CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
England
What is your point?
I just thought it was interesting - his time and attention must certainly be spread quite thin.
What is your point?
Possibly but it would seem his party and constituents are ok with it.I just thought it was interesting - his time and attention must certainly be spread quite thin.
The upper house should comprise of those whose knowledge and experience can play a useful role in scrutinising and improving legislation proposed by the lower.It's why we have an unelected house of lords of 800.
For the size of our country we could easily have an elected upper chamber of 100. It wont happen because the socialists for all their bluster love the current arrangements as much as the Tories.,
Perhaps we should rename it the House of Patronage. Bung the party a few quid and you get called a Lord. Lose you seat at an election but have been a good boy to the party you get kicked upstairs etc.
The gravy train is laced with champagne.
Not sure it would even be fully necessary if PR were brought into the UK - which it won't be. I live in a PR country and the way we do it would suit the UK - with a couple of tweaks. Quite ironically the first past the post would probably suit here better than the PR. I think that's why it's done - it's not meant to suit the electorate, it suits the parties and politicians.The upper house should comprise of those whose knowledge and experience can play a useful role in scrutinising and improving legislation proposed by the lower.
What they are called, whether they need to always meet in a chamber, or could sometimes meet virtually, are other matters.
Taking their selection out of the hands of politicians and totally removing any of the remaining hereditary peers is essential. They ought to do it themselves with limited vetos given to the lower house.
Really?I just thought it was interesting - his time and attention must certainly be spread quite thin.
I think the graphic does that for him!Really?
Seems like you are singling him out.
I'm sure plenty of politicians have a lot on their plate.
Very clever.I think the graphic does that for him!
This is getting kind of pathetic.And here we see the real driver for Brexit
He's been telling us he's broke
No he hasn't and so what? Dislike anybody, that's fine but try not to just make up lies to suit your narrative. Farage has been saying often he had a very comfortable and financially good lifestyle before he became an MP and that has continued. He would be way down on the list of richest MP's.And here we see the real driver for Brexit
He's been telling us he's broke
I thought the Coutts argument from the Farage opponents was he wasn't discriminated against, he was skint so Coutts were correct. Now he's getting stick from the same people for being a big time earner?No he hasn't and so what? Dislike anybody, that's fine but try not to just make up lies to suit your narrative. Farage has been saying often he had a very comfortable and financially good lifestyle before he became an MP and that has continued. He would be way down on the list of richest MP's.
Let's start with Tulip Saddiq perhaps, or Jas Athwal the slum landlord with 15 rented flats he owns
Farage's net worth estimated at half Starmers, excluding all the bungs from Lord Ali
The point being made wasn’t about how much money he had! It was that Coutts had the right to accept, or reject, for particular accounts, based on their own criteria as to which level of service was appropriate.I thought the Coutts argument from the Farage opponents was he wasn't discriminated against, he was skint so Coutts were correct. Now he's getting stick from the same people for being a big time earner?