• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

The new government – good accomplishments and bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
becky said:
I'm surprised you are for this...... the last bastion of Government that truly has it's roots in the soil and people of this land
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that we can justify government by blood line.

Have those peers done anything to preserve the Britain that we used to have?
I believe in meritocracy, but I can't stretch that to what someone's 4x great grandfather did. He probably got his wealth by exploiting some of my ancestors anyway.

If Britain is to be rescued, it has to be done by new blood. Those who see what this country once was and what they are getting instead.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
I'm not sure that we can justify government by blood line.

Have those peers done anything to preserve the Britain that we used to have?
I believe in meritocracy, but I can't stretch that to what someone's 4x great grandfather did. He probably got his wealth by exploiting some of my ancestors anyway.

If Britain is to be rescued, it has to be done by new blood. Those who see what this country once was and what they are getting instead.
Click to expand...
Some would say that we can't justify a monarch as head of state by blood line, but to me, it's still a better and safer option that any of the alternatives.

Most of the hereditary peers are still major landowners and they are most unlikely to be the one's shooting themselves in their feet
 
becky said:
Some would say that we can't justify a monarch as head of state by blood line, but to me, it's still a better and safer option that any of the alternatives.

Most of the hereditary peers are still major landowners and they are most unlikely to be the one's shooting themselves in their feet
Click to expand...
That is true, and the only reason I support a continued monarchy. The Royal firm isn't involved in government. Its function is largely ceremonial and land management.

The upper crust isn't really affected by most policy decisions. They live in another world. What is good for them is not necessarily good for the rest of us.
 
No more free clothes for Starmer but he didn’t confirm he would no longer accept other freebies.
Apparently Lammy and Mahmoud(?) Justice Minister have both accepted £10k from a Saudi donor! Oh dear oh dear
 
Spiderman said:
No more free clothes for Starmer but he didn’t confirm he would no longer accept other freebies.
Apparently Lammy and Mahmoud(?) Justice Minister have both accepted £10k from a Saudi donor! Oh dear oh dear
Click to expand...
Stand down it was only a Saudi supporting PR Chief. Perfectly ok for the Foreign Secretary to accept this. What a swamp
 
Labour being in Government is another thing you can blame the Tories on.

I'm a life long Conservative but clearly a change was needed.

My expectation of Starmer and Co was not high but so far I'm disappointed.

His ' holier than thou ' mask has slipped. He's used pensioners to demonstrate that he's prepared to make unpopular decisions just because he can. He's caved in to the train drivers while ensuring that their working practises remain the same. And the Junior Doctors, albeit a more worthy cause, have only been temporarily placated.

A bit like before the election, all I'm hearing is how bad things are but without a workable plan in place to make anything better.

Only my opinion, but the Tories lack a sufficiently credible potential leader that will preside over an effective opposition party.

I'd like to see Farage holding Starmer to account. At least that wouldn't make for an easy ride.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
Removing hereditary peers. Renationalisation of railways if it is handled right.
Click to expand...
At least hereditary peers are independent, the others are political appointments. Nationalised railways will be just as bad as what we have now - probably a lot worse. The state is hopeless at running anything.
 
georgenorman said:
At least hereditary peers are independent, they others are political appointments. Nationalised railways will be just as bad as what we have now - probably a lot worse. The state is hopeless a running anything.
Click to expand...
I certainly see the argument in favour of hereditary peers, but can we really claim to be a democracy with them and the clergy still having a say in policy making? Democracy seems flimsy enough these days without unelected Lords and Bishops sticking their noses in.

My concern with the rail network is that on the one hand we have a lot of money going to shareholders, but on the other, if nationalised, a taxpayer will be paying for a service they might rarely use. You also have the prospect of civil servants spending our money. Never very appealing.

Even so, it would be an interesting experiment to see how re nationalisation would compare to the current set up in terms of efficiency and cost.
Let's also remember that the government has been bailing out some rail companies for some time.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
I certainly see the argument in favour of hereditary peers, but can we really claim to be a democracy with them and the clergy still having a say in policy making? Democracy seems flimsy enough these days without unelected Lords and Bishops sticking their noses in.

My concern with the rail network is that on the one hand we have a lot of money going to shareholders, but on the other, if nationalised, a taxpayer will be paying for a service they might rarely use. You also have the prospect of civil servants spending our money. Never very appealing.

Even so, it would be an interesting experiment to see how re nationalisation would compare to the current set up in terms of efficiency and cost.
Let's also remember that the government has been bailing out some rail companies for some time.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you say here. I think a major problem with an elected Upper House would be that it becomes a rival to the Commons, bit like the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. We should be abolishing layers of governments rather than increasing them.

I've no problem with shareholders - I'm a small shareholder in a number of companies. Shareholders put their money into companies hoping to make some money in dividends and rising share prices. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose all your money. Without shareholders many businesses would not exist.
 
There was an article yesterday quoting the old story of Starmer winning the election being like the dog that chased a car then when he caught it he didn't know what to do with it.
Except building an extension on his wardrobe of course.
 
Plenty of chatter at the moment that Starmers chief-of-staff, Sue Gray, who used to be a top civil servant under the last Tory Government, is going to step down following the party conference. Accepted wisdom seems to be that Tony Blair (remember him? He ain't gone away) has been the one behind the scenes pushing for this along with claims of other internal in-fighting with supposed Sue Gray being the one most objecting to Blairs influence over policy. Which makes it more than possible that the timing of the Al-Fayed stuff is potentially linked to this in that Starmer needs reminding who really has the influence (Starmer was head of the CPS when they decided NOT to prosecute him - makes me wonder if there is evidence of perhaps some kind of graft linked to that decision?). Of course, this could all be pure conjecture but clearly, something is already amiss with our political over-lords with Starmer so far proving an utter disaster. And no, the Tories would not have been any better but proof, if ever needed, how they truly are two cheeks of the same arse.
 
Matov said:
Plenty of chatter at the moment that Starmers chief-of-staff, Sue Gray, who used to be a top civil servant under the last Tory Government, is going to step down following the party conference. Accepted wisdom seems to be that Tony Blair (remember him? He ain't gone away) has been the one behind the scenes pushing for this along with claims of other internal in-fighting with supposed Sue Gray being the one most objecting to Blairs influence over policy. Which makes it more than possible that the timing of the Al-Fayed stuff is potentially linked to this in that Starmer needs reminding who really has the influence (Starmer was head of the CPS when they decided NOT to prosecute him - makes me wonder if there is evidence of perhaps some kind of graft linked to that decision?). Of course, this could all be pure conjecture but clearly, something is already amiss with our political over-lords with Starmer so far proving an utter disaster. And no, the Tories would not have been any better but proof, if ever needed, how they truly are two cheeks of the same arse.
Click to expand...
Is there anyone surprised that Al Fayed was a "wrong un" and that the establishment knew all about it and chose to do nothing?

Obviously the establishment doesn't read Private Eye who for years kept exposing his antics the same way they did Robert Maxwell.
 
Badger11 said:
Is there anyone surprised that Al Fayed was a "wrong un" and that the establishment knew all about it and chose to do nothing?

Obviously the establishment doesn't read Private Eye who for years kept exposing his antics the same way they did Robert Maxwell.
Click to expand...


None at all (although I had some dealings with him, albeit at a slightly removed distance back in the early 90's and he was a delight to deal with) but like everything else, the timing is everything.

Why now? Why all this publicity right now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Back
Top