While this is an interesting story I guess that soon the story about Ed Balls supporting gay marriage will be along.
This was reported in Liberal Conspiracy today.
Title> First out gay Tory peer joins the House of Lords
Apologies if this is unnecessarily pedantic, but peers cannot join the House of Lords. A peer is someone who has already joined the House of Lords.
So 3 new members to our unelected House of Lords.
The House of ‘Lords’ is an undemocratic institution.
When Liz No 2 dies, I think the monarchy and house of ‘lords’ should be abolished and Britain should transition to full democracy.
Well done to him
Let’s hope Lord Black is more succesful in politics than the other well known recent ennoblement – the Lord Pie Eater of Lard on Sea (Prescott).
Ed Balls may support gay marriage, but he is an odious, repulsive politician who embodies all that is vile about Liebour – dishonest, mendacious and incompetent so he is probably lying through his teeth.
> When Liz No 2 dies, I think the monarchy and house of ‘lords’ should be abolished and Britain should transition to full democracy.
I am a proud Republican who supports the Fifth Republic – but I would not say that France is more democratic than Britain.
Once you go Black, Guy Black that is…..very nice looking he is too.
So what tittle does his partner get to use?
StephenC “When Liz No 2 dies, I think the monarchy and house of ‘lords’ should be abolished and Britain should transition to full democracy. ”
Ah right. I guess they can then claim yet more expenses, buy their way into the house and then do cash for questions.
Whatever you say about hereditary peers, they do it because they were born into the job, and see it as an honour, not a career.
Simply my using the democratic process means that people will fight, claw, scratch and bite their way to the top. They are just the people we DON’T need. We have an old tradition, it works. If it aint broke, dont fix it, otherwise we will just end up with another bland, corrupt and ultimately useless government run by the likes of lizards like Blair, Sarkoszy or Berlusconi.
The majority of British people must be stupid to allow an unelected German family to stand in as head of state, and then allow an unelected house of machiavellian conmen the power to stop anything that the elected politicians try to do.
Spanner – Just because someone is born into something doesn’t mean they are good at what they do – hereditary peers being a good example of this. The kind of people who are born into the upper circles of power come from families who have fought, clawed, scratched and murdered their way there – the monarchy is a great example of this. The house of lords, like the monarchy is a tradition, a tradition which doesn’t work, other than for the people it serves – the lords and ladies – not the majority of the citizens it claims to represent. It is corrupt and ultimately a useless blockage to true democracy. The sooner unelected authority is eradicated in the UK, the sooner the British people can get on with their lives without the interference of an outdated tradition that has been imposed on them by a small minority of families who have used fear and intimidation to rule over the majority.
How long before we see the first headline in some rag saying stuff along the lines of “Lord Bentwood”?
Jay: By your same token, we should therefore not pick members of the public off the street to do jury service, as they know fcuk all about the law.
And as for “an unelected house of Machiavellian conmen the power to stop anything that the elected politicians try to do.”
Bloody good job too. Had there been no Lords, Labour would have rushed through many more laws and flaky legislation. They then dumped all the herditaries for their own sycophantic bunch of arse-lickers to clear a path for all their bills. Even on the rare occasion when they still got blocked by a common vote, such as the foxhunting bill, Blair overrode every constitutional and parliamentary rule in the book and invoked the Parliament Act. This was a highly legally dubious move, which along with forcing us into the EU without a public referendum, which to my mid was illegal.
Maybe we should get a new Monarch. One that can hopefully have the likes of Blair and Brown executed for treason.
Another bit of good news, more proof that the cons have changed , it also look like the labour party are also beginning to change their stance on gay marriage if it is true that Balls and others are for it – that’s all we need now is for lab supporters to tell the Milliband bros that they need to get on the same wavelength..although they do seem a bit dim! As for being a bit dim I think Stonewall can be added to that category as well if they keep on saying that CPs are adequate…. As for the house of lords let’s hope the coalition finally get rid of the outdated upper house and replace it with an elected one, wasn’t this something that labour promised us at one time , what did we get , replace the hereditary peers by some lab croonies!!!
I wonder what courtesy title his partner will have (the wives of peers are “lady”)
Spanner: “Maybe we should get a new Monarch”
that’s a highly trasonous remark – suggesting the overthrow of on gracious Majesty Elizabeth. Unfortunately high treason doesn’t carry the death penalty – something else youi should disapprove of!
Oh spanner, again, another issue that you’re very confused about. First you want hereditary peers and a monarchy to do as they wish, but then you want a full democratic referendum on the EU. Make your mind up, you don’t make any sense.
Jay: Well frankly, if the Queen was really doing her job, she would have told Gordon Brown to ‘go fark oneself’ when he signed off the Lisbon Treaty. What he has essentially done is sold off the British Constitution to a bunch of Frogs. I’m no lawyer, but surely that is something only the head of state can do.
Mihangel: There are still two executionable offences on the books:
High Treason and Arson in Naval Shipyards.
I think they keep them there for tradition, as they would never carry them out.
the Queen’s job is “to advise, be consulted, to warn”, nothing more. Any bill laid before her is signed – constitutionally she would have to sign her own death warrant if passed by the two Houses!
What she actually says to her prime minister at their weekly meetings is of course never disclosed – maybe there she has said such things as “you stupid w*ker, you can’t do that it’ll drag us into war!” That would be her right and responsibility
PS Spanner, thanks for the info on high treason and dock yard burning still being capital offences. I had thought they had also been tidied up along with all the other bits and pieces of hanging crimes
Mihangel: The Queen, as head of state technically has the right to dissolve parliament, oppose bills, and grant or deny any rulings dictated by either the Commons or Lords.
However, just like the hanging laws, it is more a matter of technicality than whether it would actually happen or not. I suspect that if she were to intercede, we might have a civil war on our hands.
That said, I SO wish she had stepped in over the Lisbon treaty, because that is a fundamental change in the British constitution.
I guess she must have been consulted, but was too timid to stand up to Blair & Brown. It would be nice, just once, for the Monarch to actually demonstrate who holds the power.