system whereby the brightest and the best of those classes got to sit and vote.
Even if elected I hope it is still called the House of Lords, and the members Lords. Why not? The current lot are mostly not inherited lords, so no need to change that for the elected person just to be boring and use the more common Senator, in my book.
https://yonderconsulting.com/case-study/formula-1/
https://yonderdatasolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/PDS_Biometrics_Whitepaper.pdf
Oh, and also that arsehole Cox bloke.
Call it the Great Council of State or Magnam Concilium, like in the old days. Admittedly it hasn’t been summoned since 1640, but that only goes to show it’s a bit overdue.
Scary thing, in July it will be a decade since my last billable hour.
11 years where my work day was broken into six minute blocks then a decade of not having to record my working day is glorious.
For some reason the bottom-right picture reminds me of the storming of the Capitol, but also a medieval carnival.
Sci-Hub (pirated papers, based in Russia) is a risk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-56462390
I trust that is evidence-based.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
The morning thread is a discussion about electoral voting systems, including AV.
I don't necessarily trust the Government to deliver on the draft timetable they've presented - there's too much to go wrong and too great a likelihood of SPI-M terrifying them into slowing down with yet another new model - but once we get as far as vaccinating the vulnerable twice and everyone else once then there's realistically little more that can be done to protect society. They might, just possibly, row back on sunshine holidays, but domestically they are going to have to let us out of prison.
But the thing is there are a lot of things we do online that we don't do in real life, and that's not always a bad thing. I don't argue with peopel about politics in real life as that would be aggravating for all concerned, and I don't talk about by-elections, polling changes and other political minutiae much in real life as I would not want to reveal what a cool person I was and embarrass all those losers who don't have strong opinions about the FTPA or the West of England mayoralty.
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.