Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Terbs on 25 November 2014, 20:44:27
-
I have just turned the telly on and it was on BBC Parliament channel.
It is live from the house of lords, some bloke is spouting away on a debate on working conditions in the care sector.
Shows how important it is....there are all of twelve people in the house.
What is the point ???
-
All twelve get paid. All the rest got clocked in by the other 12... ::)
-
Just another gravy train. :o
-
Where they awake, the 12?
-
Lets face it they will pay for their private care with our money so they have no worries,,,wasters all of them...... :y
-
I have just turned the telly on and it was on BBC Parliament channel.
It is live from the house of lords, some bloke is spouting away on a debate on working conditions in the care sector.
Shows how important it is....there are all of twelve people in the house.
What is the point ???
It is an area of employment that needs sorting out, the working conditions and pay are very poor, for what is a very important and much needed service to many many people........... >:( >:(
-
Ah...I did not mean it to come over as a non important subject, far from it, Mike, unless I misinterpreted your reply
It was meant as a sarcastic statement to show that they don't give a toss about care conditions, otherwise a damn sight more than twelve would have shown up, for what I regard is a very important subject.
Care has a great place in my agenda as I have a 94 year old mother in nursing care at the moment suffering from alzeimers/dementia :)
-
Ah...I did not mean it to come over as a non important subject, far from it, Mike, unless I misinterpreted your reply
It was meant as a sarcastic statement to show that they don't give a toss about care conditions, otherwise a damn sight more than twelve would have shown up, for what I regard is a very important subject.
Care has a great place in my agenda as I have a 94 year old mother in nursing care at the moment suffering from alzeimers/dementia :)
I took your post as you intended it Tony, a dig at those who who should be taking the issues more seriously, my frowns are because it is a subject that is not taken seriously enough, the pay is very poor, preventing many who want to be professional from doing the job, particularly Men................. :-X :-X
-
Great, Mike...
I have a friend (male) who works in care in the Manchester area. He works long hours looking after special needs people, and his wages are a pittance. But he wouldn't dream of leaving the job. Total dedication. I am afraid, he and the politicians/lords should swap salaries with him.
Sad to say, but I could not do his job in a million years. He is a saint in disguise :y
-
Great, Mike...
I have a friend (male) who works in care in the Manchester area. He works long hours looking after special needs people, and his wages are a pittance. But he wouldn't dream of leaving the job. Total dedication. I am afraid, he and the politicians/lords should swap salaries with him.
Sad to say, but I could not do his job in a million years. He is a saint in disguise :y
Now you have got me at it, I did not mean to suggest that many people do not take their role as a carer/support worker seriously and professionally, just that those who do suffer with poor wages and conditions of employment....... ;)
-
About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. :y
Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. ::)
-
Mike....I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, mate. :y
Obviously a topic we both care about (excuse the pun)
I know politics is frowned on on here, but if we don't bring things like this to the attention of others, how will we ever change things.
-
Ruddy hell, I have just read through this whole thread and only realised on last post it was a politics thread.
Until then I thought it was a social injustice thread of important people getting paid loads of money by us and not bothering turning up to do their work.
Just as an aside. As people(us) live longer and longer just how is the bill for care going to be footed?
-
Ruddy hell, I have just read through this whole thread and only realised on last post it was a politics thread.
Until then I thought it was a social injustice thread of important people getting paid loads of money by us and not bothering turning up to do their work.
Just as an aside. As people(us) live longer and longer just how is the bill for care going to be footed?
By stopping pension payments to people living the high life in Spain and surrounding areas ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
(Only joking, buddy) :y
-
Ruddy hell, I have just read through this whole thread and only realised on last post it was a politics thread.
Until then I thought it was a social injustice thread of important people getting paid loads of money by us and not bothering turning up to do their work.
Just as an aside. As people(us) live longer and longer just how is the bill for care going to be footed?
By stopping pension payments to people living the high life in Spain and surrounding areas ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
(Only joking, buddy) :y
:y :y
-
About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. :y
Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. ::)
Huh? The Lords don't get paid unless they turn up. And your solution is to elect a Senate, so presumably these will be full time politicians who get a full time salary like MP's - regardless if they turn up or not?
There are things wrong with the house of lords, but electing a Senate will make things much, much worse. John Major had it right - "If the answer is more politicians, then you're asking the wrong question."
-
About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. :y
Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. ::)
Huh? The Lords don't get paid unless they turn up. And your solution is to elect a Senate, so presumably these will be full time politicians who get a full time salary like MP's - regardless if they turn up or not?
There are things wrong with the house of lords, but electing a Senate will make things much, much worse. John Major had it right - "If the answer is more politicians, then you're asking the wrong question."
