• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Lords

Worm said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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."
 
Thor 2 said:
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."
Click to expand...
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?
 
psionl0 said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Thor 2 said:
I think it's time to quit as the silliness is becoming extreme.
Click to expand...
I didn't think that you could answer the question.

Thor 2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
theprestige said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thor 2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
GlennB said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

I can't believe you wrote what you just did.
Click to expand...
And yet here we are.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Queen has no say in the matter. She just signs the paperwork.
 
GlennB said:
The Queen has no say in the matter. She just signs the paperwork.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thor 2 said:
You have created an art form with obtuse utterances.
Click to expand...
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?

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

In this case I disagree with him.
Click to expand...
OK, so not everybody. :boggled:
 
psionl0 said:
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?
Click to expand...


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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom