chrisp65 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 A sexually incontinent man, a known proven compulsive liar, that has no coherent ideas and is the puppet of Cummings advertises for a person to answer his questions for him. In the same week, having said he would end cronyism, he makes Lords of his brother, his financial backer, his Brexit supporter mates and Ian Botham. Ian Botham is now part of the legislature, deciding on the finer points of the laws of the country. Sat alongside Kate Hoey and Evgeny Lebedev, a man who’s money comes from when his ex KGB dad ‘bought’ a Russian bank. Now I know we mustn’t condemn on the sins of the father, but the guy is a dual UK/Russian national with media interests and his money comes from the 90’s KGB mafia take over of Russian utilities. I’m sure there was some sort of an issue with that recently? It’s important we keep taking the piss out of those crazy Americans, yeah? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted August 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 1, 2020 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 22 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 On 30/07/2020 at 17:10, Chindie said: The Tory party needs to address it's problem with sex offenders etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 (edited) Wonder who it is, need to research which ones are in their fifties but gonna be a lot Some outlets are saying former MP, others are saying current and prominent Edited August 1, 2020 by bannedfromHandV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 30 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Wonder who it is, need to research which ones are in their fifties but gonna be a lot Some outlets are saying former MP, others are saying current and prominent He’s a current MP and former minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 He was probably just curious whether he had it in him to do something like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 re the Lords system.. How can you have a check and balance 2nd chamber that's directly appointed by the current pm; it's madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: re the Lords system.. How can you have a check and balance 2nd chamber that's directly appointed by the current pm; it's madness That was the change Blair brought in wasn’t it? Who could have foreseen it being a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2020 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: That was the change Blair brought in wasn’t it? Who could have foreseen it being a problem nah, governments of all hues have stuffed the Lords with their own since forever. The change Blair bought in was reducing the number of hereditry peers to 92 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 8 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: re the Lords system.. How can you have a check and balance 2nd chamber that's directly appointed by the current pm; it's madness If we start from the argument of Stafford Beer that 'the purpose of a system is what it does' then the purpose of the House of Lords is not providing 'checks and balances', which it barely does and is forbidden from doing too much of. The main purpose of the House of Lords in Beer's terms is to provide Prime Ministers with a place to reward people for various things without having to deposit money in their bank accounts. In other words, it is the open centre of corruption in British politics, and all the government did this week was make that more explicit than usual, because this government is more shameless about corruption than usual (how is Jenrick still in a job?). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: the purpose of the House of Lords is not providing 'checks and balances', which it barely does and is forbidden from doing too much of I know the Lords discussion has been done over and over again and you make a reasonable point about how much it is allowed to provide some sort of check and balance but, whilst it may not be doing this to a satisfactory level - I agree - and you feel anything it may do is outweighed by being the centre of corruption in British politics (though I think the executive and cabinet are having a good go at competing for the prize currently as you acknowledge re: Jenrick), it does provide at least some sort of check and balance. In a system where there is very little check on executive power, we need to be very wary about simply dismissing institutions that may provide a little of it even whilst allowing for clear and obvious criticisms of those institutions. We find ourselves in a position where any potential check or balance of unbridled executive power is under attack from the executive (from laws to judicial review to select committees to procedures in parliament to Cabinet government to ministerial advisors being directly accountable to No. 10 advisors, &c.). I'm not sure it helps the fight against that to tear down something which, even in its present increasingly troubling state, may be able to provide some sort of check. Edited August 2, 2020 by snowychap 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 1 hour ago, snowychap said: I know the Lords discussion has been done over and over again and you make a reasonable point about how much it is allowed to provide some sort of check and balance but, whilst it may not be doing this to a satisfactory level - I agree - and you feel anything it may do is outweighed by being the centre of corruption in British politics (though I think the executive and cabinet are having a good go at competing for the prize currently as you acknowledge re: Jenrick), it does provide at least some sort of check and balance. In a system where there is very little check on executive power, we need to be very wary about simply dismissing institutions that may provide a little of it even whilst allowing for clear and obvious criticisms of those institutions. We find ourselves in a position where any potential check or balance of unbridled executive power is under attack from the executive (from laws to judicial review to select committees to procedures in parliament to Cabinet government to ministerial advisors being directly accountable to No. 10 advisors, &c.). I'm not sure it helps the fight against that to tear down something which, even in its present increasingly troubling state, may be able to provide some sort of check. As you say, I suspect that we agree on a number of the problems (the prevalence of corruption in British politics, that the House of Lords does not provide an adequate check on executive power, the shamelessness of the current government, that a better system would see the legislature gain power at the expense of the executive) but we obviously have a different perspective on how this could be addressed. I understand your concern about what would happen by abolishing the Lords, but I suppose I have a more 'aggressive' posture in that I think the harms caused by the Lords are caused by its very existence at this point, and that as such abolition is the only path that would actually address those weaknesses. Don't worry about repeating these conversations - I'm game as long as you are. Realistically, I know I'm not going to shut up about it Sadly, they are happening in a purely hypothetical world anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I understand your concern about what would happen by abolishing the Lords, but I suppose I have a more 'aggressive' posture in that I think the harms caused by the Lords are caused by its very existence at this point, and that as such abolition is the only path that would actually address those weaknesses. I think it just pushes us further along the road to a position of almost absolute executive power without particularly solving anything. The corruption won't go away - it may be less brazen but I'm not sure about that given the performances of this current lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 2, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2, 2020 I'm surprised some VT sleuth hasn't found out who the Tory rapist is yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted August 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, mjmooney said: I'm surprised some VT sleuth hasn't found out who the Tory rapist is yet. There are 6 men who meet the criteria - age, former minister, current MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, mjmooney said: I'm surprised some VT sleuth hasn't found out who the Tory rapist is yet. Too many to choose from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 2, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: There are 6 men who meet the criteria - age, former minister, current MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, LondonLax said: That was the change Blair brought in wasn’t it? Who could have foreseen it being a problem Is this someone not on the tory payroll unironically using the "But the previous Labour government" defence? 10 **** years. Edited August 2, 2020 by Davkaus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2020 1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said: There are 6 men who meet the criteria - age, former minister, current MP. I don't suppose complete cockwomble narrows it down much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts