The Guardian on Saturday carried an article on women peers and included an interview with the formidable Baroness Trumpington (she of YouTube fame). Part of the interview read:
“So what does she think about the government’s plan to reform the Lords? Straight-backed in her chair, she rolls her eyes. The coalition is, she says, a “pain in the neck … the days are longer, things are more drawn out, a lot of the time it’s just plain ‘your turn, Charlie.'” (During one particularly late vote, or so I’ve heard tell, she turned to her neighbour and said: “This is like the blitz – only without the sex, of course.”)…!”
So what precisely are such “formidable” peers doing to
1) preserve, conserve and rationally-distribute the Earth’s Lifesupports
a) ‘unilaterally’ within the British Constitution ?
b) ‘multi-laterally’ in Method III cooperation with all other Nations ?
2) recognise and plan-to-meet the Needs of those they Represent and Govern, namely of the various disadvantaged lower, and of the upwards-straggling various middle-&-upper, classes’ ?
3) shape their own lifestyles transparently and leaderfully (emulably) ‘sustain-worthy’ ?
1) preserve, conserve and rationally-distribute the Earth’s Lifesupports
=========
Why don’t you tell it as it is?
You want Peers to take money off people using force and give it to other people.
Keeping it as ‘simple’ as I can:
No;
I do not want ‘Peers’
[which could mean as self-fattening individual common-purse-dippers e.g. £300 a day,
as well as as a collectivised Government Body complicit in legislating]
to ‘take taxes and other monetary-revenues from ‘the people’, ‘by force if necessary’,
to ‘hand-out’ to other ‘(more-deserving)- people’, amongst which latter would continue to be overpayment to themselves by those already over-salaried-but-underperforming Government Members and Private-Sector associates notably for the ‘Peers’ you yourself Lord Blagger have straw-dressed as a culpable ‘target’ to be paraded here.
——
What I want is for those needing to be listed as “leaders”, in the Workplace on the one hand [where the proper term would be “rulers”] (because)
in the Lifeplace a “leader” must be emulable (rather than (dictatorially) “obeyable” as must apply in the Workplace);
as a Lifeplace leader s/he must be profitably (qua ‘beneficially’) emulable by all of the Followers;
s/he must be transparently self-lifestyling upon the lowest-income available to the majority of the “followers” in that demographic stratum.
———-
I hold that the best ideal basis for recognising both our individual and total-human-race Needs & (Affordable and Sustainworthy) Hows thereto
is that of
“One human-being* needs only one-human-living*
[plus reasonably-egalitarian allowances for morale-maintenance by graded further ‘luxuries’]
sufficient to maintain one UK resident’s health, citizenlike-conduct, and environmental-supportiveness”.
———
* in terms of £££ that income (‘living’) was set by New Labour at £143 pw and reduced now by the Tory-dominated Coalition to £140 per week.
NB that ‘one-human-living’ (take-home-pay)should constitute both the minimum ‘decent’ human-living for the Lifeplace and be completely free from any kind of Workplace costs.
——–
Except they are dipping into the public purse for 2,700 a day. That’s the sum that each peer costs per day. They of course like to spin it for what they get out of it, a particularly selfish view of the public good.
Phillip Norton not doubt will be along to say the number is wrong, but for some strange reason he won’t post any evidence to the contrary. Still waiting, still hammering the point home.
Perhaps Lord Norton had the French meaning of ‘formidable’ in mind?
Strikes me that sex is a big issue with this baroness. I wonder why that is?
However, a pain in the neck the Coalition may well be, but her leaders would not have been in power at all without them. And it was those same leaders who decided it was worth the chance they took. For they knew they would be unlikely to have the opportunity again.
What is the strangest of all actions on the part of both these leaders, PM and Deputy, is, they set it up for a five year stint, whether it worked or not. Which means we, the people of this country, are stuck with it even though, clearly, it isn’t working and the time has come to go to the country for another go at obtaining a mandate to govern us.
It is totally fraudulent to have, first of all, put forward a manifesto neither of them had any intention of sticking with and that both chose to delude the public with to gain the positions they have.
Slippery customers the lt of them.
I think Baroness Trumpington is an outstanding peer. Can I have a link to the interview in the Guardian with my leading lady!!!
tory boy: The link is in the post. Click on ‘article’.
Strikes me that sex is a big issue with this baroness. I wonder why that is?
Female eunuch with her opposite number.
Thank you LN, I watched the recent debate on the Queen’s Speech re HoL reform with interest. I thought Baroness Knight of Colingtree made an outstanding speech I agreed with everything she said. As you share an office would you please pass on my praise!
Tory Boy: Will do. I know she will be pleased.
Lord Norton
Owing to the Lords Reform acts of 1999, the hereditary peers have lost their rights to sit and vote in the house of lords as only 92 through a compromise was to be for a transitional period. I think that it is unfair to decrease the number of heridary peers in the house of lords whereas the number of life peers remain unchanged and unmodified.
Nazma FOURRE