Bentley wrote:
But having watched both of your Houses in sessions and very impressive I might add; the most action and the most people present always seems to be in the House of Commons. The Lords seem to only show up if there is a presentation from the PM or the Queen and the place is empty otherwise with one person or two talking to an empty Chamber with a few of his chronies behind him.
This is an erroneous impression people often get from seeing sessions of the Houses of Parliament. The majority of the work that both MPs and Lords do is in committee and so often when these sessions are filmed, the members are slaving away for long hours in committee rooms out of sight. This is particularly true of the Lords who scrutinise (and vote upon) all legislation which comes up from the Commons, it then goes back to the Commons for a final reading, then to the Queen for her signature. Meetings of lobby groups are also held in the committee rooms and they attend those too. I was recently at a Fabian Society meeting at the House of Commons and there were about 20 members from both houses there, which meant they wouldn't be seen on the House benches by visitors like yourself
.
Also, people complain that they appear to be sleeping a lot but they are not sleeping, they are listening to the microphones which are set into the back of the benches behind them (in both Houses) and if they are hard of hearing, or it is noisy, they need to get nearer to them. You only see the fully gowned sessions of the Lords on state occasions but a large number of them attend the House every day, not least because they are paid on a daily basis.
Message Edited by Choisya on 07-15-2008 02:17 PM
Yes, it is thought of as a 'socialistic' idea that working people deserve to retire and draw a pension to give them comfort in their old age. They have often served their country long and hard and deserve this consideration. If they do not wish to retire, they can often work on for some years and draw their pension later. The idea of old age pensions actally came from Bismarck who was by no means a socialist! There is also the idea that the old have to make way for the young in the workforce or a nation will stagnate and become uncompetitive.
bentley wrote:
Choisya wrote:We do not elect Prime Ministers or Leaders of the Opposition over here Bentley. They are elected from within their own party. We elect parties via the MPs within them and it was the Conservative Party that won the 1951 election - by a majority of only 17! Churchill was still their leader so he became Prime Minister - they were surprised to win that election and might have elected another leader prior to it had they thought Churchill would again become PM. Although of course it was difficult for them to unseat such a prestigious character.I think it was a pity that he came back for what you see as 'his last hurrah' because he did not go out with a bang as he would have done had he retired in 1945 at the height of his glory.Our MPs have to retire at 65 Bentley (63 in the European Parliament) but of course there are many elderly people in the House of Lords, which is a sort of Senate. If ordinary people have an official retirement age then I do not see why MPs shouldn't). The hours of work in the British Parliament are very onerous and I am not sure that most older people are up to the job. When I worked there I regularly put in a 16 hour day and frequently worked overnight.
bentley wrote:
Choisya, but after losing the 1945 election, he became the leader of the opposition. In 1951, Churchill again became Prime Minister before finally retiring in 1955. You know if somebody is great; I don't believe that they should be put out to pasture because he/she is over 60. We would be putting half of our Senators and House of Representatives and the Republican candidate for president in retirement homes. I really do not think that age is a factor though maybe in the UK it is more of one. I am glad that you brought the old boy back for his final hurrah.
Message Edited by bentley on 07-12-2008 03:03 AM
Message Edited by Choisya on 07-13-2008 07:32 AM
Yes, Choisya I realize that. It seems that as Churchill got older he stuck it out with the party he was in even if he did not agree with them. Prior to this point he would just walk to the other side. But thank you very much for your explanation; because there are many points which are critical to understanding what is being discussed in this book.
I am not so sure that they did not want Churchill to become Prime Minister again; he was like you said revered; so why take it out on the poor guy because he did the right things during the war and worked his tail off. Like I said it did appear as if England was an ungrateful nation. But then again, it was terrific that he had the opportunity to come back; a really great man and I think it softened the blow that he had been dealt and made the English people look a little grateful anyways even if it was not the case.
I do not think that people have to go out with a bang or at all; keep going and doing what you love and you don't have to be sidelined because of age. I think that in of itself might be a socialistic ideal or policy (welfare idea - at a certain age you stop work and collect your pension).
I think there are a lot of differences between the House of Lords and our Senate; our government was set up as checks and balances and for something to be approved it has to pass both houses or go back and be discussed again and then it is signed by the President (all are voted officials - nobody escapes; nobody escapes the voting by the people and in some cases we have long memories and in other cases it would appear we suffer from Alzeimers.) But having watched both of your Houses in sessions and very impressive I might add; the most action and the most people present always seems to be in the House of Commons. The Lords seem to only show up if there is a presentation from the PM or the Queen and the place is empty otherwise with one person or two talking to an empty Chamber with a few of his chronies behind him.
