Mike4 wrote:bluedonkey wrote:I think that's Labour Party policy to bring the numbers down.
And how do they propose to do that?
Firing squad?
Get them all in the HoL, lock the doors, and the last 100 standing remain ?
didds
Thanks to niord,gvonge,Shelford,GrahamPlatt,gpadsa, for Donating to support the site
Mike4 wrote:bluedonkey wrote:I think that's Labour Party policy to bring the numbers down.
And how do they propose to do that?
Firing squad?
didds wrote:Mike4 wrote:
And how do they propose to do that?
Firing squad?
Get them all in the HoL, lock the doors, and the last 100 standing remain ?
didds
dubre wrote:What is an outrage is that so many non-entities have been honoured over the years and yet Nigel Farage, who has brought about the significant change, has not been rewarded.....?
didds wrote:Arborbridge wrote:Which reminds me - books on employment practice often tell us that employees respond to being rewarded, but not just in moentary terms. i.e. you can encourage people by recognition. Isn't that what happens in the honours system, but on a more impressive scale? I'm sure you will come back with a "but"
Possible derail here ... In the past various "staff surveys" have had a question about how staff would like to be recognised. I always reply "pay me more" - that's the bottom line. Then I can spend the money on what I really want ... not some voucher for a national food chain I'd never ever eat in through choice and the nearest outlet of which is 30 miles away from where I live
Mike4 wrote:didds wrote:
Get them all in the HoL, lock the doors, and the last 100 standing remain ?
didds
Another idea would be to change life peers from being members of the HoL for life, to being members just for the length of time the ennobling PM served as PM. So those created by Truss would get 49 days of privilege, those by Johnson would get three years, etc etc.
dealtn wrote:Mike4 wrote:
Another idea would be to change life peers from being members of the HoL for life, to being members just for the length of time the ennobling PM served as PM. So those created by Truss would get 49 days of privilege, those by Johnson would get three years, etc etc.
So you would be happy with only those appointments by Boris Johnson being in the current upper chamber?
Mike4 wrote:dealtn wrote:So you would be happy with only those appointments by Boris Johnson being in the current upper chamber?
Have we got rid of hereditary peers already then? I don't think that was a good idea.
Leothebear wrote:A good piece on the back page of The ST's sport section. It notes the lack of a knighthood for Kevin Sinfield, someone who has devoted himself to fundraising and raising awareness of MND. In contrast Bill Beaumont's existing knighthood was supercharged to Knight of the Grand Cross. Bill Beaumont is Chairman of World Rugby. One is from a Rugby League background and the other from Union. You can guess which.
The honours system should be about recognising those that help others for the soul reward of the satisfaction that may bring. It is used far more often as a reward for favours done.
Leothebear wrote:It's always been used as a reward for the PM's cronies. Why not simply do away with the PM's power that enables it?
brightncheerful wrote:My first wife's father was at some time on the Civil Service committee for dishing out honours. I remember him telling me that the way to get an honour was to be the chairman of whatever. When I asked why not the secretary or treasurer, he said they do all the hard work, whereas the chairman doesn't and gets all the credit.
One of my class got a Nobel Prize and a CH. So also did a young lecturer who was set loose on us in first year.Lootman wrote:]
Out of my class at university, two of my fellow students got a knighthood, decades later. (Another got an OBE but declined it, to his credit).
bluedonkey wrote:88V8 wrote:I'm inclined to think that the Lords should be capped in headcount, not to exceed the Commons.
It has become a bloated sinecure, not at all the repository of intelligence and experience that it should be.
V8
I think that's Labour Party policy to bring the numbers down.
SimonS wrote:bluedonkey wrote:I think that's Labour Party policy to bring the numbers down.
Hmmm, wasn't it Blair who was the first one to have been egregious free in the handing out of honours, so as to try to change the conservative (small c) nature of the HoL, only to find that people sent there , once free of party influence tended to behave conservatively. But each leader threafter has felt it necessary to send increasing numbers to redress a perceived imbalance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests