The Lords - Page 2

Thor 2 · 14th February 2021, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Worm

You can obviously read more into Thor's post than I can. I have no idea how much knowledge of "outcomes based education" is involved.

psion is just making noise to try and cover the stupid mistake made.

I have little knowledge about "outcomes based education" myself but that is beside the point. psion obviously has the nickers in a twist about it judging from the angry posts with bad language inserted.

Thor 2 · 14th February 2021, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Nobody who knows anything about OBE would speak in favour of it. That's how I know that Thor 2 is totally ignorant about it. Although the OBE controversy is more than a decade old, it cost the government the election at the time.

I take my hat off to you psion, you are a grand master in the art of distortion. That you could imply I was championing OBE in my post is beyond belief. Did you catch that line on the end of my post:

"The idea may have been flawed but there was an aim. It wasn't just change for the sake of it."

catsmate · 14th February 2021, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by gypsyjackson

Apparently not any more in England at least:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries...land_and_Wales

Oh, I didn't know that the UK had abolished it, I was never called in the UK and never witnessed the empanelment. It's still around in Ireland.

psionl0 · 14th February 2021, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I take my hat off to you psion, you are a grand master in the art of distortion. That you could imply I was championing OBE in my post is beyond belief. Did you catch that line on the end of my post:

"The idea may have been flawed but there was an aim. It wasn't just change for the sake of it."

What was the aim of implementing OBE other than implementing OBE? Is that how you would justify implementing any idea no matter how hair brained?

Thor 2 · 15th February 2021, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

What was the aim of implementing OBE other than implementing OBE? Is that how you would justify implementing any idea no matter how hair brained?

I think it's time to quit as the silliness is becoming extreme.

This thread is about The Lords not about OBE. You introduced that topic in that flawed post a way back. Your wayward thinking was detected by others as well as myself.

psionl0 · 15th February 2021, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I think it's time to quit as the silliness is becoming extreme.

I didn't think that you could answer the question.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

This thread is about The Lords not about OBE. You introduced that topic in that flawed post a way back. Your wayward thinking was detected by others as well as myself.

I have brought this concept back to the HoL already: Your attitude goes something like this:

Somebody: "We should reform the House of Lords".
You: "Great idea! Let's do it!"
Me: "What sort of reform do you have in mind"?
You: "Details don't matter. CHARGE!"

For the record, I can see some merit in an Upper House that represented the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (much like the Senate represents the states) - if not equally then with enough weight to stop Parliament being all about Londoners. However, that would only be useful if the HoL had more legislative power. Also, without the right voting system such a reform would be useless.

It should also be established that a London-centric Parliament is actually a problem before we "fix" it and if so, reforms to the Commons could just as easily solve the problem and make the need to do anything about the House of Lords moot.

Thor 2 · 17th February 2021, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I didn't think that you could answer the question.

I have brought this concept back to the HoL already: Your attitude goes something like this:

Somebody: "We should reform the House of Lords".
You: "Great idea! Let's do it!"
Me: "What sort of reform do you have in mind"?
You: "Details don't matter. CHARGE!"

For the record, I can see some merit in an Upper House that represented the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (much like the Senate represents the states) - if not equally then with enough weight to stop Parliament being all about Londoners. However, that would only be useful if the HoL had more legislative power. Also, without the right voting system such a reform would be useless.

It should also be established that a London-centric Parliament is actually a problem before we "fix" it and if so, reforms to the Commons could just as easily solve the problem and make the need to do anything about the House of Lords moot.

You have a flair for drama psion.

What do you think of all the seats taken by clergy? Truly representing the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and .......... Ireland too???? Well the orange coloured ones I suppose.

GlennB · 17th February 2021, 03:01 PM

Evgeny Lebedev is the son of a senior KGB officer. He and Dad bought a 65% share in the London Evening Standard newspaper. Later, Evgeny bought the The Independent and The Independent on Sunday newspapers. Later launched the i paper. Good friend of Boris Johnson.

He's now Baron Lebedev of Hampton, and sits in the House of Lords (if and when he feels like it)

So that's all right then.

theprestige · 17th February 2021, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Evgeny Lebedev is the son of a senior KGB officer. He and Dad bought a 65% share in the London Evening Standard newspaper. Later, Evgeny bought the The Independent and The Independent on Sunday newspapers. Later launched the i paper. Good friend of Boris Johnson.

He's now Baron Lebedev of Hampton, and sits in the House of Lords (if and when he feels like it)

So that's all right then.

It's all right pretty much by definition, though. Obviously he's been judged worthy to join the ranks of the nobility, with all that entails. If he's qualified to be a baron, he's qualified to sit in the House of Lords. (I'm not sure what being the son of a KGB officer has to do with it, unless it's an attempt at ad hom.)

GlennB · 17th February 2021, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's all right pretty much by definition, though. Obviously he's been judged worthy to join the ranks of the nobility, with all that entails. If he's qualified to be a baron, he's qualified to sit in the House of Lords. (I'm not sure what being the son of a KGB officer has to do with it, unless it's an attempt at ad hom.)

The qualifications in this case are ownership of media outlets and friendship with the PM, afaics. Can you spot any others? 'Judged worthy'? By whom and by what criteria?

I can't believe you wrote what you just did.

psionl0 · 17th February 2021, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

What do you think of all the seats taken by clergy? Truly representing the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and .......... Ireland too???? Well the orange coloured ones I suppose.

If you read my post properly you would see that I am suggesting that a reform in that direction might be worth considering. I am definitely NOT suggesting that the HoL currently represents those regions now.

theprestige · 17th February 2021, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

The qualifications in this case are ownership of media outlets and friendship with the PM, afaics. Can you spot any others? 'Judged worthy'? By whom and by what criteria?

According to the Life Peerages Act of 1958, judged worthy by the monarch, according to whatever criteria they want.

The traditional basis for peerage seems to be ownership of substantial capital assets or similarly significant socio-economic power and influence. I'm not sure a legislative body reserved for the nation's VIPs is a good idea. I'm also not sure it isn't. But it seems to me that if you have one, and owning a chunk of land qualifies, then sitting on top of a modest media empire should probably qualify as well.

I mean, just the fact that you have the PM's ear, and he's willing to make a case for your peerage to the monarch, and she's willing to hear that case and grant your peerage, is probably the only evidence we need that you're a mover and a shaker and could well occupy a seat in the VIP legislature alongside your peers.

Quote:

I can't believe you wrote what you just did.

And yet here we are.

Thor 2 · 17th February 2021, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

If you read my post properly you would see that I am suggesting that a reform in that direction might be worth considering. I am definitely NOT suggesting that the HoL currently represents those regions now.

Nah ...... throw them out and create a house that is elected by the people for the people. I am sure I have heard that somewhere before.

psionl0 · 17th February 2021, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Nah ...... throw them out and create a house that is elected by the people for the people. I am sure I have heard that somewhere before.

You mean the house of commons?

GlennB · 18th February 2021, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

According to the Life Peerages Act of 1958, judged worthy by the monarch, according to whatever criteria they want.

The traditional basis for peerage seems to be ownership of substantial capital assets or similarly significant socio-economic power and influence. I'm not sure a legislative body reserved for the nation's VIPs is a good idea. I'm also not sure it isn't. But it seems to me that if you have one, and owning a chunk of land qualifies, then sitting on top of a modest media empire should probably qualify as well.

I mean, just the fact that you have the PM's ear, and he's willing to make a case for your peerage to the monarch, and she's willing to hear that case and grant your peerage, is probably the only evidence we need that you're a mover and a shaker and could well occupy a seat in the VIP legislature alongside your peers.

The Queen has no say in the matter. She just signs the paperwork.

Thor 2 · 18th February 2021, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

You mean the house of commons?

You have created an art form with obtuse utterances.

EHocking · 18th February 2021, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

You have created an art form with obtuse utterances.

Washington Allston supposedly said, “Never judge a work of art by its defects.”