We have a retirement age here where you can go and collect social security; but that won't support you much and so you can work as long as you like if you can find something to do or you own your own business etc. God only knows we never throw anybody out of the Senate or House of Representatives or even the White House because of age. We actually in many cases think that folks who are older are wiser. Now some get senile that is true like Strom Thurmond but heck they liked the old guy so they would just wheel him back in until he finally decided to pass on. He was serving when he was 100. It is funny how the English preserve so many antiquities and buildings and ancient relics but then have a cut off on age for the general public.
I think that a lot of older people are very much up to the job and long hours and have proven that in the White House, Senate and House of Representatives over here. Look at Warren Buffett, he certainly is old enough and is still making millions (though not in public service). McCain does pretty well for himself and his mother is still kicking at almost a 100. With advanced medicine and people taking care of themselves 65 is really just a number for many.
You must have been a very hard worker Choisya, and you can see in your case you are still a vibrant and productive person in your own right.
But you make some very good points and I am sure that you will find many people on both sides of this conversation.
Bentley
Message Edited by bentley on 07-13-2008 10:31 AM
Message Edited by Choisya on 07-15-2008 02:26 PM
Choisya wrote:Bentley wrote:
But having watched both of your Houses in sessions and very impressive I might add; the most action and the most people present always seems to be in the House of Commons. The Lords seem to only show up if there is a presentation from the PM or the Queen and the place is empty otherwise with one person or two talking to an empty Chamber with a few of his chronies behind him.
This is an erroneous impression people often get from seeing sessions of the Houses of Parliament. The majority of the work that both MPs and Lords do is in committee and so often when these sessions are filmed, the members are slaving away for long hours in committee rooms out of sight. This is particularly true of the Lords who scrutinise (and vote upon) all legislation which comes up from the Commons, it then goes back to the Commons for a final reading, then to the Queen for her signature. Meetings of lobby groups are also held in the committee rooms and they attend those too. I was recently at a Fabian Society meeting at the House of Commons and there were about 20 members from both houses there, which meant they wouldn't be seen on the House benches by visitors like yourself
Also, people complain that they appear to be sleeping a lot but they are not sleeping, they are listening to the microphones which are set into the back of the benches behind them (in both Houses) and if they are hard of hearing, or it is noisy, they need to get nearer to them. You only see the fully gowned sessions of the Lords on state occasions but a large number of them attend the House every day, not least because they are paid on a daily basis.
Message Edited by Choisya on 07-15-2008 02:17 PM
Choisya,
I did not see anybody slaving away; it does not mean that did not happen of course; the House of Lords was the one that was practically vacant on the days I visited; the House of Commons was much more active and involved. I did not know about the position of the mikes (very interesting); great information all. Thank you Choisya. Very helpful to know.
Bentley
I did not see anybody slaving away; it does not mean that did not happen of course; the House of Lords was the one that was practically vacant on the days I visited; the House of Commons was much more active and involved. I did not know about the position of the mikes (very interesting); great information all. Thank you Choisya. Very helpful to know.
.
bentley wrote:
Choisya wrote:Bentley wrote:
But having watched both of your Houses in sessions and very impressive I might add; the most action and the most people present always seems to be in the House of Commons. The Lords seem to only show up if there is a presentation from the PM or the Queen and the place is empty otherwise with one person or two talking to an empty Chamber with a few of his chronies behind him.
This is an erroneous impression people often get from seeing sessions of the Houses of Parliament. The majority of the work that both MPs and Lords do is in committee and so often when these sessions are filmed, the members are slaving away for long hours in committee rooms out of sight. This is particularly true of the Lords who scrutinise (and vote upon) all legislation which comes up from the Commons, it then goes back to the Commons for a final reading, then to the Queen for her signature. Meetings of lobby groups are also held in the committee rooms and they attend those too. I was recently at a Fabian Society meeting at the House of Commons and there were about 20 members from both houses there, which meant they wouldn't be seen on the House benches by visitors like yourself
Also, people complain that they appear to be sleeping a lot but they are not sleeping, they are listening to the microphones which are set into the back of the benches behind them (in both Houses) and if they are hard of hearing, or it is noisy, they need to get nearer to them. You only see the fully gowned sessions of the Lords on state occasions but a large number of them attend the House every day, not least because they are paid on a daily basis.
