Bolitics The New Condem Government

[thetrees]

They are supposed to be more guarded, when speaking in public.  Don't let people see the utter contempt this clique have for them.

 

 

They could do with some fear in their lives.

Is this out of an IKEA catalogue?

[mjmooney]

[snowychap]

House of Lords swells with addition of would-be-mayors and party donors

 

 

A billionaire industrialist, a nightclub owner and the former boss of ITV were among 30 peerages announced in a working peers list that was dominated by donors to all parties.

Fourteen Tory peers were announced, 10 Liberal Democrats, five Labour and one Green, taking the size of the Lords to an unmanageable 785, making it one of the largest legislatures in the world.

The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott said the list included some good individuals but was contaminating parliament because of the number of big donors who had apparently been rewarded with peerages.

"Cash for peerages pollutes parliament and the political parties that collude in this corruption," he said. Efforts had to be redoubled to reform the second chamber and take big money out of politics.

The two big Tory donors appointed are Sir Anthony Bamford, chairman of JCB, the yellow mechanical digger manufacturer, whose fortune is estimated by the Sunday Times at £1.65bn, and Howard Leigh, a property businessman and Conservative party treasurer.

Bamford has personally given £101,000 to the party and his associated companies £4.7m. Leigh has given £219,002 over the years.

Labour has also elevated its donors after receiving favourable coverage for its decision to nominate Doreen Lawrence, the campaigner against police racism and mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

Ed Miliband nominated William Haughey, a refrigerator magnate who has given Labour £1.3m. A peerage was also given to Sir Charles Allen, the former chief executive of ITV and chairman of the Labour party executive board.

Jon Mendelsohn, a former fundraiser under Gordon Brown, has also been given a peerage. He made his name with the lobbying firm Lucas Lawson Mendelsohn at the start of the Blair government.

Nick Clegg, thwarted in his efforts to introduce an elected second chamber free of patronage, also took to appointing two major Lib Dem donors – and largely ignored the pool of nominees selected by the party conference.

James Palumbo, co-founder of the Ministry of Sound nightclub, who is now chairman of the music company that owns the south London venue, has given around £600,000 to the Lib Dems as well as offering up his London super-club as a campaign headquarters for the party.

The pizza entrepreneur and philanthropist Rumi Verjee is possibly Clegg's most controversial appointment since his connection with the Lib Dems is relatively new. The Ugandan-born Indian entrepreneur is believed to be worth £125m. He has donated £770,000 since May 2010, largely to help with the development of minority ethnic candidates.

Only two of the peers announced on Thursday have ever appeared on the Lib Dems' democratically elected interim peers list – the party's former candidate for mayor of London, Brian Paddick, who was elected to the panel in 2008, and the party's longstanding communications adviser Olly Grender, who was elected to the 2006 panel.

There is likely to be an inquest into why the party's procedures appear to have been set aside. Grender was press secretary to Paddy Ashdown and Nick Clegg. She is likely to play a key role in the Lib Dem 2015 election team, giving advice to campaign co-ordinator Lord Ashdown. She has been a regular on the BBC Newsnight political panel, alongside Danny Finkelstein, who was also given a peerage by the Conservatives. Finkelstein, a comment writer at the Times, has been an informal adviser to the leadership and was head of policy during John Major's premiership.

Three Tory women were elevated: Annabel Goldie, former leader of the Scottish Conservatives; Fiona Hodgson, ex-chairman of the Conservative Women's Organisation; and Dame Lucy Neville-Rolfe, former No10 policy unit member.

The Tesco executive Chris Holmes, described as the Seb Coe of the London Paralympics – a non-executive director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission – also joins the Tory benches in the Lords.

Two former Tory MPs were given peerages: John Horam and Matthew Carrington, chief executive of the Retail Motor Industry Federation. Horam was a Labour and SDP MP. Richard Balfe, another former Labour MP and once David Cameron's "envoy to the trade unions", is also made a peer. Sir Stephen Sherbourne, former political adviser to Sir Michael Howard, also joins the Lords.

The first Green peer, Jenny Jones, was chosen by her party in a ballot. But Ukip, despite its strong showing in the local elections, has been given no peers, and has described the list as the confection of the establishment for the establishment.

Such lists are likely to continue indefinitely after the failure of Clegg's plans to introduce an elected second chamber. The upper house now contains 27 more members than in 2007 once deaths, resignations and expulsions are accounted for.

The most notable appointment remains Labour's elevation of Doreen Lawrence. Ed Miliband said: "Over the past 20 years, Doreen Lawrence has had a profound impact on Britain. Since the horrific racist murder of her son, Doreen has shown incredible strength and courage as she sought, and continues to seek, justice for Stephen. She has changed attitudes to policing and racism in this country and I have no doubt that her strength and determination will be a huge asset to the House of Lords in the coming years." Lawrence herself said she hoped to speak on race relations and for the under-privileged.

The appointments mean the Conservatives become the largest party in the Lords with 222 peers. Labour has 221 and the Lib Dems 99, giving the two coalition parties a majority of 100 over Labour.

The government said the Tories now had 28% of the peers in the Lords but had received 36% of the popular vote at the 2010 election. It said Tony Blair appointed 114 Labour peers and only 42 Conservatives between 1997 and 2001. In this parliament, Cameron has created 64 Tory and 44 Labour peers.

 

Oh dear, oh dear. It is rather shameless stuff from the main three parties, isn't it?

Edited August 2, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

yup, I think it should be one in one out from now on

[villaajax]

I just think we should get rid of the House of Lords anyway

[peterms]

 

Ed Miliband nominated William Haughey, a refrigerator magnate

 

Fridge magnet.  Very good.

[Eames]

I just think we should get rid of the House of Lords anyway

 

There is nothing wrong with the notion of a second chamber..... the issue in the UK is how that chamber is populated. 

 

It should not be possible for any politician to nominate their pets or their paymasters. The Upper House should be a solely elected chamber staffed by those there on merit. It should also be no larger than 250 people. 

[snowychap]

 

I just think we should get rid of the House of Lords anyway

 

There is nothing wrong with the notion of a second chamber..... the issue in the UK is how that chamber is populated. 

 

It should not be possible for any politician to nominate their pets or their paymasters. The Upper House should be a solely elected chamber staffed by those there on merit. It should also be no larger than 250 people.

 

Elected by whom, how (method, i.e. FPTP, PR, AV) and on what basis (e.g. constituency or as part of a (non party) nominated list or...)?

I don't think there's anything wrong with the practice of a second chamber. If it's part of the checks and balances of a system then it's fine (more than that it's possibly crucial).

If, however, it is stuffed full of, as you say, pets, paymasters, cronies or just former members of the commons then even the good work that the chamber does (by standing up to government when the Commons doesn't) has a pretty bitter taste to it.

One idea I read recently, which I thought was an interesting one, went something along the lines of a second chamber with a 7 year fixed term for each intake (no returns allowed) where a list of nominated candidates was put together by a committee made up of randomly selected members of the public (a kind of jury/public service kind of thing) and then voted upon so that we had an elected chamber of people with knowledge and experience in particular fields who were not hamstrung by the need to do the obviously popular/populist thing in order to be reelected. I can see an immediate potential flaw in that this kind of chamber could 'go rogue', I suppose, but still it chimes with my thoughts about trying to keep the nature of what is good (in practical terms) about its place currently. (I apologize if I haven't recounted this idea precisely as per the original; I think it covers the gist of it, though)

What really irks me on the above story is less the Lords and its make up (as I think there's the same huge discussion that's always been there about its future) but more the utter arse of the parties and their leaders who will, one day, profess to being appalled by this sort of thing but, on the next, will quite shamelessly continue to indulge in it. Then they still expect people to swallow the crap that they spout about being unhappy with it. I suppose, when challenged, they'll go all playground, start pointing at the other two and say it's their fault that they've not been able to live up to the principles they claim they have.

Edited for poor English (it's becoming a worrying theme ).

Edited August 2, 2013 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

 

 

I just think we should get rid of the House of Lords anyway

 

There is nothing wrong with the notion of a second chamber..... the issue in the UK is how that chamber is populated. 

 

It should not be possible for any politician to nominate their pets or their paymasters. The Upper House should be a solely elected chamber staffed by those there on merit. It should also be no larger than 250 people.

 

Elected by whom, how (method, i.e. FPTP, PR, AV) and on what basis (e.g. constituency or as part of a (non party) nominated list or...)?

I don't think there's anything wrong with the practice of a second chamber. If it's part of the checks and balances of a system then it's fine (more than that it's possibly crucial).

If, however, it is stuffed full of, as you say, pets, paymasters, cronies or just former members of the commons then even the good work that the chamber does (by standing up to government when the Commons doesn't) has a pretty bitter taste to it.

