Mike Parke Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Briefly, I feel that the House of Lords was a better place when the majority were 'Lords' i.e. Peers of the realm with hundreds of years of tradition and ancestry behind then. E.g Duke of whereever, Earl of who. Baronet why. The idea of political placements removes the whole point of the Lords. No disrespect but you cannot make a commoner a lord merely by giving him(her) a title. Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted November 7, 2007 Author Share Posted November 7, 2007 Mike Parke - 2007-11-07 7:29 PM Briefly, I feel that the House of Lords was a better place when the majority were 'Lords' i.e. Peers of the realm with hundreds of years of tradition and ancestry behind then. E.g Duke of whereever, Earl of who. Baronet why. The idea of political placements removes the whole point of the Lords. No disrespect but you cannot make a commoner a lord merely by giving him(her) a title. Regards Mike I agree that the Lords was better before the recent changes but I think we have to remember that most of the hereditary peerages arose from political appointments - albeit hundreds of years ago in some cases. If we are going to change that system I would prefer a fully elected House rather than one based partially on appointment. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Tony Jones - 2007-11-07 9:24 AM Anyway, we're all immigrants in this country (England that is - Scotland & Wales are special cases). It's just that some of our ancestors have been here a bit longer than others. Tony I seem to recall reading that wales is full of the indiginous people who left england, the 'original' welsh having virtualy disapeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigal55 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Syd - 2007-11-06 11:10 PM Not too bothered about royalty, neither for or against them, I manage quiet well without knowing anything much about them other than they are mostly of German decent (I think) In my humble opinion she is perpetuating a rotton system by preaching their rubbish when she undoubtedly knows that it is rubbish. She is a very intelegent woman so why does she do it, could it have anything to do with her wanting to keep her families "special treatments"to stop us having president blair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Mike Parke - 2007-11-07 7:29 PM Briefly, I feel that the House of Lords was a better place when the majority were 'Lords' i.e. Peers of the realm with hundreds of years of tradition and ancestry behind then. E.g Duke of whereever, Earl of who. Baronet why. The idea of political placements removes the whole point of the Lords. No disrespect but you cannot make a commoner a lord merely by giving him(her) a title. Regards Mike As far as ancestry is concerned I can't see why the land owning gentry who come from generations of land owning gentry are really the right people to review the laws made today by our elected government. Their 'traditions' are surely a feudal system. But many of todays lords are ex M.Ps, so they are commoners anyway. (But, I don't have an answer to who should replace them ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Would it matter who replaced them? Any random set of numpties would do the job at least as well. In fact probably better. If you chose the second house purely at random from the electoral role, you'd at least bring something of a balance and a genuine representation of interests.As it stands, I fear they carry a little too much baggage for my liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 And regarding the Royals, I personally feel pretty indifferently. I just wish they’d stop blasting the stuffing out of wild animals in their pursuit of pleasure. It’s bad enough your average gun-toting waster doing so, without the public coffers actually supporting a privileged few in the pursuit of such bloodlust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 bigal55 - 2007-11-07 8:01 PM "to stop us having president blair But it didn't did it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Is there any milage in proportionate representation then and if there was where would our Queen fit into that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 crinklystarfish - 2007-11-07 11:01 PM And regarding the Royals, I personally feel pretty indifferently. I just wish they’d stop blasting the stuffing out of wild animals in their pursuit of pleasure. It’s bad enough your average gun-toting waster doing so, without the public coffers actually supporting a privileged few in the pursuit of such bloodlust. Sorry to disagree but as a long time 'country boy' from a huntin' shootin' background (my grandpa never went fishing) wild animals and birds, especially 'game birds' where put on this earth for the sole purpose of being 'shot for the pot'. Two of the most popular dishes in my son's restuarant are wild pigeon and (when in season) pheasant. However I always accept what other feel about 'blood sports' so lets ban boxing instead!! :-D :-D Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Hi Mike, Of course, you’re absolutely entitled to a view, and I’m very conscious that it wouldn’t be right to steer this thread in a different direction. Maybe the subject will crop up in its own right at some point? But blimey: “wild animals and birds…were put on this earth for the sole purpose of being 'shot for the pot'”. Will it be OK if I go and bag me a wild panda then? Or better still come round and take your dog to be spit-roasted? This kind of short-sightedness is one of the reasons that I hate my own species with such fervour. It doubly galls me when a few lucky souls are able to pursue such ‘sport’ at the (literal) expense of the public. Anyway, no more from me on this one on this thread. Syd,Sir, I’d rather you proportionally represented me in either house than 99.9% of the chinless self-serving sleazebags that currently hold office. Your only allegiance seems to be to fairness; if only the people in power held such morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Syd - 2007-11-07 11:21 PM Is there any milage in proportionate representation then and if there was where would our Queen fit into that Proportional representation is good in theory but you could end up with a lot of different parties running the country. As the main three parties at the moment can't agree on anything imagine fifteen (or more) different parties arguing all day. It could lead to very weak government. I think we should keep the monarchy because I hate to think who would be president. We would almost certainly end up with a celebrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I started contributing to this thread without much knowing what I was getting into mainly because I usually have many more important things to do with my time but now I have begun to see that this subject is really complicated and I am out of my depth here. Im becoming facinated with it but do not yet have a great deal of time to put into the subject. What did we have during the war, a "dictatorship"?, " coalition" wasn't it??, did it work and if not why not. Our current system is working, but not very well at all, more power in the hands of the Monarcy could be dangerous, Armed forces leaders could be a threat, Dictatorships are corrupt (usually) What degree of mix of them all might work?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Syd - 2007-11-08 5:02 PM I started contributing to this thread without much knowing what I was getting into mainly because I usually have many more important things to do with my time but now I have begun to see that this subject is really complicated and I am out of my depth here. Im becoming facinated with it but do not yet have a great deal of time to put into the subject. What did we have during the war, a "dictatorship"?, " coalition" wasn't it??, did it work and if not why not. Our current system is working, but not very well at all, more power in the hands of the Monarcy could be dangerous, Armed forces leaders could be a threat, Dictatorships are corrupt (usually) What degree of mix of them all might work?? We had a coalition during the war, which just means everyone working together for a common purpose. Seems it worked very well if you look at aircraft production, food supplies etc ( and we won). It wouldn't work in peacetime because there is no common aim. You may or may not like our current government (or it's policies) but I think our 'system' works quite well. At least we can change the people in power now and again, many other countries can't. The monarch has no real power - I just see it as the anchor that remains constant while political leaders, good and bad, come and go. We certainly don't want any 'mix' involving the armed forces. The problem is in this country that not enough people vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 crinklystarfish - 2007-11-08 9:54 AM But blimey: “wild animals and birds…were put on this earth for the sole purpose of being 'shot for the pot'”. Will it be OK if I go and bag me a wild panda then? Or better still come round and take your dog to be spit-roasted -FAMILY:Verdana">Syd,Sir, I’d rather you proportionally represented me in either house than 99.9% of the chinless self-serving sleazebags that currently hold office. Your only allegiance seems to be to fairness; if only the people in power held such morality. Sorry Iasked for that. I meant, of course, deer, wild pig and other 'game animals' I do not have a dog so you are going hungry on that line!! If your final paragraph is for me, I thank you! Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Mike Parke - 2007-11-08 8:53 PM crinklystarfish - 2007-11-08 9:54 AM But blimey: “wild animals and birds…were put on this earth for the sole purpose of being 'shot for the pot'”. Will it be OK if I go and bag me a wild panda then? Or better still come round and take your dog to be spit-roasted -FAMILY:Verdana">Syd,Sir, I’d rather you proportionally represented me in either house than 99.9% of the chinless self-serving sleazebags that currently hold office. Your only allegiance seems to be to fairness; if only the people in power held such morality. Sorry Iasked for that. I meant, of course, deer, wild pig and other 'game animals' I do not have a dog so you are going hungry on that line!! If your final paragraph is for me, I thank you! Regards Mike Mike: Have another look,I think you'll find that was addressed to Syd ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Syd, My apologies. I obviously read what I wanted to read! No hard feelings though, I'm big enough & ugly enough not to get upset over anything! Good night, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Another apology Malc. I even got your name wrong, but look at the time!!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Not your day mike, having a senior moment eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I try not too have too many so I'll blame 'pressure of work and lateness of hour'!!!) :$ *-) Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.