Jump to content

The Big Yin's Gong


TONTROOPER

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:


Labour has had a majority lots of times. There still would have been occasions where they needed to get legislation through the Lords so it would be foolish to refuse to take part and let the Tories have the run of the place.
 

 

If Labour were true to their principles and abolished the place, there wouldn't be any need for anyone to take part at all.

In addition, under the Parliament Act 1911, I believe that the Lords have no power at all regarding money bills, and can only delay other bills for a year or two. If the Commons repeatedly passed an Abolition of the Lords Act, it would eventually come into force even if the Lords rejected it by 800 to nil on every occasion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

1) You seem t be under the impression that changing your mind on an issue after so many years is somehow hypocritical which is a VERY odd thing to think.

2) Are you trying to tell us that you personally have changed your mind about abslutely nothing in your life?

 

1) Why is it so odd? I'm hardly alone in my view.

2) I've never changed my political views. I believed that Scotland would be better governed as an independent republic in 1976 and probably believe it even more today. I wouldn't have accepted an honour back then & I still wouldn't now. Don't you have any principles that you believe in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never paid any especial attention to Billy Connolly or his comedy. Why has it enraged people so much that he's accepted honours?


He was very much anti elite in his youth and early career. The working class welder who vocally disagreed with gongs and the establishment. Some people now believe he sold out by accepting this. Maybe he's just grown up...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It predictably didn't take long for people to start conflating  knighthoods (a pin badge) with the peerage.

BTW at what level are you officially part of the establishment? Is it knighthoods or are retired lollipop ladies with MBEs spitting in the face of the proletariat?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

I have never paid any especial attention to Billy Connolly or his comedy. Why has it enraged people so much that he's accepted honours?

From my point of view, it's because I didn't think he was a c**t. I've been wrong before, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It wasn't that long ago historically that if you believed in jailing homosexuals and denying women equal pay you'd hardly be alone.

Hardly makes you right though.

As for your second point, I specifically asked about ANY changes of mind.

Wow! Some serious deflection going on here. As far as I can see, you've ascribed two random disgusting viewpoints to me.

I've never ever considered promoting these viewpoints, but you've then gone on to tell me that I'm wrong to believe them? Has your pathetic trolling really sunk this low?

With regard to the second point, I have changed my mind on occasion. We all have. However, as I said before, I've rarely changed my mind on a point of principle. Why do you appear to be incapable of understanding simple answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Labour were true to their principles and abolished the place, there wouldn't be any need for anyone to take part at all.
In addition, under the Parliament Act 1911, I believe that the Lords have no power at all regarding money bills, and can only delay other bills for a year or two. If the Commons repeatedly passed an Abolition of the Lords Act, it would eventually come into force even if the Lords rejected it by 800 to nil on every occasion. 


I'm aware of the limits on Lords' power but it still, occasionally, has the power to amend or veto legislation, so Labour would be foolish to refuse to take part. They can hardly introduce a vote to ban unelected peers at the moment as the Tories would just vote against it.

Agreed they should have made provisions to produce an elected House of Lords before now, but I reckon there hasn't been a suitable time for it, if you look at when Labour have been in power....

No majority or such a small majority as to make major change unworkable (1920s, 1974-79).

Introduced shitloads of beneficial economic/social changes so probably didn't have time for Lords reform (1945-51, 1964-70).

Had a global crisis to deal with (Brown years).

Were run by a Tory c**t (Blair years).

Hopefully Comrade Jezza will get elected and sort it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...