If there was a referendum on the Monarchy, how would you vote?

[Stranraer]

I know it may be considered "political fantasy" but I'm interested to see how people would vote if the UK was given a referendum on the Monarchy.

[CB_NO3]

I know it may be considered "political fantasy" but I'm interested to see how people would vote if the UK was given a referendum on the Monarchy.
I would vote to abolish it but the most important one is to get shot of the House of Lords. Utter waste of cash.

[easty]

I'd absolutley vote to get rid of the monarchy.

[johnbc70]

Genuinely not fussed either way. Their 'work' should all be focussed on charity though as that is where they will add most benefit.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Yes I'd bin them.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I would vote to abolish any connection they have to government or the social fabric of the country and have a written constitution which specifically prohibits a person from holding any office ( even ceremonial ) by virtue of birth, at the same time making it clear that nobody, but nobody, is entitled to or should expect deference because of 'who' they were born. I would also take back into public ownership all and any land and property which should in reality belong to the 'citizens' of the UK ..... Especially that allegedly held by them 'in trust' ( sic ) for the nation and abolish any notion of public funding for a singe one of them.

After that I would not strip them of their, by that time meaningless, 'titles' or take away any money they can actually prove is theirs. As far as I'm concerned they can call themselves what they want. I would not feel it was fair to deprive all the snivelling sycophants out there who love to be treated like peasants and defer to their 'betters' of their fix of submissiveness.

If they want, all the folk who gush over them and their weddings and baby pictures can pay weekly into a voluntary royal family fund, that can be used to pay for as many helicopters and big houses as they want and also to pay for private security and the hire of the army ( if available ) for trooping the colour etc.

Dinnae get me started on the house of lords !!!

[Killiehibbie]

Off with their heads.

[Glory Lurker]

How the monarchy and the House of Lords can exist in this day and age is beyond comprehension.

[Craig_HFC]

I'd vote in the 'GTF' box.

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

I'm not fussed to be honest.

I'm not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination but I'm not desperate to see them go.

I certainly wouldn't vote for change whilst the present Queen is alive.

[HiBremian]

Not unrelated, but I reckon a ban on any religion having a state role would be more useful. Think of the régimes around the world with Clerics involved. Queeny is the Supreme Head of the Church of England, so she would be affected and essentially relegated to a more modest role like the scandinavian royals. Of course if the Windsors can't accept that, then I'd join the GTF column.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

I think they have a place in English society, but no place up here

[steakbake]

I think they have a place in English society, but no place up here

Why should they be inflicted on our English brothers and sisters? They've no place in a modern society full stop. I'd vote for them to GTF.

[Beefster]

I'd vote to abolish the monarchy but it would take a couple of generations to get rid of them.

[overdrive]

I'm not fussed to be honest.

I'm not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination but I'm not desperate to see them go.

I certainly wouldn't vote for change whilst the present Queen is alive.

Pretty much what I think on the matter too. I do think they should come under more financial scrutiny though and possibly link the royal budget to any changes in overall public spending.

[heretoday]

The monarchy should be dramatically scaled down to the status of Dutch or Scandanavian royals.

There's nothing wrong with having a national figurehead with a historical line, and the pageantry is good for the tourists, but there's a ton of expensive baggage that goes with it.

William and Kate are a nice couple and easy on the eye but what price Prince Andrew or Edward? Too high I'd say.

[#FromTheCapital]

I'm not fussed to be honest.

I'm not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination but I'm not desperate to see them go.

I certainly wouldn't vote for change whilst the present Queen is alive.

My thoughts also.

[Colr]

I'm a republican in the UK sense but I appreciate that many others aren't. The compromise we have is good enough to be going on with and eventually my view may prevail.

However, a referendum would be divisive and polarising with a negative fallout for society.

I would also keep the House of Lords as its not a legislating chamber and acts as a way for expertise from non-political experts to scrutinise legislation in a fairly open way. I'd insist that the members turned up and participated, though.

[Stranraer]

I'm a republican in the UK sense but I appreciate that many others aren't. The compromise we have is good enough to be going on with and eventually my view may prevail.

However, a referendum would be divisive and polarising with a negative fallout for society.

I would also keep the House of Lords as its not a legislating chamber and acts as a way for expertise from non-political experts to scrutinise legislation in a fairly open way. I'd insist that the members turned up and participated, though.

Would you back an elected House of Lords? I imagine the turnout in such elections would be pretty small.

