Your opinion of M.P.'s

[Darwinian]

Personally I think that the whole British political system is in desperate need of radical reform. This whole business with many of our m.p.'s milking the expenses system for all it's worth with more than a wink and a nod from the fees office is a case in point.

Also, my claim to fame for today is that Sir Peter 'duck island' Viggers is my local M.P.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Personally I think that the whole British political system is in desperate need of radical reform. This whole business with many of our m.p.'s milking the expenses system for all it's worth with more than a wink and a nod from the fees office is a case in point.

Also, my claim to fame for today is that Sir Peter 'duck island' Viggers is my local M.P.

I was not remotely surprised by the revelations.That's how I expect politicians to act,as an ilk. It's probably why so many Aussies have such a healthy contempt for politicians generally.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone stupid enough to get caught being corrupt has no place in parliament. If that's the Commons,the mind boggles at what one might find investigating The House Of Lords!*

*For Americans : "The House Of Lords" is the Upper House of British Parliament. Its function is the same as the Senate in the US system.The difference is, members are appointed,although today there are some rules.

The level of corruption seem to be lower in the Australian Houses parliament. However, our Local Councils are often breathtakingly corrupt. Scandals are expected,and arise regularly,most often involving property developers.




000000000000000000000000000000000-------------------------------0000000000000000000000000

From wiki:

[/quote]

Qualifications

Several different qualifications apply for membership of the House of Lords. No person may sit in the House of Lords if under the age of 21.[4] Furthermore, only Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland may sit in the House of Lords. The nationality restrictions were previously more stringent: under the Act of Settlement 1701, and prior to the British Nationality Act 1948, only natural-born subjects were qualified.

Additionally, some bankruptcy-related restrictions apply to members of the Upper House. A person may not sit in the House of Lords if he or she is the subject of a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (applicable in England and Wales only), or if he or she is adjudged bankrupt (in Northern Ireland), or if his or her estate is sequestered (in Scotland). A final restriction bars an individual convicted of high treason from sitting in the House of Lords until completing his or her full term of imprisonment. An exception applies, however, if the individual convicted of high treason receives a full pardon. Note that an individual serving a prison sentence for an offence other than high treason is not automatically disqualified.

Finally, some qualifications apply only in the case of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. No person may be created a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary unless he or she has either held "high judicial office" for two years, or has been a practising barrister for fifteen years. The term "high judicial office" encompasses membership of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Scotland), or of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Women were excluded from the House of Lords until the Life Peerages Act, passed in 1958 to address the declining number of active members, facilitated the creation of peerages for life. Women were immediately eligible and four were among the first life peers appointed. However, hereditary peeresses continued to be excluded until the passage of the Peerage Act 1963. Since the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary peeresses remain eligible for election to the Upper House; there are three among the 92 hereditary who continue to sit.[quote]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lo...ifications

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think the Lib Dems are right inasmuch as we need proportional representation ... if it were my decision I would scrap The Lords and replace it with a house that was proportionally elected.

Kyu

[LEDO]

If your not willing to rise up and eat the rich, then they will eat you.

[Tiberius]

The entire system needs a rework. We need a written constitution, we need an elected head of state (sorry all you monarchists out there!), and we need more public involvement in running the country.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sod the monarchy! (No offense Queenie (and I'm not talking about Queenie from Blackadder II)).

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If your not willing to rise up and eat the rich, then they will eat you.

I think I'd prefer it the other way round.


I recommend the film linked below very black,very funny. Also have look at the cast.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_the_Rich_(film)

[Ace Otana]

I agree with EvF and Adrian.

To hell with the monarchy. Why don't we execute them like the french executed theirs? It would make great TV.

[Edwardo Piet]

Put it on Pay Per View like George Carlin suggests for Prisons lol.

EvF

[bozo]

Very low before the expenses scandal, even lower after. The most disturbing feature is that the ones caught all adopt the nazi defence of " I was only following orders " and turn it into " I DID NOTHING WRONG ". Technically in some of the claims this is possibly true, but what about the morality of it all? There was clearly a culture of snouts in the trough in operation and the politicians were well into it ( the ermine-clad toffs in the Lords as well, let's not forget ). It says a lot about the rotten capitalist system.....the rich at the top creaming off the booty whilst at the same time claiming moral leadership of the nation. The members who actually committed fraud should rightfully face a trial and a guilty verdict that would bang them up as ordinary people caught defrauding the public purse are.
Anyone for revolution? ( and a socialist republic! ).