|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 2, 2024 21:38:14 GMT
Sunak will go to the Lords in four 1/2 years. I hope Gordon Brown does too. I think there’s a lot to be said for offering a golden parachute and guaranteed status in public life for leaders. Look at Biden. Of course those interviewed in vox pops on BBC news at 6 will find it ‘disgusting’ Every PM should be given an Earldom and every Speaker a Viscountcy. Every cabinet minister a Barony, including Mad Nad |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,131
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 2, 2024 21:45:23 GMT
I think there’s a lot to be said for offering a golden parachute and guaranteed status in public life for leaders. Look at Biden. Of course those interviewed in vox pops on BBC news at 6 will find it ‘disgusting’ Every PM should be given an Earldom and every Speaker a Viscountcy. Every cabinet minister a Barony, including Mad Nad John Stonehouse? Chris Huhne? Owen Paterson? Jonathan Aitken? |
|
|
|
Post by redtony on Nov 2, 2024 21:49:06 GMT
JOHN PROFUMO
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 2, 2024 21:57:11 GMT
yes.
I also believe that more people should be stripped of honours. Bercow would have been given a Viscountcy and then stripped of it.
I also believe that we should retain the Hereditaries but that they should be stripped of their titles if they don't contribute annually to the Crown. Duke at £10m, Marquess at £8m, Earl at £6m, Viscount at £4m and Baron at £2m
New creations Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak would not be levied a contribution, but their children would (or would renounce the title) The result BTW would be that Sunak Jnr would be a hereditary peer.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,732
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Nov 2, 2024 22:37:16 GMT
yes. I also believe that more people should be stripped of honours. Bercow would have been given a Viscountcy and then stripped of it. I also believe that we should retain the Hereditaries but that they should be stripped of their titles if they don't contribute annually to the Crown. Duke at £10m, Marquess at £8m, Earl at £6m, Viscount at £4m and Baron at £2m New creations Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak would not be levied a contribution, but their children would (or would renounce the title) The result BTW would be that Sunak Jnr would be a hereditary peer. Sunak only has daughters, I believe, and English hereditary peerages do not usually inherit down the female line. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 2, 2024 22:41:15 GMT
My understanding is that every peerage is an Act of Parliament in its own right, so while many follow a predictable form, others digress from it. Scots peerages for example were often (not invariably) considered property and could be legally sold
Where my understanding is wrong, the wrongness should be legally altered and I should become correct.
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,131
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 2, 2024 22:55:24 GMT
yes. I also believe that more people should be stripped of honours. Bercow would have been given a Viscountcy and then stripped of it. I also believe that we should retain the Hereditaries but that they should be stripped of their titles if they don't contribute annually to the Crown. Duke at £10m, Marquess at £8m, Earl at £6m, Viscount at £4m and Baron at £2m New creations Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak would not be levied a contribution, but their children would (or would renounce the title) The result BTW would be that Sunak Jnr would be a hereditary peer. I don't understand why Bercow gets singled out for having a Viscountcy stripped from him. I take it you didn't like his tenure as Speaker but can't see how that would be written into the legislation. BTW I thought he was dreadful too. There were 80 different Cabinet Ministers in the Commons under Tory governments since 2025. That's a new Viscountcy every 6 weeks and we'd soon be running out of place names. Selling honours is a criminal offence and I would have thought that even applies when the Treasury do it. But the main criticism is that it would place even more patronage in the hands of the PM which is unacceptably high anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 2, 2024 23:18:49 GMT
