Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,935
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    A new Conservative peer has been quoted as saying changes to the welfare system will encourage "breeding" among people on benefits.
    Downing Street swiftly distanced itself from the comments, in a newspaper interview, by former MP Howard Flight.
    Mr Flight was named by David Cameron last week as one of more than 20 new Conservative peers.

    BBC News - Tory peer: Cuts make poor 'breed'


    I like the way Cameron and his people are quick to distance themselves from remarks like this, but Flight is one of Cameron's Peer pals. The tories are not fooling anyone, they've not changed a bit since the 80's.
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours ." Steven Roberts

    The likelyhood of you being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions.

    Barack Hussein Obama, the president that got Bin Laden!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    366
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    And is he wrong?
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pixels on your screen
    Posts
    6,650
    Thanks
    1,006
    Thanked 938 Times in 690 Posts

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
    The tories are not fooling anyone, they've not changed a bit since the 80's.
    Oh! I think that they have, they are all about 30 years older!
    Save us all 22,000,000 a day. Leave the EU.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    This will encourage the poor to breed? Eww we must stop it immediately. We are overrun with chavs and poor people as it is... this is insane.

    :p
    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency
    ~ Eugene McCarthy

  5. #5
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
    A new Conservative peer has been quoted as saying changes to the welfare system will encourage "breeding" among people on benefits.
    Downing Street swiftly distanced itself from the comments, in a newspaper interview, by former MP Howard Flight.
    Mr Flight was named by David Cameron last week as one of more than 20 new Conservative peers.

    BBC News - Tory peer: Cuts make poor 'breed'



    I like the way Cameron and his people are quick to distance themselves from remarks like this, but Flight is one of Cameron's Peer pals. The tories are not fooling anyone, they've not changed a bit since the 80's.
    Cameron really can't win. Whether he supports or distances himself from comments made by members of the Conservative Party he is vilified, by those who are ideologically opposed to him.

    The Conservative Party of today bears little resemblance to the Conservative Party of the 1980s. Cameron is unequivocally a centre right politician who, if we are to draw comparisons, is far more akin to Heath than Thatcher. Heath, not a man I especially admired, was nevertheless probably the most moderate Conservative Prime Minister in modern history. Of course there are those within the party who are further to the right than the leadership, but that in no way supports the erroneous premise that the Conservatives have not changed since the 80s.

    A far more dubious practice in my opinion is this ridiculous elevation of wealthy political sponsors, faceless parliamentary 'yes men' and failed MPs to the House of Lords. All political parties are at it, and it continues to make a joke of any supposed democracy we enjoy.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    Major raises an interesting point about the House of Lords. Now before I go into what I was going to say, let me first be clear that I am fully supportive of an unelected, wholly appointed House of Lords. I believe that if you try and reform the chamber into an elected one, you might as well get rid of it - it will merely be a chamber of cronies, yes men and useless politicians; save for one or two principled ones. The House of Lords is a fantastic institution.

    However, it suffers from a huge problem - that political parties and the prime minister appoint peers. The idea that the prime minister can appoint peers is a disgrace and leads to the devaluing of this chamber. The PM should be stripped of that power and the House of Lords should be a chamber of appointed businessmen, bankers, investors, doctors, surgeons, teachers, lectures, solicitors, barristers, judges, etc and of course the 26 most senior bishops of the Church of England.

    The Law Lords should be returned to this chamber and given full legislative rights in terms of putting forward legislation and voting upon it. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 should be amended to give greater powers to the House of Lords to genuinely hold the Commons and the Executive to account - and the reason I say Commons to account, is because it is far too weak due to the Executive.
    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency
    ~ Eugene McCarthy

  7. #7
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    Quote Originally Posted by LA View Post
    Major raises an interesting point about the House of Lords. Now before I go into what I was going to say, let me first be clear that I am fully supportive of an unelected, wholly appointed House of Lords. I believe that if you try and reform the chamber into an elected one, you might as well get rid of it - it will merely be a chamber of cronies, yes men and useless politicians; save for one or two principled ones. The House of Lords is a fantastic institution.

    However, it suffers from a huge problem - that political parties and the prime minister appoint peers. The idea that the prime minister can appoint peers is a disgrace and leads to the devaluing of this chamber. The PM should be stripped of that power and the House of Lords should be a chamber of appointed businessmen, bankers, investors, doctors, surgeons, teachers, lectures, solicitors, barristers, judges, etc and of course the 26 most senior bishops of the Church of England.