So new lieboor got rid of the hereditory peers and now we have an Upper House stuffed full of political appointees. ::) I agree with your point though about Members not turning up as the green benchs are often empty. >:(
-
So new lieboor got rid of the hereditory peers
Good. One of the few things they did that I can support.
and now we have an Upper House stuffed full of political appointees. >:(
Politically appointed (mostly) yes, but less than 30% of them are (ex-)career politicians. You have members that have a wide rage of experiences of life from various religions, charities, arts, sciences, medecine, law, industry etc. These are the sorts of people that we need to cast an experienced eye over the laws that the wet behind the ears university undergraduates who think they know it all in the house of commons.
http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/media/17348/ucl_report.pdf
What we don't need is another fully elected house full of senators that were too thick to become MP's and fancy their chances in the upper house, being paid a salary and pension regardless of whether they turn up or not.
The current setup is the least worst option IMHO.
-
The house of commons now has the power to force through legislation without the consent of the lords anyway. So what's the point of having them at all?
-
The house of commons now has the power to force through legislation without the consent of the lords anyway. So what's the point of having them at all?
The power to force through legislation was first introduced in the Parliament Act 1911, so hardly new and preceeds women being given the vote! The act has been used only 7 times in 103 years. The Lords is much less party political than the Commons, and if the Govt can't get the agreement of the Lords for a controversial policy, then in all likelihood it's a carp policy. However if the Govt is convinced it is right, it can force through "the will of the people". IMV the Lords perform a useful function in moderating the worst stupidity in the commons, and allows a wide variety of different groups of people to express their views. If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.
-
The house of commons now has the power to force through legislation without the consent of the lords anyway. So what's the point of having them at all?
The power to force through legislation was first introduced in the Parliament Act 1911, so hardly new and preceeds women being given the vote! The act has been used only 7 times in 103 years. The Lords is much less party political than the Commons, and if the Govt can't get the agreement of the Lords for a controversial policy, then in all likelihood it's a carp policy. However if the Govt is convinced it is right, it can force through "the will of the people". IMV the Lords perform a useful function in moderating the worst stupidity in the commons, and allows a wide variety of different groups of people to express their views. If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.
I wasn't talking about electing a senate, I was talking about abolishing the upper house all together.
-
If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.
It's a good point actually but I need a new career, so spending my afternoons dozing on a nice red chesterfield is quite attractive! :y
-
I wasn't talking about electing a senate, I was talking about abolishing the upper house all together.
Why not go the whole hog and scrap the house of commons too, and just have one elected dictator? Think of the cost savings. Trouble is, Hitler was elected.
The Lords acts as a checks and balances system, representing the status quo. A determined government can force through changes if it really want's to, but it's quicker and easier if the Lords can be persuaded the changes are in the public interest.
In our current system, the governing party rarely gets much more that 40% of the popular vote, and no party has got 50% since the war. So it's difficult to argue that the Government represents the majority view. There needs to be some expert input to and oversight of the laws that the government is proposing, and that's the role of the Lords.
-
If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.
It's a good point actually but I need a new career, so spending my afternoons dozing on a nice red chesterfield is quite attractive! :y
You're only Sir Tigger, not Lord Tigger. Pleb :D
-
I wasn't talking about electing a senate, I was talking about abolishing the upper house all together.
Why not go the whole hog and scrap the house of commons too, and just have one elected dictator? Think of the cost savings. Trouble is, Hitler was elected.
The Lords acts as a checks and balances system, representing the status quo. A determined government can force through changes if it really want's to, but it's quicker and easier if the Lords can be persuaded the changes are in the public interest.
In our current system, the governing party rarely gets much more that 40% of the popular vote, and no party has got 50% since the war. So it's difficult to argue that the Government represents the majority view. There needs to be some expert input to and oversight of the laws that the government is proposing, and that's the role of the Lords.
Hitler wasn't all bad you know. He was misunderstood, that's all. ;D
-
If you elect a Senate, you will end up with career politicians there too, and lose the expert overview capability that currently exists.
It's a good point actually but I need a new career, so spending my afternoons dozing on a nice red chesterfield is quite attractive! :y
You're only Sir Tigger, not Lord Tigger. Pleb :D
I'm always up for a spot of self advancement! :y
I take your point about the Lords being full of expertise and experience, but I'm still not keen on the lack of democracy. :-\
Perhaps if we go to a fully elected Lords then prospective Lords should be over 40 and have certain experience and qualifications in their field to put themselves forward for election. ::) It might make it easier for 'ordinary' folk to become Lords or Senators, which wouldn't be a bad thing. :y
That would make sure that the career politicians would be ineligible and would ensure better regional representation. It would also make sure that politicians who lose their seat in the Commons, can't be shunted into the Lords to keep them in government. :y
-
About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. :y
Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. ::)
And what about poor Lord Opti?
-
About the only decent policy I've heard coming from Labour recently is to change the Lord's into a fully elected Senate. :y
Mind you if the incompetant retards had done the job properly 10 years ago when they were in power and supposedly 'reformed' the place, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. ::)
And what about poor Lord Opti?
He's not poor and a he's too busy rebuilding his orangery and grounds! :D ;D