Bliar wants to be a "lord"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, May 15, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The tw@t apparently wanted to be made a hereditary peer! It says it all about the lying grasping little hypocrite.

    From the Mirror

  2. Fukcing wonderful, there's hope for me yet. Lord Camp Freddie of Brighton. Has a certain Ring about it dont you think?
  3. Can I be Lord c_c of the gwars :wink:
  4. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Can he not take the career route and become a Sir first. That way HMQ would have him kneeling in front of her and she would have this nice sharp sword. Oh the temptation.
  5. Arise Sirgwar, sounds like the horse.
  6. Well with all the reforms 'He' has instigated for the upper house, he gets a peerage and is out of a job as nu fcuker will vote him in.

    Good move I think, finally get rid of the little sh 1 t
  7. I actually don't have a very big problem with this. I'd much rather see the upper House made up of experienced "day boys" than another bunch of directly-elected nobodies that are beholden to a party machine for their reselection.
    Despite Bliars best efforts the Lords has consistently resisted him, including his own placemen because once elevated they can't be removed and so no longer need to suck up to the leadership. An elected Peerage along party lines would simply duplicate the problem we've had in the Commons with the last two NuLab majorities.
    I actually think that all senior ministers (certainly the Home, Foreign, Defence, Prime and Chancelor ) should get an automatic peerage on retirement from the Commons so that when eventually relegated to the backbenches they can feel free to lay into the Gov't of the day. Whether you liked them as ministers or not they have experience that should not be lost, particularly when tempered by age and perspective.
  8. Interesting point Burgers, but again you end up with a biased upper house with little or no representation of the masses. they don't suddenly become Bi-Partisan when HMQ waves a sword over thier shoulders.
  9. I had been thinking that "Lord Hackle of Arrse" had a certain "ring" to it. :lol:
  10. No you're right but I see it as a important part of the reformed. I think the Lords should be a mixture somethink like this:

    Say 5-600 members total, paid as before for attendence but not a full time job like the Commons.

    50-100 heredetaries elected from and by their own ranks (like the 92 that remain) to play the "long game".

    150-200 appointed automatically. Certain people in public life would get a peerage automaticly either on appointment to their job or on retirement. This would include:
    The First Sea Lord, CGS and Chief of Air Staff and CDS (if they know they'll get the ermine they will be more likely to be robust);
    The heads of the Royal Colleges (Surgeons, Vets, Nurses etc) and GMC, the bishops as well as the RC bishops, methodists, United Reformed, Chief Rabbi. Sikh, Hindu, and Muslim Reps etc.;
    The leader of a new "Royal college of Teachers" (to scotch the uninons and start making them behave like professionals);
    Former senior ministers, leaders of opposition parties, certain (Lord) Mayors etc
    The Law Lords NO "Supreme Court", keep an element of senior lwyers and judges in the legislature to advise Parliament as well as act as an Ultimate Court.
    Any British EU commissioner, NATO reps, speakers/leaders of devolved houses etc, so that UK parliament can question their body's actions properly.

    ~100-150 nominated by political parties with a MPs, MEPs or a certain number of councillors/ percentage of national vote.

    The remainder to be chosen by lot from amongst the general population perhaps from all those eligable to be jurors or magistrates and over a certain age. This would probably be on a county/borough/city basis.
  11. Bladensburg's post seems too much like common sense to happen!

    I believe there should also be a quota system for political parties, based on the percentage share of the vote, and that there must be a five year gap between financial support of a political party and any ennoblement.

    A good point was made about mayors - why not elect the Lords Lieutenant every 10 years to give them a representative parliamentary role? Hereditaries or "normal" people with a civic track record could stand.

    The current system where Bliar appoints cronies is the worst possible outcome and is an affront to a modern democracy. I would like to see a cross-party consensus built around electoral reform, with like-minded parties pledging to "vote share" during all elections until reform becomes a reality, and with some element of what could be termed direct action in which such unworthy peers (like Drayson) are effectively "sent to Coventry" by being ignored and denied the salutation that normally accompanies the ermine.

    No front-bench political job should be occupied by an unelected crony!
  12. On the otherhand it would be folly to exclude able people from ministerial jobs just because they were peers. Lord Carrington springs to mind.
  13. Why not put the appointment of unelected peers to a parliamentary vote, or at least a parliamentary party vote? In the former case, it would depend on parties acting sensibly and not trying to score points. The Speaker is elected with no controversy, so peers could be ratified for front-bench jobs.

    I can't see either the parliamentary Labour party or the House of Commons voting to ratify Fat Falconer or Dodgy Drayson!

    It has occured to me that this could be a constitutional can of worms so a vote in the Upper House may be more appropriate.
  14. Further to my earliar suggested reforms I think that an Upper House as I suggest should have the right to vote to remove or exclude members. In which case a new member should be chosen by the appropriate means.

    The major reason why I've suggested the reforms I have is to get as wide a cross section of experience and viewpoints as possible into Parliament. The Commons becomes ever more packed with professional politicians who have little or no experience outside government local, national or otherwise.

    A secondary reform I would institute is to limit the amount of time that parliament sits, the more time they have on their hands the more likely they are to feel the need to fill it with ever more legislation and consequently increasingly erode personal freedom. More limited time would force the gov't and MPs to concentrate on important and pressing issues while giving them more time for outside interests in the real world and more time to spend on constituents concerns.
  15. Its only a title as he'll still be a complete cnut.

    In fact a lord of his own ring, has he taken his head out of his arrse yet.

    Oh and he's still a cnut.