[RyeSloan]

Would you back an elected House of Lords? I imagine the turnout in such elections would be pretty small.

That's the problem with the approach of 'democratising' everything....look at the laughable turnout for the police commissioners elections.

I get the point that the House of Lords is outdated etc etc but I've not really seen any credible alternative proposed that doesn't have other drawbacks. Maybe the Scottish Parliament approach where the need for a second chamber is scrapped completely is a sound option...give more power to the elected representatives to scrutinise legislation without the need for a while second tier.

As for the Op...I used to be firmly republican and essentially still am but over time I've learned to see the royals as more of an institution and something that reflects the history of the country. Personally I probably support the Scandinavian / Dutch approach of scaling the whole operation down somewhat not entirely sure they are directly comparable.

I suppose ultimately I think there are probably a thousand more important things that change could be focussed on and there is a lack of fundamental populist support for a huge change in the way the royals are considered or their position in our society...more likely that time and society in general will enact any change required rather than the need for a paradigm shift through a referendum or the like.

[Colr]

Would you back an elected House of Lords? I imagine the turnout in such elections would be pretty small.

My problem with that is that the people who would stand would be the same vacuous politico's that many of us are getting tired off in the House of Lords rather than real people with real life experience and expertise. I'm guessing that many if the people who should be in such a chamber would not want to put themselves through an election process and may not have the skills required by hustings.

I wouldn't fancy it.

[lord bunberry]

Why should they be inflicted on our English brothers and sisters? They've no place in a modern society full stop. I'd vote for them to GTF.
I suspect if it ever came to a vote the English would vote to keep them.

[SHODAN]

Get rid of them.

[Hibs Class]

That's the problem with the approach of 'democratising' everything....look at the laughable turnout for the police commissioners elections.

I get the point that the House of Lords is outdated etc etc but I've not really seen any credible alternative proposed that doesn't have other drawbacks. Maybe the Scottish Parliament approach where the need for a second chamber is scrapped completely is a sound option...give more power to the elected representatives to scrutinise legislation without the need for a while second tier.

As for the Op...I used to be firmly republican and essentially still am but over time I've learned to see the royals as more of an institution and something that reflects the history of the country. Personally I probably support the Scandinavian / Dutch approach of scaling the whole operation down somewhat not entirely sure they are directly comparable.

I suppose ultimately I think there are probably a thousand more important things that change could be focussed on and there is a lack of fundamental populist support for a huge change in the way the royals are considered or their position in our society...more likely that time and society in general will enact any change required rather than the need for a paradigm shift through a referendum or the like.

I don't recall seeing anything in Scotland where the need for a second chamber was discussed or debated, let alone scrapped. You're right that we don't have one, but I don't think that means we wouldn't benefit from having one.

[marinello59]

I suspect if it ever came to a vote the English would vote to keep them.

As would many Scots. That's why Salmond wanted to keep the monarchy in an Independent Scotland.

[danhibees1875]

Coronation chicken and Pippa Middleton are the only 2 positives I can see from them.

It's high up on the BBC "top news" that Kate Middleton has gained a diving qualification... I just don't get it... :confused:

[HappyAsHellas]

Come the revolution comrades, they'll be first up against the wall.:greengrin

[Speedy]

I don't care either way so wouldn't vote.

[ronaldo7]

I'd give the lot of them a one way ticket to Calais, with a tv crew. Just to see how they coped likes.

In all seriousness, they are the class system personified. Get rid would be my vote.

It would have saved us £100,486 by not re-naming the Glasgow Southern after Lizzie the First.

[Newry Hibs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctOHo4RzZEc

Doug Stanhope ....

[IWasThere2016]

I'd vote to abolish the monarchy but it would take a couple of generations to get rid of them.

This.

[lucky]

I happily vote to remove the monarch as Head of State and move to an elected President. But I would wait until the Queen has passed before we move to this model.

[Pretty Boy]

I was having this argument with a lady in work the other day who is a proper royalist. As in the type who stands in the pissing rain for 5 hours to see the Queen wave from the back of her luxury Rolls Royce. I've long been of a Republican stance although I have on occasion flirted with the idea of softening and accepting a scaled back immediate Royal Family for tradition and ceremonial purposes but scrap the privileges for the 27th in line to the throne hangers on.

Anyway back to the royalist lady in my work who came out with an argument that always amuses me when people who support a royal family use it. 'Oh I think Charles should step aside and let William take over straight away when the Queen dies.' Sorry but no, if you support a system based on hereditary entitlement and inherited privilege then you take whatever comes your way, you can't support both and unelected head of state and also want a choice over who the next one should be.

[easty]

Anyway back to the royalist lady in my work who came out with an argument that always amuses me when people who support a royal family use it. 'Oh I think Charles should step aside and let William take over straight away when the Queen dies.' Sorry but no, if you support a system based on hereditary entitlement and inherited privilege then you take whatever comes your way, you can't support both and unelected head of state and also want a choice over who the next one should be.

Why not though? Surely if you accept that someone (someone being anyone who'd vote to keep the monarchy) is willing to go along with the notion of a group of people being born into such a role within the country, it's not that far a leap to believe that the same someone would be believe that, of those people, the more photogenic/popular/nicer person should be the "winner".

**** it, let's have Jeremy Clarkson hosting the King Idol on ITV, Charles, William and Harry are the contestants, they can all wave, cut ribbons at mock opening ceremonies and give us examples of thier xmas speech, all live on the telly. The public can vote by phone (£1.50 plus your standard network rate - money goes to the King Idol winner), and if it's a tie it goes to deadlock, and Simon Cowell just decides, probably based on whose name he can fit into a catchy One Direction christmas number 1 single. Or something like that.

[Bristolhibby]

I would vote to abolish any connection they have to government or the social fabric of the country and have a written constitution which specifically prohibits a person from holding any office ( even ceremonial ) by virtue of birth, at the same time making it clear that nobody, but nobody, is entitled to or should expect deference because of 'who' they were born. I would also take back into public ownership all and any land and property which should in reality belong to the 'citizens' of the UK ..... Especially that allegedly held by them 'in trust' ( sic ) for the nation and abolish any notion of public funding for a singe one of them.

After that I would not strip them of their, by that time meaningless, 'titles' or take away any money they can actually prove is theirs. As far as I'm concerned they can call themselves what they want. I would not feel it was fair to deprive all the snivelling sycophants out there who love to be treated like peasants and defer to their 'betters' of their fix of submissiveness.

If they want, all the folk who gush over them and their weddings and baby pictures can pay weekly into a voluntary royal family fund, that can be used to pay for as many helicopters and big houses as they want and also to pay for private security and the hire of the army ( if available ) for trooping the colour etc.

Dinnae get me started on the house of lords !!!

This totally.

The Crown Estate! Purleese. That all needs to go back into public ownership.

I mean we are talking Willian the Conqueror type land ownership ****. Get it sorted.

Lords needs to fold as well. A proper second elected chamber in place with elections running half way through the Parliaments so there is no automatic majority.

J

[Bishop Hibee]

I'd vote to get rid. I always laugh when 'tourism' is used as an excuse to keep them. Like France and the USA have no tourists?

The whole thing perpetuates the class system in the UK. The way the establishment protects them is scandalous too. Have you ever see a photo of Harry and James Hewitt next to each other? Two peas in a pod.

[Hibrandenburg]

It really pains me to know I grew up and lived in a society that is corrupt from the top to the bottom. If you want to elevate yourself to the highest status the UK has to offer you have to play by their rules and the rules are heavily swayed in their favour. The way things stand they will always have the power because even our psydo democracy swears allegiance to them and our whole society is built around retaining their power. Unfortunately the system around them is solid as a rock and change will never happen in my lifetime unless Scotland removes itself from the union.

[PeeJay]

I know it may be considered "political fantasy" but I'm interested to see how people would vote if the UK was given a referendum on the Monarchy.

Seems most poster replies here are "no", but I think the people of the UK would generally vote to keep them, they seem to me to very popular as an institution over your way?

Not sure how many monarchies have been removed through electoral ballot, don't quite see which political party would place such a motion in its manifesto and hope to win an election on the back of such a proposal.

Think here in Germany (no doubt the US too) everyone would hope the UK keeps them as the Germans "generally" love the pageantry, tradition and quaintness of it all - particularly, as "we" don't have to pay for any of it ... :greengrin

[liamh2202]

Seems most poster replies here are "no", but I think the people of the UK would generally vote to keep them, they seem to me to very popular as an institution over your way?

Not sure how many monarchies have been removed through electoral ballot, don't quite see which political party would place such a motion in its manifesto and hope to win an election on the back of such a proposal.