One idea I read recently, which I thought was an interesting one, went something along the lines of a second chamber with a 7 year fixed term for each intake (no returns allowed) where a list of nominated candidates was put together by a committee made up of randomly selected members of the public (a kind of jury/public service kind of thing) and then voted upon so that we had an elected chamber of people with knowledge and experience in particular fields who were not hamstrung by the need to do the obviously popular/populist thing in order to be reelected. I can see an immediate potential flaw in that this kind of chamber could 'go rogue', I suppose, but still it chimes with my thoughts about trying to keep the nature of what is good (in practical terms) about its place currently. (I apologize if I haven't recounted this idea precisely as per the original; I think it covers the gist of it, though)

What really irks me on the above story is less the Lords and its make up (as I think there's the same huge discussion that's always been there about its future) but more the utter arse of the parties and their leaders who will, one day, profess to being appalled by this sort of thing but, on the next, will quite shamelessly continue to indulge in it. Then they still expect people to swallow the crap that they spout about being unhappy with it. I suppose, when challenged, they'll go all playground and start pointing at the other two and saying it's their fault that they've not been able to live up to the principles they claim they have.

 

I suspect whoever you put there would soon be bought and act in the interest of the lobbyist  unfortunately .

 

 

but I agree with your last paragraph  .. when there is a bandwagon they will all jump on it until the next bandwagon starts and then they will jump onto that one whilst the previous bandwagon just quietly goes back as it was

[drat01]

yup, I think it should be one in one out from now on

None in all out 

[peterms]

The Upper House should be a solely elected chamber staffed by those there on merit.

 

These two concepts have little overlap, sadly.

[Eames]

 

The Upper House should be a solely elected chamber staffed by those there on merit.

 

These two concepts have little overlap, sadly.

 

Its a nice idea though...... 

[colhint]

 

yup, I think it should be one in one out from now on

None in all out 

 

 

 

 a teensy bit drastic but  I'll do a deal with you

 

One in, one out, one shot

[mockingbird_franklin]

Any second chamber should be as independent of any political parties as possible, free from Lobbyists, and populated by free thinking, free willed and open minded un-corruptible people, so we would be lucky to find 250 willing participants who meet such criteria. That's not that i don't think people like that exist, just that most wouldn't have the time of day for the corrupt world of British politics and Government

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

 

 

 

And one Twitter photo and the views of a couple of bystanders doesn't prove anything, one way or another.  You could be right, and they might simply have turned up to a place they thought was full of black people and started randonly targetting them simply because of their colour.  Or they could have been reacting to specific intelligence, and then targetted people based on their behaviour in the station, as their regulations appears to allow.

 

 

looks like the areas they targeted were

 

Some 139 people were arrested at locations including London, Durham, Manchester, Wales and Somerset

 

 

Somerset !!!

[drat01]

 

 

yup, I think it should be one in one out from now on

None in all out 

 

 

 

 a teensy bit drastic but  I'll do a deal with you

 

One in, one out, one shot

 

Sounds like the worst hokey kokey ever

[snowychap]

looks like the areas they targeted were

...

Somerset !!!

Getting ready for Cornish independence (using Devon as some sort of buffer/no man's land)?

Edited August 2, 2013 by snowychap

[peterms]

Any second chamber should be as independent of any political parties as possible, free from Lobbyists, and populated by free thinking, free willed and open minded un-corruptible people, so we would be lucky to find 250 willing participants who meet such criteria. That's not that i don't think people like that exist, just that most wouldn't have the time of day for the corrupt world of British politics and Government

 

The party system has a lot of faults.  However, if you look at the people who stand as independents, they tend to be largely either covering up their broad party sympathies (especially in rural areas), or obsessives, or people who find it very difficult to work constructively with others, or raging narcissists with an ego the size of Brazil.  One or two honourable exceptions, like the doctor who stood as a protest against a local hospital being shut.

 

Often, independent candidates are stunned by the low vote they get, and taken aback that the world hasn't recognised their excellent qualities.  One example of a "look at me!" candidate here.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

free thinking, free willed and open minded un-corruptible people

 

No chance.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Any second chamber should be as independent of any political parties as possible, free from Lobbyists, and populated by free thinking, free willed and open minded un-corruptible people, so we would be lucky to find 250 willing participants who meet such criteria. That's not that i don't think people like that exist, just that most wouldn't have the time of day for the corrupt world of British politics and Government

 

The party system has a lot of faults.  However, if you look at the people who stand as independents, they tend to be largely either covering up their broad party sympathies (especially in rural areas), or obsessives, or people who find it very difficult to work constructively with others, or raging narcissists with an ego the size of Brazil.  One or two honourable exceptions, like the doctor who stood as a protest against a local hospital being shut.

 

Often, independent candidates are stunned by the low vote they get, and taken aback that the world hasn't recognised their excellent qualities.  One example of a "look at me!" candidate here.

 

Oh I see the flaws in my ideal second chamber. but for me impartiality is the best check against the worst indulgences and excesses of our elected MP's and by the goverments they form. For safety it has to be anything but a rubber stamping of the Goverments proposed Bills and Acts and the interested parties that are often in the background shadily pushing the adgenda's.