In this case I disagree with him.

theprestige · 18th February 2021, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

The Queen has no say in the matter. She just signs the paperwork.

What happens if she Bartlebys the paperwork? Does the PM bung her off to debtor's prison and ennoble the guy anyway? Is there even any provision in law for impeaching the monarch? Or at that point is it all down to war, and bloody constraint?

---

Anyway, my point still stands. In principle, the nobility are literally the VIPs of the nation. If the highest authority in the land is the PM, and this guy has the PM's ear and can get himself ennobled on that basis, then it obviously follows the he's a big damn VIP. Q.E.D.

psionl0 · 18th February 2021, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

You have created an art form with obtuse utterances.

Everybody else would have understood me perfectly.

The UK already has "a house that is elected by the people for the people". It is called "The House of Commons". Why do you think that duplicating it is a good idea?

Originally Posted by EHocking

Washington Allston supposedly said, “Never judge a work of art by its defects.”

In this case I disagree with him.

OK, so not everybody.

Thor 2 · 19th February 2021, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everybody else would have understood me perfectly.

The UK already has "a house that is elected by the people for the people". It is called "The House of Commons". Why do you think that duplicating it is a good idea?

Ah well, federally we have two houses of parliament elected "by the people" in Australia. And the states also, apart from Queensland, also. Not a good idea you think?

EHocking · 19th February 2021, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Ah well, federally we have two houses of parliament elected "by the people" in Australia. And the states also, apart from Queensland, also. Not a good idea you think?

The territories are also unicameral.

This is a great quote from the leader of the council who introduced the Upper House abolition bill, fitting for this thread discussion,

Until we had a majority here, [the Council] was obstructive, and now that we have a majority here it is useless."

theprestige · 19th February 2021, 05:02 PM

I'm convinced that every sensible system of government should have at least one entity that acts to obstruct the progress of the others.

psionl0 · 19th February 2021, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Ah well, federally we have two houses of parliament elected "by the people" in Australia. And the states also, apart from Queensland, also. Not a good idea you think?

If you keep shifting the goal posts then it is difficult to discuss anything with you. You originally said "elected by the people for the people". This is traditionally what a lower house is meant to be.

The Senate is elected by the people for the States. Do you tnink the House of Lords should be replaced by an equivalent body? That was my original suggestion.

Thor 2 · 20th February 2021, 12:55 PM

Ah yes ........ shifting the goal posts. That's always a good line to use when you are losing, or have lost, the argument. You could also throw in something about a straw man to maybe. Just as irrelevant as the goal post thing but what the hell.

Nessie · 20th February 2021, 12:58 PM

I like the idea of ending all titles by declaring that as of, say, 1st Jan 2023, no tile can be inherited. All Lords and other titles will then just die out and the last holder of that title dies.

theprestige · 20th February 2021, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I like the idea of ending all titles by declaring that as of, say, 1st Jan 2023, no tile can be inherited. All Lords and other titles will then just die out and the last holder of that title dies.

They already have non-inheritable titles though.

Lplus · 20th February 2021, 01:48 PM

The point of the House of Lords is to scrutinise the proposed legislation of House of Commons and in particular to alleviate the more extreme intentions of the HoC - whatever the political colour of the HoC.

The usefuness of the HoC is directly proportional to the size of any government's majority.

Though those who support the government of the time might disagree.

psionl0 · 20th February 2021, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Ah yes ........ shifting the goal posts. That's always a good line to use when you are losing, or have lost, the argument. You could also throw in something about a straw man to maybe. Just as irrelevant as the goal post thing but what the hell.

You can not be that illiterate. You are willfully ignoring what I have posted so that you can maintain this imaginary narrative of yours.

14th February 2021, 01:04 PM	#41
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by Worm You can obviously read more into Thor's post than I can. I have no idea how much knowledge of "outcomes based education" is involved. psion is just making noise to try and cover the stupid mistake made. I have little knowledge about "outcomes based education" myself but that is beside the point. psion obviously has the nickers in a twist about it judging from the angry posts with bad language inserted.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

14th February 2021, 01:11 PM	#42
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by psionl0 Nobody who knows anything about OBE would speak in favour of it. That's how I know that Thor 2 is totally ignorant about it. Although the OBE controversy is more than a decade old, it cost the government the election at the time. I take my hat off to you psion, you are a grand master in the art of distortion. That you could imply I was championing OBE in my post is beyond belief. Did you catch that line on the end of my post: "The idea may have been flawed but there was an aim. It wasn't just change for the sake of it."
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

14th February 2021, 01:21 PM	#43
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 24,304	Originally Posted by gypsyjackson Apparently not any more in England at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries...land_and_Wales Oh, I didn't know that the UK had abolished it, I was never called in the UK and never witnessed the empanelment. It's still around in Ireland.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

14th February 2021, 06:50 PM	#44
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,162	Originally Posted by Thor 2 I take my hat off to you psion, you are a grand master in the art of distortion. That you could imply I was championing OBE in my post is beyond belief. Did you catch that line on the end of my post: "The idea may have been flawed but there was an aim. It wasn't just change for the sake of it." What was the aim of implementing OBE other than implementing OBE? Is that how you would justify implementing any idea no matter how hair brained?
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

15th February 2021, 12:57 PM	#45
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by psionl0 What was the aim of implementing OBE other than implementing OBE? Is that how you would justify implementing any idea no matter how hair brained? I think it's time to quit as the silliness is becoming extreme. This thread is about The Lords not about OBE. You introduced that topic in that flawed post a way back. Your wayward thinking was detected by others as well as myself.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

15th February 2021, 04:24 PM	#46
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,162	Originally Posted by Thor 2 I think it's time to quit as the silliness is becoming extreme. I didn't think that you could answer the question. Originally Posted by Thor 2 This thread is about The Lords not about OBE. You introduced that topic in that flawed post a way back. Your wayward thinking was detected by others as well as myself. I have brought this concept back to the HoL already: Your attitude goes something like this: Somebody: "We should reform the House of Lords". You: "Great idea! Let's do it!" Me: "What sort of reform do you have in mind"? You: "Details don't matter. CHARGE!" For the record, I can see some merit in an Upper House that represented the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (much like the Senate represents the states) - if not equally then with enough weight to stop Parliament being all about Londoners. However, that would only be useful if the HoL had more legislative power. Also, without the right voting system such a reform would be useless. It should also be established that a London-centric Parliament is actually a problem before we "fix" it and if so, reforms to the Commons could just as easily solve the problem and make the need to do anything about the House of Lords moot.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

17th February 2021, 02:21 PM	#47
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by psionl0 I didn't think that you could answer the question. I have brought this concept back to the HoL already: Your attitude goes something like this: Somebody: "We should reform the House of Lords". You: "Great idea! Let's do it!" Me: "What sort of reform do you have in mind"? You: "Details don't matter. CHARGE!" For the record, I can see some merit in an Upper House that represented the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (much like the Senate represents the states) - if not equally then with enough weight to stop Parliament being all about Londoners. However, that would only be useful if the HoL had more legislative power. Also, without the right voting system such a reform would be useless. It should also be established that a London-centric Parliament is actually a problem before we "fix" it and if so, reforms to the Commons could just as easily solve the problem and make the need to do anything about the House of Lords moot. You have a flair for drama psion. What do you think of all the seats taken by clergy? Truly representing the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and .......... Ireland too???? Well the orange coloured ones I suppose.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

17th February 2021, 03:01 PM	#48
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,532	Evgeny Lebedev is the son of a senior KGB officer. He and Dad bought a 65% share in the London Evening Standard newspaper. Later, Evgeny bought the The Independent and The Independent on Sunday newspapers. Later launched the i paper. Good friend of Boris Johnson. He's now Baron Lebedev of Hampton, and sits in the House of Lords (if and when he feels like it) So that's all right then.
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

17th February 2021, 03:27 PM	#49
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,616	Originally Posted by GlennB Evgeny Lebedev is the son of a senior KGB officer. He and Dad bought a 65% share in the London Evening Standard newspaper. Later, Evgeny bought the The Independent and The Independent on Sunday newspapers. Later launched the i paper. Good friend of Boris Johnson. He's now Baron Lebedev of Hampton, and sits in the House of Lords (if and when he feels like it) So that's all right then. It's all right pretty much by definition, though. Obviously he's been judged worthy to join the ranks of the nobility, with all that entails. If he's qualified to be a baron, he's qualified to sit in the House of Lords. (I'm not sure what being the son of a KGB officer has to do with it, unless it's an attempt at ad hom.)

17th February 2021, 03:34 PM	#50
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,532	Originally Posted by theprestige It's all right pretty much by definition, though. Obviously he's been judged worthy to join the ranks of the nobility, with all that entails. If he's qualified to be a baron, he's qualified to sit in the House of Lords. (I'm not sure what being the son of a KGB officer has to do with it, unless it's an attempt at ad hom.) The qualifications in this case are ownership of media outlets and friendship with the PM, afaics. Can you spot any others? 'Judged worthy'? By whom and by what criteria? I can't believe you wrote what you just did.
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

17th February 2021, 04:11 PM	#51
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,162	Originally Posted by Thor 2 What do you think of all the seats taken by clergy? Truly representing the interests of England, Scotland, Wales and .......... Ireland too???? Well the orange coloured ones I suppose. If you read my post properly you would see that I am suggesting that a reform in that direction might be worth considering. I am definitely NOT suggesting that the HoL currently represents those regions now.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

17th February 2021, 04:44 PM	#52
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,616	Originally Posted by GlennB The qualifications in this case are ownership of media outlets and friendship with the PM, afaics. Can you spot any others? 'Judged worthy'? By whom and by what criteria? According to the Life Peerages Act of 1958, judged worthy by the monarch, according to whatever criteria they want. The traditional basis for peerage seems to be ownership of substantial capital assets or similarly significant socio-economic power and influence. I'm not sure a legislative body reserved for the nation's VIPs is a good idea. I'm also not sure it isn't. But it seems to me that if you have one, and owning a chunk of land qualifies, then sitting on top of a modest media empire should probably qualify as well. I mean, just the fact that you have the PM's ear, and he's willing to make a case for your peerage to the monarch, and she's willing to hear that case and grant your peerage, is probably the only evidence we need that you're a mover and a shaker and could well occupy a seat in the VIP legislature alongside your peers. Quote: I can't believe you wrote what you just did. And yet here we are.

17th February 2021, 08:32 PM	#53
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by psionl0 If you read my post properly you would see that I am suggesting that a reform in that direction might be worth considering. I am definitely NOT suggesting that the HoL currently represents those regions now. Nah ...... throw them out and create a house that is elected by the people for the people. I am sure I have heard that somewhere before.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

17th February 2021, 11:24 PM	#54
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,162	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Nah ...... throw them out and create a house that is elected by the people for the people. I am sure I have heard that somewhere before. You mean the house of commons?
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

18th February 2021, 02:53 AM	#55
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,532	Originally Posted by theprestige According to the Life Peerages Act of 1958, judged worthy by the monarch, according to whatever criteria they want. The traditional basis for peerage seems to be ownership of substantial capital assets or similarly significant socio-economic power and influence. I'm not sure a legislative body reserved for the nation's VIPs is a good idea. I'm also not sure it isn't. But it seems to me that if you have one, and owning a chunk of land qualifies, then sitting on top of a modest media empire should probably qualify as well. I mean, just the fact that you have the PM's ear, and he's willing to make a case for your peerage to the monarch, and she's willing to hear that case and grant your peerage, is probably the only evidence we need that you're a mover and a shaker and could well occupy a seat in the VIP legislature alongside your peers. The Queen has no say in the matter. She just signs the paperwork.
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

18th February 2021, 01:02 PM	#56
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by psionl0 You mean the house of commons? You have created an art form with obtuse utterances.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