    The Law Lords should be returned to this chamber and given full legislative rights in terms of putting forward legislation and voting upon it. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 should be amended to give greater powers to the House of Lords to genuinely hold the Commons and the Executive to account - and the reason I say Commons to account, is because it is far too weak due to the Executive.
    Whilst my own view is that the probable way forward from the ridiculous present situation is to reform the Lords into an elected upper house, your proposal has given me food for thought. It is certainly a viable option which may well give us a higher callibre of individual in office than elections would, and certainly a higher callibre than at present. It is, at the moment, nothing more than a means by which political leaders are able to reward sycophants, remove failed MPs and senior public servants, and pay for political donations. It devalues the honour given to the very few who are enobled on merit. Although a Tory I am disappointed that Cameron is playing the same unprincipled game as Brown and Blair before him. Any reform which removed enoblement as the personal gift of politicians would meet with my approval.

    I know two recently enobled peers personally. One to my certain knowledge is an unprincipled spiv, and the other a gushingly sycophantic minor political player who can be relied upon to follow the Conservative whip without conscience or principle.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    1,013
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
    A new Conservative peer has been quoted as saying changes to the welfare system will encourage "breeding" among people on benefits.
    Downing Street swiftly distanced itself from the comments, in a newspaper interview, by former MP Howard Flight.
    Mr Flight was named by David Cameron last week as one of more than 20 new Conservative peers.

    BBC News - Tory peer: Cuts make poor 'breed'


    I like the way Cameron and his people are quick to distance themselves from remarks like this, but Flight is one of Cameron's Peer pals. The tories are not fooling anyone, they've not changed a bit since the 80's.
    The editor of the Daily Express which started this story agreed that the remark has been taken entirely out of context, and was a single remark on the whole subject.

    As usual those who have attempted to pour scorn on the remark may well live to regret it!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    5,935
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    Quote Originally Posted by LA View Post
    and of course the 26 most senior bishops of the Church of England
    Why on earth would you want to give legislative powers to a Church who's senior bishops believe that floods ae gods punishment for hmosexuality, and that the Muslim community should be allowed to practice and impose Sharia law on it's citizens?
    Church and affairs of state should be kept completely seperate.
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours ." Steven Roberts

    The likelyhood of you being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions.

    Barack Hussein Obama, the president that got Bin Laden!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: More stupid remarks from one of Cameron's Tory Peer pals.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveUK View Post
    Why on earth would you want to give legislative powers to a Church who's senior bishops believe that floods ae gods punishment for hmosexuality, and that the Muslim community should be allowed to practice and impose Sharia law on it's citizens?
    Church and affairs of state should be kept completely seperate.
    So long as the Church of England is the established Church, the most senior bishops should have representation. However, let's be clear, they rarely vote on legislation unless it involves religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Sinic View Post
    Whilst my own view is that the probable way forward from the ridiculous present situation is to reform the Lords into an elected upper house, your proposal has given me food for thought. It is certainly a viable option which may well give us a higher callibre of individual in office than elections would, and certainly a higher callibre than at present. It is, at the moment, nothing more than a means by which political leaders are able to reward sycophants, remove failed MPs and senior public servants, and pay for political donations. It devalues the honour given to the very few who are enobled on merit. Although a Tory I am disappointed that Cameron is playing the same unprincipled game as Brown and Blair before him. Any reform which removed enoblement as the personal gift of politicians would meet with my approval.

    I know two recently enobled peers personally. One to my certain knowledge is an unprincipled spiv, and the other a gushingly sycophantic minor political player who can be relied upon to follow the Conservative whip without conscience or principle.
    I do understand Cameron's decision. He must rebalance the Lords with Conservative peers after Labour engaged in the most heavy appointed in history; in other words, they appointed for peers under Tony Blair than ever before; hmm Labour seem to break many negative records.

    So I can understand it, however, I do feel once he has rebalanced the Lords; and I must admit, I am glad to see General Sir Richard Dannatt in the Lords, but that aside, once the Lords is rebalanced, the PM should be stripped of his power to appoint peers and it should be given 100% to the appointments commission which should be responsible to Parliament as a whole.

    In my view though, the House of Lords is; even now, a far far superior chamber than the Commons.
    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency
    ~ Eugene McCarthy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •