It has just been confirmed that each speaker will have only ONE minute to speak in this evening’s important debate about the First World War. It really seems quite ridiculous, and rather insulting, that such a grave subject is now being reduced to not much more than an episode of Radio 4’s Just a Minute. The case for a change to this system is surely now more compelling than ever.
Is this debate about the equally absurd idea of using 2014 to commemorate the START of WW1 in a vague hope of persuading Scots not to leave the (dis)UK?
Could you trade the minute perhaps for a fee, or would that invite a Blagger “corruption”
accusation?
Somebody could accumulate minutes, and take the whole of the 12minutes that Labour or
Lib dem or other members may take .
Commodities market. House of lords “one minute!” What is it worth? Come along now!
There more corrupt for claiming when they don’t turn up.
Why else would the record of the number of days they used their passes, or signed in be a state secret?
After all the security department thought I was having a giraffe when I ask if you could get in without a pass. No was the answer.
Then the Lords come back, the Peers can get in without pass.
Then when challeged with the Security information, bang, its a state secret.
After all, you could then get them bang to rights. More days claimed, than walking through the doors.
They know its going on, hence state secrecy certificates.
Next it will be that Peers can pay others to do their bird.
Perhaps the noble Baroness speaker thinks that good things come in small bundles?
I seriously think that you need to ‘hold your horses’
(and be mindful that our best menfolk’s horses were put to as much suffering as were our Commonwealth’s fittest men,
in the bloody poisonous mud of the WW1 killing-fields;
and we need to not ever take their names in vain).
I also think, and gravely so, that our Governance Workers and Employees
(Peers and MPs as well as the Judiciary and all Civil Servants)
need to be dealing with the biggest forthcoming Needs and Issues, sticking to matters we have to, and possibly could, change for the longterm better.
I suggest that we do not need the lesser-appropriate wasting of valuable timeframing upon ‘wishful’ and ‘glorificational’ “debating”; which can be little better and effective than ‘formal-jawing’ in the Chamber, and ‘informal-yapping’ in the corridors and democratic-refreshment places,
about Past events that can not be changed
whilst hugely-greater life-and-human-race-survival-threatening Matters that could be changed are avoided.