Pass the bubbly!

granjura - I too jumped out of my skin at the generalisation but my DH said 'unfortunately she is probably right'. It was just the expression 'poor people'. Made me think of Dickens. I think it was an unfortunate choice of words.

DS2 did GCSE food tech. It seemed to me that every week he was making pizza in some form or another. Miraculously he passed with a B. Now, 25 years later, he is a very good - and quite inventive - veggie cook with a nice line in themed birthday cakes for the children. As for me, I had two years of cookery at school but learnt much more from my mother.

I think I've said this before somewhere, but I had to teach my DD to cook basic meals before she went to university. When she was at school she was taught "Food technology", not actual cookery.
If the same curriculum is being followed in schools now, I'm not surprised that young mums don't know how to cook.

KatyK- that comment also made me jump out of my skin due to the generalisation. And yet- it would be quite correct to say, that many of the disadvantaged have not been taught to cook healthy meals from basic reasonably priced ingredients. I used to work with SureStart and I can assure you that was true of all the very young mums we worked with.

I'll bet a magnum of champagne that it is subsidised grumppa - as are their restaurants.

I doubt many of the MPS or members of House of so-called Lords have spent much time with a pinny on in the kitchen.

Baroness Jenkins actually said 'poor people don't know how to cook'

To revert to the OP, it was not one House of Lords Committee, it was the whole HoL. And who actually paid: The individual members, or organisations with many guests whose functions they sponsored? Did they drink five bottles a year all by themselves, or with family, friends, etc?

And at about £15 a bottle what sort of champagne was it? Or was the actual price subsidised? Now that would be a scandal!

The Lib Dems cover quite a range of political views from the Orange Book MPs like David Laws who is practically a Conservative to ones closer to Labour. The SNP and the Greens are nowhere near UKIP - I coukd see specific policy issues the three might agree on such as abolition of the bedroom tax but a coalition is quite a different issue. Simpl not possible

There is one member of the House of Lords who cares.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/northdurham/durham/11650849.Former_Bishop_of_Durham___my_shock_at_plight_of_Britain_s_hunger_stricken_poor/?ref=eb

Thank the lord soon

And wouldnt the leader of the greens point out, probably quite rightly, that they would get more of what they want through parliament, so it is beneficial to the green party has a whole to be in a coalition that is in power?
I dont think you are thinking like a politician whitewave!

Also, regardless of the fact that smoking in public places is banned in the UK, Westminster still has a 'smoking' lounge. A loophole they managed to find by declaring that Westminster was not a public place. I wonder who helped them to legal speak their way out of that one!

Another, one rule for them etc. United Kingdom?

But do the leaders themselves care more about themselves, or their party?
I presume for instance, that Clegg will run off to Europe in the not too distant future.

I dont know who the leader of the Greens is.
But I suppose a Green leader may care more about the philosophy of being green, then a liberal would about liberalism?

Yes soon but they would never get voted in again, imagine voting green and ending up with UKIP as a partner. There would be riots!!!

I can't believe for one minute that the Greens and the SNP would form a coalition with UKIP

I was incredulous when the liberals chose to hook up with the conservatives.
So I am of the opinion that any of them could, and probably would, hook up with another party.

I assume it is about power. And egos. And more money. And expenses. And they might be able to afford private schooling for their kids? And perceived status. And maybe european jobs afterwards.
And I have probably missed off a couple of things. Their wives or partners would like it?

I am beginning to despair with our form of government. What with this and all the various scandals. You would be hard pushed to find a group of 600 people where so many of them were into dodgy dealings including fraud, sex scandals, violence, suppression of evidence relating to child sex scandals, friendship with dodgy characters - the list goes on and on. That is just the ones we elect, and like idiots we fork out more for un-elected bods who only have to turn up and sign in to get something like £300 per day for doing sod all, and a rather nice little wine to go with it.

I can't believe for one minute that the Greens and the SNP would form a coalition with UKIP

The SNP may get more MP's too. They hate the Conservatives and Labour isn't keen on them. We could end up with a coalition of UKIP, SNP and Greens! Now that would be interesting!

But that is the problem- if too many feel as you do and vote UKIP- what then? Gives me the heebyjeebies.

The House of Commons also has a very fine wine cellar and I have no doubt that MPs of all persuasions have been know to quaff a glass or two from time to time. I resent their subsidised restaurants as well as their subsidised bars, although I recognise that easily available food during late night sittings is probably necessary. Wouldn't a sandwich do?

I know granjura.
I think if there was about 40 UKIP MPs elected, that would be a large enough number to shake the status quo. But not enough to do much damage??

Snouts in trough!

There are still some hereditary peers, plus a bunch of bishops.

Disgusting- shame of them, In it together - my foot !

But Soontobe, be careful what you wish for.

They are handpicked by political parties as far as I can tell. Each trying to get more and more of their own side into the Lords and it is expanding.

They have only been useful on one occasion as I recall and that was years ago.

I think they are worse now than when we had the hereditary peers quite honestly.