ClaphamFox Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said: I can totally do this. #winning #royalblood Mazel tov, my friend. I’m in awe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said: It is so bloody nice having some crisps in the house. They disappear sodding quickly. A bit like ice lollies around here. I was thinking that the absence of crisps in the house represents a net gain for me until I remembered that I often buy one of those massive bags of Sensations or whatever on my way home "because it's Friday", and end up eating all of them and THEN having dinner. It's a good job I'm an elite athlete, that's all I can say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March Curse you social and legacy media for making me interested in the Royal Family, however temporarily 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/11/biggest-tory-donor-looking-diane-abbott-hate-all-black-women Absolutely fine because she done maths wrong once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jon the Hat Posted 12 March Popular Post Share Posted 12 March 2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/11/biggest-tory-donor-looking-diane-abbott-hate-all-black-women Absolutely fine because she done maths wrong once. Sounds like a lovely chap. Yet another reason why political donations should be completely illegal from anyone. Provide central funding based on number of candidates and remove the whole mess. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 41 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: Sounds like a lovely chap. Yet another reason why political donations should be completely illegal from anyone. Provide central funding based on number of candidates and remove the whole mess. Something so obvious it beggars belief it’s not been done…along with an elected second chamber. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoyleFox Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 19 hours ago, st albans fox said: Word is that they aren’t going to release the original(s) This won’t go away until they do or explain why they can’t They're not going to because they don't want to. And have managed to pi$$ off the main stream media very well. By issuing a picture, directly and not to the news agencies, with edits that was then retracted by the news agencies, the MMS can't monetise it in any way, it's now just a personal photo but the most viewed currently out there. Given how much William dislikes the media and how they've been hounding them about Catherine, I think they've played a blinder here. And, for a bonus it will have also pi$$ed off Harry & Megan, to reinforce how irrelevant they are, they're desperate and paying people to print their pictures but the world is clamouring for William and Catherine photos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 1 hour ago, Daggers said: Something so obvious it beggars belief it’s not been done…along with an elected second chamber. More obvious than that even. You could argue against an elected second chamber on a number of angles, but I can find none whatsoever to support letting rich people or indeed Unions fund political parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 52 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: More obvious than that even. You could argue against an elected second chamber on a number of angles, but I can find none whatsoever to support letting rich people or indeed Unions fund political parties. Unions represent the values and interests of millions, rich people represent themselves alone. Probably best not to conflate the two. You *could* argue against an elected second chamber, it wouldn’t be the cleverest thing to do, mind. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunge Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March (edited) 24 minutes ago, Daggers said: Unions represent the values and interests of millions, rich people represent themselves alone. Probably best not to conflate the two. You *could* argue against an elected second chamber, it wouldn’t be the cleverest thing to do, mind. I’d be interested to hear how you would envision an elected second chamber. The problem to me is this: The House of Commons is there to decide the laws, therefore it’s absolutely right that they’re elected. The House of Lords is there to ratify the laws, to make sure they’re good, just, workable and to use their experience and expertise to check for loopholes. If you say the Lords should be an elected chamber, who runs for election? Do they have a manifesto? Because the very nature of why the Lords is there does not lend itself to manifestos. If you’re in the Lords, you’re there (at least in theory) for checks and balances, not for selling a cause to the public and standing for something. While there could and should be reforms about who gets into the Lords and how, I’m far from convinced that public election is a good idea for it. Edited 12 March by Dunge 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 23 hours ago, ClaphamFox said: I've spent the past couple of days trying to bend my middle finger around my fourth finger like Prince Louis without using my other hand to push it into place (which feels like cheating). No success so far. I'll update if anything changes. You can't do it because you're not a lizard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 16 minutes ago, Dunge said: I’d be interested to hear how you would envision an elected second chamber. The problem to me is this: The House of Commons is there to decide the laws, therefore it’s absolutely right that they’re elected. The House of Lords is there to ratify the laws, to make sure they’re good, just, workable and to use their experience and expertise to check for loopholes. If you say the Lords should be an elected chamber, who runs for election? Do they have a manifesto? Because the very nature of why the Lords is there does not lend itself to manifestos. If you’re in the Lords, you’re there (at least in theory) for checks and balances, not for selling a cause to the public and standing for something. While there could and should be reforms about who gets into the Lords and how, I’m far from convinced that public election is a good idea for it. In my head, the chamber would be a mix of co-opted specialists and elected representitives. I'm not too down on the HoL in its current form as I believe it has done a good job, but the clear threat is there when you have the likes of Johnson and Truss abusing the system. Whichever way forward, there has to be a ban on ex-PMs being able to load the House with morons and millionaire lickspittles. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 38 minutes ago, Daggers said: In my head, the chamber would be a mix of co-opted specialists and elected representitives. I'm not too down on the HoL in its current form as I believe it has done a good job, but the clear threat is there when you have the likes of Johnson and Truss abusing the system. Whichever way forward, there has to be a ban on ex-PMs being able to load the House with morons and millionaire lickspittles. And offspring. Allegedly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 1 hour ago, Daggers said: Unions represent the values and interests of millions, rich people represent themselves alone. Probably best not to conflate the two. You *could* argue against an elected second chamber, it wouldn’t be the cleverest thing to do, mind. Indeed, although some of their governance is questionable. They should not be allowed to fund political parties though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunge Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: And offspring. Allegedly. Could be difficult in Boris’s case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunge Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March (edited) 55 minutes ago, Daggers said: In my head, the chamber would be a mix of co-opted specialists and elected representitives. I'm not too down on the HoL in its current form as I believe it has done a good job, but the clear threat is there when you have the likes of Johnson and Truss abusing the system. Whichever way forward, there has to be a ban on ex-PMs being able to load the House with morons and millionaire lickspittles. I agree that some of the people chosen for the Lords, particularly in latter years, shouldn’t have been in there. And I do think it needs a review and potentially an adjustment of who should get a seat and why. I appreciate it’s difficult with unelected peers because it starts to fail the Tony Benn accountability test (Who are you, what power do you have, how do we get rid of you), but the Commons can override the Lords in extreme circumstances. I like the idea of having combinations of ex-politicians, businesspeople, ex-teachers, ex-police, ex-medical, ex-union, ex-military, etc., a wide range of people with expert knowledge of different fields, as well as some religious leaders and, yes, some life peer types who have a seat for decades and can therefore put shorter term crises in perspective. I just don’t think it lends itself to elections* because the people you’re going to get are either party political or rabble-rousers like George Galloway. *At least, not direct elections. Edited 12 March by Dunge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 3 hours ago, FoyleFox said: They're not going to because they don't want to. And have managed to pi$$ off the main stream media very well. By issuing a picture, directly and not to the news agencies, with edits that was then retracted by the news agencies, the MMS can't monetise it in any way, it's now just a personal photo but the most viewed currently out there. Given how much William dislikes the media and how they've been hounding them about Catherine, I think they've played a blinder here. And, for a bonus it will have also pi$$ed off Harry & Megan, to reinforce how irrelevant they are, they're desperate and paying people to print their pictures but the world is clamouring for William and Catherine photos. I think you may have read into this a bit too much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March Gaza medics tell BBC that Israeli troops beat and humiliated them after hospital raid https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68513408 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 55 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: Indeed, although some of their governance is questionable. They should not be allowed to fund political parties though. You realise how the Labour Party came into being, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 54 minutes ago, Daggers said: You realise how the Labour Party came into being, right? Yes of course, but these days it’s a modern party subject to the same rules as any other. You either allow political party donations or you don’t, you can’t say one interest group can fund them but another cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: Yes of course, but these days it’s a modern party subject to the same rules as any other. You either allow political party donations or you don’t, you can’t say one interest group can fund them but another cannot. i agree with both of you ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 12 March Author Share Posted 12 March 2 hours ago, Dunge said: While there could and should be reforms about who gets into the Lords and how, I’m far from convinced that public election is a good idea for it. Hell no! We'd end up with Lord Boris! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said: Yes of course, but these days it’s a modern party subject to the same rules as any other. You either allow political party donations or you don’t, you can’t say one interest group can fund them but another cannot. You're making things up again and inventing things I haven't said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RoboFox Posted 12 March Popular Post Share Posted 12 March "Like many amateur photographers, I do experiment with editing" 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 12 March Share Posted 12 March 8 hours ago, Daggers said: You're making things up again and inventing things I haven't said. You said I was conflating rich racist donors with unions, while I was merely saying neither should be allowed to directly fund political parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts