cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

The House Of Horror's

Steve
Pro
Posts: 6,679
Thanks: 247
Registered: 13-07-2009

The House Of Horror's

Well Lords but I just wondered what other members here think about the house of lords, reading in the news that William Hague and that woman from Scotland Michelle Mone have been elected ( not by us though ) a nice fat list of peers getting shoved ( or should that be red carpeted )into the gold pit. 800 will be the new total in there costing us £1.2 million a year. Full list in link below.
Quote
Sky News deputy political editor Joey Jones says: "The criticisms of not just David Cameron but across the board politically are so familiar…cronyism, political classes rewarding their own…
"David Cameron is dead set on the idea politics should become cheaper…then you have this gaping sore of the House of Lords with 800 members active now, more and more of them being piled in there. So unwieldy, so impractical in many ways and no sign it won’t continue."
The Electoral Reform Society has also criticised the appointments, saying the new Lords will cost taxpayers £1.2m a year - "an expensive insult to the public".

http://news.sky.com/story/1542638/william-hague-among-downing-streets-new-peers
1 REPLY
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,671
Thanks: 108
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: The House Of Horror's

he's already told them that he cant legislate away the house of lords and any changes to the lords have to be generated from within, paddypantsdown has been banging on about lords reform for the last decade all the while accepting his daily paycheck and tabling zero realistic motions....
lets face it nobody is going to vote to stop their income and the only reason the labour party are getting upset is they spent 13 years diluting the lords with riff raff and filth that had no right to be there all the while weighting it to their side and Cameron has been steadily increasing the blue side since he got into power (so exactly the same thing) but now labour are in danger of loosing the majority share of lords votes they realise there being effectively neutered (and if Corbin wins the leadership race they will be effectively dead in both houses)
yes the system needs reform, probably in the form of forced retirements for anyone not attending at least 75% of work days in any given year and anyone over a certain age pushed out the door, the whole life time peerage thing was a complete injustice when it the system was changed under labour to rid the house of hereditary peers and effectively get rid of noble families now the place is swamped with new money cluelessness who have zero interest in the common good but care more about personal gain and short term fame ......
with a fixed retirement age of 75 and suddenly you will find the house a whole lot smaller, and don't fall for the newspaper headlines, the few extra peers wont be costing anything like 1.2million that's the bill for having 800 peers siting in the house for 365 days of the year, except they don't sit anywhere near that number of days and they only get paid for the days they actually show up .....also worth noting is the fact you have to promote new people regularly otherwise you don't have new blood coming through to ensure there are enough around to actually pass a vote on anything ....and given that so many are fond of not actually showing up day to day getting the required % of yes's from the house can be rather tricky even when everyone that actually votes puts a tick in the yes box ....
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you