Message Edited by Choisya on 07-15-2008 02:17 PM
Choisya,
I did not see anybody slaving away; it does not mean that did not happen of course; the House of Lords was the one that was practically vacant on the days I visited; the House of Commons was much more active and involved. I did not know about the position of the mikes (very interesting); great information all. Thank you Choisya. Very helpful to know.
Bentley
Choisya wrote:
I did not see anybody slaving away; it does not mean that did not happen of course; the House of Lords was the one that was practically vacant on the days I visited; the House of Commons was much more active and involved. I did not know about the position of the mikes (very interesting); great information all. Thank you Choisya. Very helpful to know.The public are not allowed into the Committee Rooms unless they are participants, giving evidence etc so you would not see them or how many MPs or Lords were in Committee. If either of the Houses are empty it is usually an indication that an important Committee is taking place elsewhere on a piece of urgent legislation. Also, because room is needed for the hereditary peers, bishops and judges, when they attend for ceremonial occasions, the House of Lords is much bigger than the House of Commons and even if all the working peers were there it could look quite empty. The House of Commons is a deliberately, small, intimate chamber where people speak within a 'sword's breadth' of each other and so looks more full anyway. (The House of Lords has 745 working members and the Commons 646.)Both chambers are also fairly empty on the day of a Queen's Garden Party, since they are all invited and there is free food and drink and a chance to mingle with the great and the good !Mondays and Fridays are also bad days to visit because members from both houses are travelling to and fro from their constituencies.Next time you are in the UK, give me a buzz and I will take you around all the places you weren't allowed to see!
bentley wrote:
Choisya wrote:Bentley wrote:
But having watched both of your Houses in sessions and very impressive I might add; the most action and the most people present always seems to be in the House of Commons. The Lords seem to only show up if there is a presentation from the PM or the Queen and the place is empty otherwise with one person or two talking to an empty Chamber with a few of his chronies behind him.
This is an erroneous impression people often get from seeing sessions of the Houses of Parliament. The majority of the work that both MPs and Lords do is in committee and so often when these sessions are filmed, the members are slaving away for long hours in committee rooms out of sight. This is particularly true of the Lords who scrutinise (and vote upon) all legislation which comes up from the Commons, it then goes back to the Commons for a final reading, then to the Queen for her signature. Meetings of lobby groups are also held in the committee rooms and they attend those too. I was recently at a Fabian Society meeting at the House of Commons and there were about 20 members from both houses there, which meant they wouldn't be seen on the House benches by visitors like yourself
Also, people complain that they appear to be sleeping a lot but they are not sleeping, they are listening to the microphones which are set into the back of the benches behind them (in both Houses) and if they are hard of hearing, or it is noisy, they need to get nearer to them. You only see the fully gowned sessions of the Lords on state occasions but a large number of them attend the House every day, not least because they are paid on a daily basis.
Message Edited by Choisya on 07-15-2008 02:17 PM
Choisya,
I did not see anybody slaving away; it does not mean that did not happen of course; the House of Lords was the one that was practically vacant on the days I visited; the House of Commons was much more active and involved. I did not know about the position of the mikes (very interesting); great information all. Thank you Choisya. Very helpful to know.
Bentley
Choisya wrote:
The public are not allowed into the Committee Rooms unless they are participants, giving evidence etc so you would not see them or how many MPs or Lords were in Committee. If either of the Houses are empty it is usually an indication that an important Committee is taking place elsewhere on a piece of urgent legislation. Also, because room is needed for the hereditary peers, bishops and judges, when they attend for ceremonial occasions, the House of Lords is much bigger than the House of Commons and even if all the working peers were there it could look quite empty. The House of Commons is a deliberately, small, intimate chamber where people speak within a 'sword's breadth' of each other and so looks more full anyway. (The House of Lords has 745 working members and the Commons 646.)Both chambers are also fairly empty on the day of a Queen's Garden Party, since they are all invited and there is free food and drink and a chance to mingle with the great and the good !Mondays and Fridays are also bad days to visit because members from both houses are travelling to and fro from their constituencies.Next time you are in the UK, give me a buzz and I will take you around all the places you weren't allowed to see!
bentley wrote:
You know Choisya, I will take you up on that.
.
Timbuktu1 wrote:
So what was I watching on Tuesday nights on the BBC when Tony Blair had the best show on tv?
Everyone seemed to be throwing questions at him and it was such fun, everyone seemed so lively and engaged. I loved that guy as well!