Think here in Germany (no doubt the US too) everyone would hope the UK keeps them as the Germans "generally" love the pageantry, tradition and quaintness of it all - particularly, as "we" don't have to pay for any of it ... :greengrin


I don't mind either way tbh but it would be worth it just to hear it in the queens speach haha

[Danderhall Hibs]

I'd vote to get rid. I always laugh when 'tourism' is used as an excuse to keep them. Like France and the USA have no tourists?

The whole thing perpetuates the class system in the UK. The way the establishment protects them is scandalous too. Have you ever see a photo of Harry and James Hewitt next to each other? Two peas in a pod.

That's always an argument that's used by supporters. The only way we'd know if getting rid off them affects tourism is by actually getting rid off them!

Let's give it a bash!

[Danderhall Hibs]

Why do folk support them anyway? Why are they so protective of them?

[Hibrandenburg]

Why do folk support them anyway? Why are they so protective of them?

Think they fill some kind of hole in the human psyche, bit like religion, football and gang membership. It probably helps people feel part of a herd.

[Alex Trager]

I'm a republican in the UK sense but I appreciate that many others aren't. The compromise we have is good enough to be going on with and eventually my view may prevail.

However, a referendum would be divisive and polarising with a negative fallout for society.

I would also keep the House of Lords as its not a legislating chamber and acts as a way for expertise from non-political experts to scrutinise legislation in a fairly open way. I'd insist that the members turned up and participated, though.

And surely would scrap their 300 pound per day wage. Which they absolutely should not be receiving givent the fact they are all millionaires who half the time dont turn up

[marinello59]

And surely would scrap their 300 pound per day wage. Which they absolutely should not be receiving givent the fact they are all millionaires who half the time dont turn up

They don't get a wage, they get an attendance allowance of £300 for days they turn up. If they ain't there they get nowt.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Abolition, naturally. A head of state based upon accident of birth is a medieval practice, as is an unelected House of Lords. It's an embarrassment to a so called twenty-first century democracy, for which there is no logical defence.

[Killiehibbie]

Why not though? Surely if you accept that someone (someone being anyone who'd vote to keep the monarchy) is willing to go along with the notion of a group of people being born into such a role within the country, it's not that far a leap to believe that the same someone would be believe that, of those people, the more photogenic/popular/nicer person should be the "winner".

**** it, let's have Jeremy Clarkson hosting the King Idol on ITV, Charles, William and Harry are the contestants, they can all wave, cut ribbons at mock opening ceremonies and give us examples of thier xmas speech, all live on the telly. The public can vote by phone (£1.50 plus your standard network rate - money goes to the King Idol winner), and if it's a tie it goes to deadlock, and Simon Cowell just decides, probably based on whose name he can fit into a catchy One Direction christmas number 1 single. Or something like that.I'd watch something like them starring in a Game Of Thrones type programme.

[Keith_M]

I would vote to abolish it but the most important one is to get shot of the House of Lords. Utter waste of cash.


:agree:


I'd go so far as to abolish all these inherited and bestowed titles that are a left over from the Dark Ages.

I mean, Baron? Duke? Prince & Princess? What century are we living in?


I'd also abolish (or at least rename) all awards with the word 'Empire' in them. Some people need a history lesson and a wee word about the current state of the 'Empire'.

[Scouse Hibee]

I will always support the Royle family, let's get them in the palace.

[Pete]

Think they fill some kind of hole in the human psyche, bit like religion, football and gang membership. It probably helps people feel part of a herd.

:agree:

Also, institutions with glorious pasts that are under attack or threatened in some way seem to be attractive to people for some reason.

[JeMeSouviens]

Why not though? Surely if you accept that someone (someone being anyone who'd vote to keep the monarchy) is willing to go along with the notion of a group of people being born into such a role within the country, it's not that far a leap to believe that the same someone would be believe that, of those people, the more photogenic/popular/nicer person should be the "winner".

**** it, let's have Jeremy Clarkson hosting the King Idol on ITV, Charles, William and Harry are the contestants, they can all wave, cut ribbons at mock opening ceremonies and give us examples of thier xmas speech, all live on the telly. The public can vote by phone (£1.50 plus your standard network rate - money goes to the King Idol winner), and if it's a tie it goes to deadlock, and Simon Cowell just decides, probably based on whose name he can fit into a catchy One Direction christmas number 1 single. Or something like that.