I don't understand why Bercow gets singled out for having a Viscountcy stripped from him. I take it you didn't like his tenure as Speaker but can't see how that would be written into the legislation. BTW I thought he was dreadful too. he is banned from getting a parliamentary pass for bullying, he gets a Viscountcy for being Speaker he gets stripped of it for being a bully, far better than being denied it out of petty spiteThere were 80 different Cabinet Ministers in the Commons under Tory governments since 2025. That's a new Viscountcy every 6 weeks and we'd soon be running out of place names. Cabinet ministers get life baronies. Speakers get hereditary Viscountcies to burden their children with Selling honours is a criminal offence and I would have thought that even applies when the Treasury do it. The Treasury should not do it, the Crown should do it. But the main criticism is that it would place even more patronage in the hands of the PM which is unacceptably high anyway. This removes patronage from the PM and accords it to Convention and the Crown |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,131
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 3, 2024 1:20:15 GMT
I don't understand why Bercow gets singled out for having a Viscountcy stripped from him. I take it you didn't like his tenure as Speaker but can't see how that would be written into the legislation. BTW I thought he was dreadful too. he is banned from getting a parliamentary pass for bullying, he gets a Viscountcy for being Speaker he gets stripped of it for being a bully, far better than being denied it out of petty spiteThere were 80 different Cabinet Ministers in the Commons under Tory governments since 2025. That's a new Viscountcy every 6 weeks and we'd soon be running out of place names. Cabinet ministers get life baronies. Speakers get hereditary Viscountcies to burden their children with Selling honours is a criminal offence and I would have thought that even applies when the Treasury do it. The Treasury should not do it, the Crown should do it. But the main criticism is that it would place even more patronage in the hands of the PM which is unacceptably high anyway. This removes patronage from the PM and accords it to Convention and the Crown1. That's why I asked why he is being singled out. Lots of former Cabinet Ministers have had disciplinary action taken against them. 2. If it's life baronies then there would still have been 80 awarded in the past 9 years. Some of them under the Liz Truss era hour lasted about as long as a Mayfly. 3. Treasury, Crown or whoever, it's still selling honours. I presume under the plan then if they don't cough up then the title is removed. So it's effectively on sale. 4. The extra patronage comes not at the point of bestowing the honour but when someone is appointed to the Cabinet on the basis that they automatically qualify for a barony at the end of it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 3, 2024 8:10:37 GMT
Where my understanding is wrong, the wrongness should be legally altered and I should become correct. Has johnloony hacked your account? |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,902
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Nov 3, 2024 9:00:20 GMT
Where my understanding is wrong, the wrongness should be legally altered and I should become correct. Has johnloony hacked your account? Why? That's probably the best summation he's done of what his position has consistently been for a long time... |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Nov 3, 2024 9:35:05 GMT
yes. I also believe that more people should be stripped of honours. Bercow would have been given a Viscountcy and then stripped of it. I also believe that we should retain the Hereditaries but that they should be stripped of their titles if they don't contribute annually to the Crown. Duke at £10m, Marquess at £8m, Earl at £6m, Viscount at £4m and Baron at £2m New creations Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak would not be levied a contribution, but their children would (or would renounce the title) The result BTW would be that Sunak Jnr would be a hereditary peer. I don't understand why Bercow gets singled out for having a Viscountcy stripped from him. I take it you didn't like his tenure as Speaker but can't see how that would be written into the legislation. BTW I thought he was dreadful too. There were 80 different Cabinet Ministers in the Commons under Tory governments since 2025. That's a new Viscountcy every 6 weeks and we'd soon be running out of place names. Selling honours is a criminal offence and I would have thought that even applies when the Treasury do it. But the main criticism is that it would place even more patronage in the hands of the PM which is unacceptably high anyway. don't forget Bercow's bullying behaviour. It was that behaviour that caused his suspension from the Labour Party not long after he joined it. I don't know what has happened to his status as a Labour Party member since. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 3, 2024 10:35:48 GMT
