Some of your views were spot on I feel
I stand by everything.
We could do this all day. I just got offered a job though so need to tell my boss which should be fun.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I stand by everything.
We could do this all day. I just got offered a job though so need to tell my boss which should be fun.
Cheap housing ? I paid £65k for my first house I’ll have you know…..but at least it was fully furnished.
You lot don’t realise you’ve had it so good
I do have it quite good fortunately though getting back onto the ladder feels a way away. The average person of my age is in a difficult spot right now and those ten years younger coming out of uni with high debt into this market aren’t going to have a nice time mostly.
Genuine question.
It seems to me that there are constantly new lords being created by out going prime ministers, new years honours and any other random reason to award the rich for their favours……but where do they go ?
Surely there must be a limit as to how many they can fit in the House at any one time and surely they can’t all be dying off quick enough to make room for the new ones ?
Obviously they wouldn’t all show up at one time for every random reading but shouldn’t there be the room if they all did decide to turn up ?
It seems to me that there are constantly new lords being created by out going prime ministers, new years honours and any other random reason to award the rich for their favours……but where do they go ?
Surely there must be a limit as to how many they can fit in the House at any one time and surely they can’t all be dying off quick enough to make room for the new ones ?
Obviously they wouldn’t all show up at one time for every random reading but shouldn’t there be the room if they all did decide to turn up ?
Why ironic?
You're whinging about the economy etc and blaming it all on my generation.
Totally pathetic.
When I was around your age we had 15% interest rates and negative equity.
Grow a pair and stop being upset by everybody else.
I’m not blaming it all on your generation at all. The government are far more to blame than dopey boomers like you even if they kowtow to you which is not your fault.
Yeah 15% on a £5 house. Every generation had their issues but no one can pretend it’s not harder to kick on in life now.
Not much different to the Commons I guess which is barely standing room only on a big debate.
A 29-year-old ‘political advisor’ getting a cushty gig for life. Nice work if you suck off the right people.
I would've said I was right leaning in my younger years, and along with a lot of my colleagues at the time was pretty pissed when Blair got into power and started pulling funding and manpower from our forces, only to throw us into a war we shouldn't have been in and were totally unprepared for.
However, once I moved up north and saw the consequences of Tory governement on local communities away from the precious SE of England my perspective totally changed. I'm more left than general, but there's not really a credible party for me to throw my support behind at the moment, they're all out to show who's the biggest ****
Oh, poor you. A five pound house? Even my parents paid 6500 for our family house in 1968.
Bet it’s worth a bit more than the £93k that would be if based on inflation.
But it is different to the commons as there would only ever be a maximum certain number of MPs voted for, one for each constituency…therefore the maximum number would always be known.
Whereas, and I’m guessing, with each passing year more and more Lords are created, so the maximum number seems to grow.
Found my answer…..
In August 2014, despite there being a seating capacity for only around 230[65] to 400[66] on the benches in the Lords chamber, the House had 774 active members (plus 54 who were not entitled to attend or vote, having been suspended or granted leave of absence). This made the House of Lords the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy.[66] In August 2014, former Speaker of the House of Commons Betty Boothroydrequested that "older peers should retire gracefully" to ease the overcrowding in the House of Lords. She also criticised successive prime ministers for filling the second chamber with "lobby fodder" in an attempt to help their policies become law. She made her remarks days before a new batch of peers were due to be created and several months after the passage of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, enabling life peers to retire or resign their seats in the House, which had previously only been possible for hereditary peers and bishops.[67][68]
In August 2015, when 45 more peers were created in the Dissolution Honours, the total number of eligible members of the Lords increased to 826. In a report entitled "Does size matter?" the BBC said: "Increasingly, yes. Critics argue the House of Lords is the second largest legislature after the Chinese National People's Congress and dwarfs upper houses in other bicameral democracies such as the United States (100 senators), France (348 senators), Australia (76 senators), Canada (105 appointed senators) and India (250 members). The Lords is also larger than the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea (687 members). ... Peers grumble that there is not enough room to accommodate all of their colleagues in the Chamber, where there are only about 400 seats, and say they are constantly jostling for space – particularly during high-profile sittings", but added, "On the other hand, defenders of the Lords say that it does a vital job scrutinising legislation, a lot of which has come its way from the Commons in recent years".[69]
In late 2016, a Lord Speaker's committee was formed to examine the issue of overcrowding, with fears membership could swell to above 1,000, and in October 2017 the committee presented its findings. In December 2017, the Lords debated and broadly approved its report, which proposed a cap on membership at 600 peers, with a fifteen-year term limit for new peers and a "two-out, one-in" limit on new appointments. By October 2018, the Lord Speaker's committee commended the reduction in peers' numbers, noting that the rate of departures had been greater than expected, with the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee approving the progress achieved without legislation.[70]
By April 2019, with the retirement of nearly one hundred peers since the passage of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, the number of active peers had been reduced to a total of 782, of whom 665 were life peers.[71][72] This total, however, remains greater than the membership of 669 peers in March 2000, after implementation of the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the bulk of the hereditary peers from their seats; it is well above the proposed 600-member cap, and is still larger than the House of Commons's 650 members.
In August 2014, despite there being a seating capacity for only around 230[65] to 400[66] on the benches in the Lords chamber, the House had 774 active members (plus 54 who were not entitled to attend or vote, having been suspended or granted leave of absence). This made the House of Lords the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy.[66] In August 2014, former Speaker of the House of Commons Betty Boothroydrequested that "older peers should retire gracefully" to ease the overcrowding in the House of Lords. She also criticised successive prime ministers for filling the second chamber with "lobby fodder" in an attempt to help their policies become law. She made her remarks days before a new batch of peers were due to be created and several months after the passage of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, enabling life peers to retire or resign their seats in the House, which had previously only been possible for hereditary peers and bishops.[67][68]
In August 2015, when 45 more peers were created in the Dissolution Honours, the total number of eligible members of the Lords increased to 826. In a report entitled "Does size matter?" the BBC said: "Increasingly, yes. Critics argue the House of Lords is the second largest legislature after the Chinese National People's Congress and dwarfs upper houses in other bicameral democracies such as the United States (100 senators), France (348 senators), Australia (76 senators), Canada (105 appointed senators) and India (250 members). The Lords is also larger than the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea (687 members). ... Peers grumble that there is not enough room to accommodate all of their colleagues in the Chamber, where there are only about 400 seats, and say they are constantly jostling for space – particularly during high-profile sittings", but added, "On the other hand, defenders of the Lords say that it does a vital job scrutinising legislation, a lot of which has come its way from the Commons in recent years".[69]
In late 2016, a Lord Speaker's committee was formed to examine the issue of overcrowding, with fears membership could swell to above 1,000, and in October 2017 the committee presented its findings. In December 2017, the Lords debated and broadly approved its report, which proposed a cap on membership at 600 peers, with a fifteen-year term limit for new peers and a "two-out, one-in" limit on new appointments. By October 2018, the Lord Speaker's committee commended the reduction in peers' numbers, noting that the rate of departures had been greater than expected, with the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee approving the progress achieved without legislation.[70]
By April 2019, with the retirement of nearly one hundred peers since the passage of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, the number of active peers had been reduced to a total of 782, of whom 665 were life peers.[71][72] This total, however, remains greater than the membership of 669 peers in March 2000, after implementation of the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the bulk of the hereditary peers from their seats; it is well above the proposed 600-member cap, and is still larger than the House of Commons's 650 members.
Yeah I’m not disagreeing. Not helped by the Tories having 36 PMs in six weeks. Not sure what’s happened with Truss’ list but she wanted four cronies in.
There was some talk a few years ago about capping it to 600. Guess there wasn’t much advantage to anyone in doing that.
I would imagine that house would be on the market for around 500,000 now, but that's not my fault.
I do agree that it's virtually impossible for your generation to get onto the housing ladder now and I have thought for a long time that a lot of new builds should be subsidised by the government to allow people to get on the ladder.
Well, as you may have noticed, the youngster only comments on what he disagrees with, when it comes from those with opposing views.
He only likes to WUM.
This is untrue. I sometimes agree with Staines’ radical but interesting views on bringing down the government with violent anarchy.