Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

You have to realise that this legislation was put before the Commons three times and a majority voted for it. That is the process of democracy. The Lords have no mandate to vote anything down whether good or bad. What they did has no connection with democracy. It is a collection of unelected people who are supposed to discuss and make suggestions to legislation.

I was taught, when very young that, if I "voted" for something, or put my signature agreeing to an action, then it should be according to my thought of whether it was right or wrong and not in response to coercion, or bribery!

For my sins, in the distant past have been secretary and member of various committees, and accepted the above and tried to apply the above.

(When acting as secretary, even though I may have disagreed with the committee as a whole, I acted on their "directives", but would certainly try to argue against such on a personal level and to have them reviewed. Also, reviewed my own positioning.)

I think the UK political system of the whole stinks, and I think all votes in the H of P and H of Lords should be votes of conscience and secret.

(Have a look at the individuals who were trying to defraud the "expenses claims" still sitting on various Select Committees.)

That does not mean that individuals should not group together to form policy and put those policies to the vote.

I think there is need of a reviewing chamber (Hof L), elected or appointed (by whom?) on ability.

A revisory body may address problems before they occur in practice. Less haste more speed.

Also, I am fed up with the Lynton Crosby, Osborne mantras being trotted out repeatedly, and routinely by the hirelings.

Such, as I would apply to Hays to be.
-====-==-=-==

PS, the HofL votes were not only against the policies but also a vote against the arrogance of the present cabal who have taken the Con party over!

If this had been a Conservative HoL blocking Labour legislation, there would have been such howls of complaint and something being done to curtail the power of the Lords.

The Conservatives have never done something similar. Even in 1945, when the Conservatives had a huge majority in the HoL of around several hundred, they did not block legislation by Labour that brought in Nationalisation and the National Health Service. The Conservative dominated Lords could have wrecked the post war Labour government. They took the view that the voters had voted in a Labour government and it should be allowed to legislate and govern.

Ps.

What was being pointed out in the House of Lords, is that there is a complete loss in trust by the membership and the country as whole, that Osborne and Cameron will keep their promises. Ie, they think they and cohorts are a bunch of self-interested liars.

P 64139

I think in 1945, the voting in the G/E pointed out that the tories had been rejected and that the policies being implemented were necessary and for the benefit of all in society.

It was recognised that "changes" were necessary.

The present "government's" policies are seen as blindly retrogressive in the way they are being played out.

Bollocks Fred (as per). The consensus imo is the cuts were too harsh to implement straight away. As for the UK political arena stinking as you put it. You have your nose to near to your left wing arse :0)

Before grumbling at constitution of HofL may be reasonable to recognise Votes actually cast and number possible at G/E

Lords by party/group and type of peerage

Bishops 0 0 25 =============3.06%
Conservative 201 48 249 ============= 30.51%
Crossbench 145 31 176 ============= 21.57%
Labour 209 4 213 ============= 26.10%
Liberal Democrat 108 4 112 ============= 13.73%
Non-affiliated 24 0 24 =============2.94%
Other 16 1 17 ============= 2.08%

Cheer up.

Oi you!

You're Fired! And for slacking on the job, you lazy tosser! So get to the office and collect your cards!

I bet he was Polish or Romanian on minimum hourly rate!



8-)

Sunday Times .. The small village of Sumte in Germany with 102 residents will have to welcome 1000 migrants , i bet they love Merkel !!

question on bowel cancer do muslims not get cancer because they do not eat pork
eating bacon and sausages course cancer .

JB,

No, perhaps just their fellow man.

fred why do you bother you never give proper answer is it because you are left wing and blind to all life

the indian/asian/arabic populations certainly have a propensity towards obesity and diabetes due to their very high sugar intake
the arabic nations also, i think, have a high intake of red meat which (again i think) will tend to lead to bowel and other cancers

with regard to sausages and bacon, the concern is really the chemical additives and amount of salt put into commercial as opposed to high quality, butcher's-own sausages

thank you cynic . so it really does not matter what you eat just eat a bit of everthing
and take no notice of all the negs .
will be 69 very soon so will still eat what I like . off to the sun soon . not sure were yet

'Damn!' about this bacon thingy. I'm quite proud of my 'bacon and egg toasted sandwiches' and now they are telling us not to eat them because they cause cancer.

Hmmm? And it doesn't say anything about that on the outside of the 'Tesco Finest' packet. Could this bring Tesco down?

fred you are a very sad person full of bitterness I feel for your family
you must of had bad parents so don't pass it down the line to your children