1. That's why I asked why he is being singled out. Lots of former Cabinet Ministers have had disciplinary action taken against them. correct. The stripping disgraced people of peerages is the best bit 2. If it's life baronies then there would still have been 80 awarded in the past 9 years. Some of them under the Liz Truss era hour lasted about as long as a Mayfly. correct 3. Treasury, Crown or whoever, it's still selling honours. I presume under the plan then if they don't cough up then the title is removed. So it's effectively on sale no, you cant buy one, quite the contrary. Its a tax on Lords 4. The extra patronage comes not at the point of bestowing the honour but when someone is appointed to the Cabinet on the basis that they automatically qualify for a barony at the end of it. first, you have to get elected to the Commons, then hope your party is in government, then hope that the PM can be bribed, then you have bought the right to pay £2m a year for your life and onwards, thats a far harder route to a peerage than currently exists |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 3, 2024 10:49:39 GMT
I also believe that we should retain the Hereditaries but that they should be stripped of their titles if they don't contribute annually to the Crown. Duke at £10m, Marquess at £8m, Earl at £6m, Viscount at £4m and Baron at £2m New creations Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak would not be levied a contribution, but their children would (or would renounce the title) The result BTW would be that Sunak Jnr would be a hereditary peer. Ok, backtrack. Former PMs and Speakers get new Hereditaries. And children of the Monarch BTW. They dont get levied but their children do. All existing hereditaries get levied at the rate stated. So you cant "Buy a Hereditary" in any sense. In practice it would lead to a great many hereditaries choosing/being forced to renounce their title, which is fine, they are no longer Lordy enough, while those that remained would be doing something that goes a long way to justify their honour, namely funding the Monarch. It might well fund a nice new shiny Yacht, that can be used to promote the UK overseas, or perhaps some charitable giving if Charles sees fit. The Hereditaries are refreshed rather than abolished |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Nov 3, 2024 10:55:14 GMT
I also believe that we should retain the Hereditaries but that they should be stripped of their titles if they don't contribute annually to the Crown. Duke at £10m, Marquess at £8m, Earl at £6m, Viscount at £4m and Baron at £2m New creations Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak would not be levied a contribution, but their children would (or would renounce the title) The result BTW would be that Sunak Jnr would be a hereditary peer. Ok, backtrack. Former PMs and Speakers get new Hereditaries. And children of the Monarch BTW. They dont get levied but their children do. All existing hereditaries get levied at the rate stated. So you cant "Buy a Hereditary" in any sense. In practice it would lead to a great many hereditaries choosing/being forced to renounce their title, which is fine, they are no longer Lordy enough, while those that remained would be doing something that goes a long way to justify their honour, namely funding the Monarch. It might well fund a nice new shiny Yacht, that can be used to promote the UK overseas, or perhaps some charitable giving if Charles sees fit. The Hereditaries are refreshed rather than abolished You are seriously proposing that the way to deal with pointless hereditary titles is to give money to Charles? 🤪. How about just scrapping them. Build some family houses over Buckingham palace which is a shit building anyway. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,131
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 3, 2024 11:16:12 GMT
1. That's why I asked why he is being singled out. Lots of former Cabinet Ministers have had disciplinary action taken against them. correct. The stripping disgraced people of peerages is the best bit 2. If it's life baronies then there would still have been 80 awarded in the past 9 years. Some of them under the Liz Truss era hour lasted about as long as a Mayfly. correct 3. Treasury, Crown or whoever, it's still selling honours. I presume under the plan then if they don't cough up then the title is removed. So it's effectively on sale no, you cant buy one, quite the contrary. Its a tax on Lords 4. The extra patronage comes not at the point of bestowing the honour but when someone is appointed to the Cabinet on the basis that they automatically qualify for a barony at the end of it. first, you have to get elected to the Commons, then hope your party is in government, then hope that the PM can be bribed, then you have bought the right to pay £2m a year for your life and onwards, thats a far harder route to a peerage than currently exists 1. Several Cabinet Ministers (and even a PM) have truncated investigations into their behaviour by resigning before the investigation and process was completed. Would they still get their auto-title? That might be one advantage of your system if it meant that all investigations were resurrected. 2. Is not only correct but would mean an extra VIP lane (remember those?) would be created in the Lords. These would either be instead of any other avenue - in which case PM patronage is again massively increased - or they would be in addition to other routes - and the size of the Upper Chamber rockets yet again. 3. But you can have one removed if you don't come up with the readies. That's not a tax it's a protection racket. 4. All those conditions are true today even before adding on the peerage at the end of a Cabinet stint. This would hugely inflate the already massive patronage available to a PM. I don't think you made it clear until now (maybe I missed it) that this is a yearly rental of a title rather than a one-off purchase. I can't think of any better way to steer these people to a post-Commons life of corporate lobbying, influence-peddling and letterhead dwelling |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,773 
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 3, 2024 11:19:35 GMT
Ok, backtrack. Former PMs and Speakers get new Hereditaries. And children of the Monarch BTW. They dont get levied but their children do. All existing hereditaries get levied at the rate stated. So you cant "Buy a Hereditary" in any sense. In practice it would lead to a great many hereditaries choosing/being forced to renounce their title, which is fine, they are no longer Lordy enough, while those that remained would be doing something that goes a long way to justify their honour, namely funding the Monarch. It might well fund a nice new shiny Yacht, that can be used to promote the UK overseas, or perhaps some charitable giving if Charles sees fit. The Hereditaries are refreshed rather than abolished You are seriously proposing that the way to deal with pointless hereditary titles is to give money to Charles? 🤪. How about just scrapping them. Build some family houses over Buckingham palace which is a shit building anyway. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Nov 3, 2024 12:37:49 GMT
Where my understanding is wrong, the wrongness should be legally altered and I should become correct. Has johnloony hacked your account? Nah, far too bonkers for John Loony. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 3, 2024 15:32:32 GMT
You are seriously proposing that the way to deal with pointless hereditary titles is to give money to Charles? 🤪. to the Crown, but yes. How about just scrapping them. Build some family houses over Buckingham palace which is a shit building anyway.Now you are thinking about it. My advice would be no. The Crown should leverage its brand far more than it does, and your proposal falls short. The shitness or otherwise of Buckingham Palace is irrelevant, it is iconic and can be marketed. I would suggest that it could be an Art Gallery that puts the Louvre in the shade. London is OK for Museums as it is. As well as the Crowsn massive largely mothballed collection, the Treasury engages in a racket with hereditary land owners to accept works of art in lieu of inheritance tax, then decides where best to display them and concludes that the best place is in situ and context, in other words, it's a tax dodge for Old Money. Were I advising the Crown (dream job BTW) I would ask The Treasury to let us have all those taxpayer-owned works of art, I would display them in the Buckingham Palace Gallery and all would be for sale at that price agreed by The Treasury. The previous owners would have the first option. We would of course exchange collections with regional and international galleries. Buckingham Palace would still be available for State banquets. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 3, 2024 15:47:15 GMT
Now, on Housing, The Crown, acting independently of The Government, could already do a great deal. With the addition of a couple of £00m from hereditary peers, they could do a whole lot more. The Crown could address the Housing Crisis without any financial input from the Government.
If the Duchies Of Lancaster and Cornwall applied for planning permission to build several tens of thousands of affordable homes on land they already own in partnership with local Housing Associations it would be a very powerful message, far better than Prince William waffling about his memory of visiting Homeless Hostels with his late mother before she shacked up with the son of a sex offender.
Local NIMBY objectors would struggle against The Crown in ways that don't apply when wealthy retirees write angry letters about Big Business destroying their leafy community in the squalid pursuit of profit.
Now if you add Hereditary Peers offering a few hundred acres of land in lieu of their £4m Annual Crown levy you have a massive potential investment fund and given that unlike the NHS or SEND education Housing actually repays the investment the potential is close to limitless. Once the Crown has built 2 million affordable Semis in the UK it might have to expand the scheme to His Other Realms. Resulting in New Peerage Creations for St Lucia, Manitoba and Tasmania
|
|