18th February 2021, 05:18 PM	#57
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by Thor 2 You have created an art form with obtuse utterances. Washington Allston supposedly said, “Never judge a work of art by its defects.” In this case I disagree with him.
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

18th February 2021, 05:34 PM	#58
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,616	Originally Posted by GlennB The Queen has no say in the matter. She just signs the paperwork. What happens if she Bartlebys the paperwork? Does the PM bung her off to debtor's prison and ennoble the guy anyway? Is there even any provision in law for impeaching the monarch? Or at that point is it all down to war, and bloody constraint? --- Anyway, my point still stands. In principle, the nobility are literally the VIPs of the nation. If the highest authority in the land is the PM, and this guy has the PM's ear and can get himself ennobled on that basis, then it obviously follows the he's a big damn VIP. Q.E.D.

18th February 2021, 05:44 PM	#59
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,162	Originally Posted by Thor 2 You have created an art form with obtuse utterances. Everybody else would have understood me perfectly. The UK already has "a house that is elected by the people for the people". It is called "The House of Commons". Why do you think that duplicating it is a good idea? Originally Posted by EHocking Washington Allston supposedly said, “Never judge a work of art by its defects.” In this case I disagree with him. OK, so not everybody.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

19th February 2021, 12:22 PM	#60
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Originally Posted by psionl0 Everybody else would have understood me perfectly. The UK already has "a house that is elected by the people for the people". It is called "The House of Commons". Why do you think that duplicating it is a good idea? Ah well, federally we have two houses of parliament elected "by the people" in Australia. And the states also, apart from Queensland, also. Not a good idea you think?
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

19th February 2021, 04:56 PM	#61
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Ah well, federally we have two houses of parliament elected "by the people" in Australia. And the states also, apart from Queensland, also. Not a good idea you think? The territories are also unicameral. This is a great quote from the leader of the council who introduced the Upper House abolition bill, fitting for this thread discussion, Until we had a majority here, [the Council] was obstructive, and now that we have a majority here it is useless."
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

19th February 2021, 05:02 PM	#62
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,616	I'm convinced that every sensible system of government should have at least one entity that acts to obstruct the progress of the others.

19th February 2021, 05:50 PM	#63
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,162	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Ah well, federally we have two houses of parliament elected "by the people" in Australia. And the states also, apart from Queensland, also. Not a good idea you think? If you keep shifting the goal posts then it is difficult to discuss anything with you. You originally said "elected by the people for the people". This is traditionally what a lower house is meant to be. The Senate is elected by the people for the States. Do you tnink the House of Lords should be replaced by an equivalent body? That was my original suggestion.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

20th February 2021, 12:55 PM	#64
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,688	Ah yes ........ shifting the goal posts. That's always a good line to use when you are losing, or have lost, the argument. You could also throw in something about a straw man to maybe. Just as irrelevant as the goal post thing but what the hell.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

20th February 2021, 12:58 PM	#65
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,114	I like the idea of ending all titles by declaring that as of, say, 1st Jan 2023, no tile can be inherited. All Lords and other titles will then just die out and the last holder of that title dies.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

20th February 2021, 01:38 PM	#66
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,616	Originally Posted by Nessie I like the idea of ending all titles by declaring that as of, say, 1st Jan 2023, no tile can be inherited. All Lords and other titles will then just die out and the last holder of that title dies. They already have non-inheritable titles though.

20th February 2021, 01:48 PM	#67
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	The point of the House of Lords is to scrutinise the proposed legislation of House of Commons and in particular to alleviate the more extreme intentions of the HoC - whatever the political colour of the HoC. The usefuness of the HoC is directly proportional to the size of any government's majority. Though those who support the government of the time might disagree.
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	__________________ Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning. Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.

20th February 2021, 05:53 PM	#68
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,162	Originally Posted by Thor 2 Ah yes ........ shifting the goal posts. That's always a good line to use when you are losing, or have lost, the argument. You could also throw in something about a straw man to maybe. Just as irrelevant as the goal post thing but what the hell. You can not be that illiterate. You are willfully ignoring what I have posted so that you can maintain this imaginary narrative of yours.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975