´óÏó´«Ã½

you didn't believe the spin about working for the good of the country? its payback time for the cronies? Remember the expenses?

we have seen countless times how the 'fairness model' as the highest idea of the mind throws up absurdities. This is just another absurdity. Given they parade the fairness model [that demands human sacrifice] as the 'ideal' it won't be the last.

a thief can be fair in robbing everyone. it does not mean that fairness is good.

How many peers are there currently? I assume from Michael's post that there is no upper limit. What happens if they all turn up on the same day? Not, I suppose, that this would be very likely.

Look Crick, if you weren't so prejudiced against the coalition that ended your masters' rule over us you might be able to understand the meaning of the word INTERIM as well as being able to spell it.

Just out of interest, what would be the position in the unlikely event of the new Conservative Party Chairperson turning up wearing a veil, or for that matter one of the new Muslim MPs. Would it be allowed?

#1

Dont be so cynical Jaunty, give Camelot a chance, by all means shoot them down if they demonstate mal intent but not before they have got off the ground, that is just not cricket old chap.

We need to get behind the Camerons Round Table for now in the national interest, at least until such time as they definitively demonstrate that they are not worthy of the honour of sitting there.

That goes for you too Crick !!

to trout mask thingy, don't have a go at Michael.....you didn't win, you had no overall majority you had to get in bed with sworn enemies to keep dodgy Dave in a job, that party think they have a god given right to rule....and so do you, well you haven't, give it six months!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

5

fairness brings up absurdities. flooding the lords with more appointments because its 'fair' is just an example of how they mean to go on? they claim it is interim so will the titles be interim? i doubt it.

fairness is a jedi mind trick word. it doesn't mean there is any good [or even common sense] in that fairness they are 'passionate' about inflicting on us.

how can it be fair [or good] for the monarchy to dominate the role of head of state, the national anthem and the national oath? Serious people would start at the top. Our troops are dying to install a greater level of democracy in afghanistan [as they did in iraq] than we have here.

We are not fighting to make Karzai hereditary, the national oath about defending his [and heirs] privileges and the national anthem to protect Karzai as that would seem onscene? Yet it is against the [treason] law here to even suggest anyone other than the monarch be head of state?

camelot might be a good analogy. its a monarchy.

Trout,
Looks like interim is spelt correctly. I have just come to this post , so wonder if it has been subject to one of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s famous "sneak edits" !!

RE. MESSAGE 7

It start as a response to Stevie's message 6 as follows,

If I think there's grounds, as a licence payer and thus one of Crick's employers I'll have a go at him or anyone else who deserves it. I'm sure he's quite capable of responding himself without your assistance, and if you're curious about what I'm calling myself at the moment look it up on Wiki.

What followed has been deemed by the moderators as being defamatory and has thus been judged to have contravened the house rules.

The trouble is that practically anything that shows someone in a bad light, even when it can be demonstrated to be the truth, can be deemed to be defamatory, and thus the contributions of the likes of myself can be consigned to the cutting room floor with convenient ease.

I know the things I have seen and heard on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ this last year. I would be happy to testify to them. However I was stupid enough to describe one particular example on a ´óÏó´«Ã½ messageboard. I should have known better.

I love the ´óÏó´«Ã½, I rejoice in it and Stevie I am not out to destroy it. However there has been a problem with what I and others have perceived as being a lack of political impartiality that I think should be investigated independently. After all, as Crick would be delighted to confirm, there might be another election sooner than we think.

Message 9- Interim was always spelt correctly. My point was that having spelt it correctly Crick was either ignorant of what the word actually means or he was choosing to ignore the interim nature of the coalition's position regarding the House of Lords in order to have a go at a government in it's first 24 or so hours of existence!

In Crickworld making a big deal out of the difference between 51% and 55% of MPs voting to bring the government down, and our economy down with it, is small price to pay for our audacity in allowing a political entity that wasn't Labour to have the affrontery to presume to govern us.

To Crick we have got above our station and need to be put back in our place for presuming to be as erudite as he and his Labour cronies. To him the collapse of the coalition is desirable even if it is the harbinger of the final demise of our country. I'm sure the IMF will be far more reasonable than the coalition when it is them dictating what we need to cut to survive. NOT!

I heard Brown's plant in my constituency (Chris Lesley) launch into the routine diatribe against the 'iniquitous Tories' during their totally negative campaign. I had to heckle him and invite him to explain why the 'iniquitous Tories' were able to be returned to power(to appease the IMF who had totally lost belief that the labour government was competent to govern our country) in the first place.

What I'd like to hear from Crick is some attempt on his part to explain why, when those who took the trouble to inform themselves of what the nature of our country's plight really was, and looked for a corresponding realism in the coverage from ´óÏó´«Ã½ News, we were confronted with the voice of Brown, time after time, saying 'The Tories will CUT and CUT there will be fewer teachers, policemen, doctors, and nurses.'

What I would like to know is why wasn't such a blatently alarmist, classist, and Tory-phobic campaign challenged by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ including the Newsnight team?

Michael, I am a scientist. I am a veterinary surgeon who graduated in 1977 and yes, like the Brown entity 'I too am a son of the manse'. All I ask of you is objectivity. Please give the coalition a chance. In all humility I can ask nothing more. We really need you to help save this country from disaster imho.

Trout,

Agree with all of your comments. Except that I do not love the ´óÏó´«Ã½. The licence fee should be scrapped, thereby injecting money into the economy and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ flogged off and the proceeds distributed to the licence-fee payers thereby injecting more money into the economy.

"All I ask of you is objectivity. Please give the coalition a chance."

Physician heal thyself.

I would very much like to oblige, but here we have a government that, failing to win the election outright, wants to change the rules so that it is as if it had won the election.

1) Goalposts moved to make it impossible for Parliament to trigger an election? Check

2) Unelected second chamber packed to the rafters with hundreds of our chaps? Check

Not what most of us had in mind when the terms "electoral reform" were being bandied about.

What would your views be if a Labour government had acted in this way?