I've been saying this for years. Call it "The Rex Factor" and do the elimination by guillotine. Guaranteed ratings winner. :wink:

[Keith_M]

I've been saying this for years. Call it "The Rex Factor" and do the elimination by guillotine. Guaranteed ratings winner. :wink:


I'd watch that.

[CropleyWasGod]

According to Mark Thomas, whose show on the Fringe is excellent as always, it is a criminal offence to imagine the end of the monarchy.

You have been warned :)

[stoneyburn hibs]

According to Mark Thomas, whose show on the Fringe is excellent as always, it is a criminal offence to imagine the end of the monarchy.

You have been warned :)

I'm in trouble, I imagine it in HD.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm in trouble, I imagine it in HD.
Encouraging a foreigner to imagine it is also a crime. :)

[Future17]

They don't get a wage, they get an attendance allowance of £300 for days they turn up. If they ain't there they get nowt.

Not true unfortunately.

[PeeJay]

Not true unfortunately.

You sure it's "not true" - this link says it is: http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-allowances/

[Future17]

You sure it's "not true" - this link says it is: http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-allowances/

I'm not sure if that's the link you meant to post as it doesn't say anything about only getting cash for actually attending. :confused:

In any event, I'm 100% sure it isn't true. There's a whole raft of things that Members of the House of Lords can claim allowances and expenses for which don't require them to attend the actual Palace of Westminster.

[PeeJay]

I'm not sure if that's the link you meant to post as it doesn't say anything about only getting cash for actually attending. :confused:

In any event, I'm 100% sure it isn't true. There's a whole raft of things that Members of the House of Lords can claim allowances and expenses for which don't require them to attend the actual Palace of Westminster.

Well yeah, I don't think they get "cash" in the hand - they are Lords, after all :greengrin, but the allowance is effectively money in the bank.

This is what it actually says: "Entitlement is determined by attendance, not residence criteria."

It also clearly states: "Members who are not paid a salary may claim a flat rate attendance allowance of £150 or £300 for each sitting day they attend the House."

When you say, you are 100% this is not the case, do you have any evidence to back it up? Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but ...

[Future17]

Well yeah, I don't think they get "cash" in the hand - they are Lords, after all :greengrin, but the allowance is effectively money in the bank.

This is what it actually says: "Entitlement is determined by attendance, not residence criteria."

It also clearly states: "Members who are not paid a salary may claim a flat rate attendance allowance of £150 or £300 for each sitting day they attend the House."

When you say, you are 100% this is not the case, do you have any evidence to back it up? Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but ...



Only personal experience...not that I was a Lord you understand, but used to deal with them on occasion in a previous job. :greengrin

Once I finish enjoying Chelsea get pumped, I'll dig out the rules...

[Future17]

...as I say, it's not my gig anymore so not sure if this is current, but Chapter 3 of this guide deals with claiming for "parliamentary business" away from the Palace of Westminster:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2013/Guide-to-Financial-Support-For-Members-2013.pdf

[Keith_M]

Not sure that it actually answers the question about non-attendance but there's an article in today's Guardian about the money spent on Peers who never cast a vote. (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/16/non-voting-lords-expenses-electoral-reform-society-david-cameron)

[PeeJay]

...as I say, it's not my gig anymore so not sure if this is current, but Chapter 3 of this guide deals with claiming for "parliamentary business" away from the Palace of Westminster:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2013/Guide-to-Financial-Support-For-Members-2013.pdf

Yeah, but "Marinello59" (to whom you replied) referred to business at the HoL, which is not the same as Parliamentary business outwith the building, i.e. elsewhere. It quite clearly states that an allowance of 300 pounds (or 150) will be paid only for proven attendance at the HoL.

Being reimbursed for specific business conducted outside of the building (as you refer to) seems to be perfectly acceptable and reasonable to me: why should they work for nothing? Bearing this in mind, I think you're wrong to claim it's not true that they get 300 if they turn up and "nowt" if they don't ... that's not what the documents say.

[Future17]

Yeah, but "Marinello59" (to whom you replied) referred to business at the HoL, which is not the same as Parliamentary business outwith the building, i.e. elsewhere. It quite clearly states that an allowance of 300 pounds (or 150) will be paid only for proven attendance at the HoL.

Being reimbursed for specific business conducted outside of the building (as you refer to) seems to be perfectly acceptable and reasonable to me: why should they work for nothing? Bearing this in mind, I think you're wrong to claim it's not true that they get 300 if they turn up and "nowt" if they don't ... that's not what the documents say.

The part of the post I highlighted and stated wasn't true said - "If they ain't there they get nowt". The document details how they can claim allowances and expenses even when they are not "there", therefore it plainly isn't true. I'm not sure how you can argue that point?

There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had with regards to what is and is not "acceptable" and "reasonable" with regards to the allowances and expenses of HoL Members, however, we only have to go back a couple of years to see how Member of the Commons abused the system to know that it is possible.

There have been improvements and the system has been tightened, but it is still open to abuse.

[PeeJay]

The part of the post I highlighted and stated wasn't true said - "If they ain't there they get nowt". The document details how they can claim allowances and expenses even when they are not "there", therefore it plainly isn't true. I'm not sure how you can argue that point?

There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had with regards to what is and is not "acceptable" and "reasonable" with regards to the allowances and expenses of HoL Members, however, we only have to go back a couple of years to see how Member of the Commons abused the system to know that it is possible.

There have been improvements and the system has been tightened, but it is still open to abuse.

Are you being disingenuous, perhaps? The documents states (I already mentioned it) that they can claim expenses for certain business held outside of Parliament - the important words are "certain business", not everything, not just any old thing. You seem to me to be inferring that they can receive payment for nothing, i.e. even though they don't turn up: that's not what the document says? I'd suggest the rules clearly state reimbursement for the HoL is based on attendance, while for business conducted outside the premises other rules on reimbursement apply, but it only applies to certain business.
If a Lord does not turn up at the HoL he will not receive anything, if he does not conduct any business outside the HoL he will also receive nothing ... at least that is how I understand it.
The abuse aspect you refer to I concede is certainly out there ...

[Future17]

Are you being disingenuous, perhaps? The documents states (I already mentioned it) that they can claim expenses for certain business held outside of Parliament - the important words are "certain business", not everything, not just any old thing. You seem to me to be inferring that they can receive payment for nothing, i.e. even though they don't turn up: that's not what the document says? I'd suggest the rules clearly state reimbursement for the HoL is based on attendance, while for business conducted outside the premises other rules on reimbursement apply, but it only applies to certain business.
If a Lord does not turn up at the HoL he will not receive anything, if he does not conduct any business outside the HoL he will also receive nothing ... at least that is how I understand it.
The abuse aspect you refer to I concede is certainly out there ...

I openly admit that I oppose the House of Lords in its current unelected form, but I'm certainly not being disingenuous about this topic. All I stated was that a Lord does not have to turn up to the Palace of Westminster to make money from the gig. That's a fact, which I think I've proven. The rights and wrongs of anything beyond that are open to discussion.

[PeeJay]

I openly admit that I oppose the House of Lords in its current unelected form, but I'm certainly not being disingenuous about this topic. All I stated was that a Lord does not have to turn up to the Palace of Westminster to make money from the gig. That's a fact, which I think I've proven. The rights and wrongs of anything beyond that are open to discussion.

Well, I'm certainly with you on the HoL in its current form - as to "not turning up" and making money, I think your bending the "truth" somewhat - but I doubt we will agree on that so best leave it for now ... the lurker outfit at GCHQ will no doubt have registered your open opposition to the HoL, so that's you off the Xmas card list ... :greengrin

[Future17]

Well, I'm certainly with you on the HoL in its current form - as to "not turning up" and making money, I think your bending the "truth" somewhat - but I doubt we will agree on that so best leave it for now

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how you can deny that is the case so, as you say, probably best to leave it.


... the lurker outfit at GCHQ will no doubt have registered your open opposition to the HoL, so that's you off the Xmas card list...

I think that happened a while back, which is probably one of the reasons I no longer do that job. :greengrin

[Future17]

Another 45 folk given tickets to the gravy train that is the House of Lords, including William Hague, David Blunkett, Alistair Darling, Peter Hain and Phillip Smith (chief executive of The Association of Conservative Clubs). Also, Danny Alexander is getting a knighthood. No, seriously.

The article also includes further confirmation that you don't even have to attend the Palace of Westminster to claim money as a Lord.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34072201

[snooky]

I think we should vote for a new Queen every year like we do for our local gala day.
I mean we could have Amanda Holden for a year then Kelly Holmes followed by Lulu, then Susannah Reid, etc.
Much more fun.