Stacking The Deck..?

A Tweet by disability campaigner BendyGirl  drew my attention to this rumour sweeping the halls and corridors of power:

The government, according to strong rumour, is about to make defeats a little less likely, by appointing 60 new peers – 40 Conservatives, 15 Liberal Democrats and five Labour. And no crossbenchers.

This comes, of course, in the wake of several recent defeats in the Lords. But can anyone tell me how this is not an utter abuse of democracy?

So much for the ‘new politics’, eh? Looks a hell of a lot like the old sort to me!

8 comments for “Stacking The Deck..?

  1. john in cheshire
    January 22, 2012 at 10:22 am

    The old sort didn’t cost as much as the new sort. Most of the Hereditary peers cost us very little; how much are this 60 parasites going to cost us? I think it’s about time to either abolish the HoL or have only elected members. And can we stop calling them by grand title. The fact that entities like prescott and gorbals mick have been sent there tells me that the titles have been so far debased they are akin to having a sign hung around their necks as being unclean.

  2. Falco
    January 22, 2012 at 11:27 am

    The problem is that Labour found themselves a micturate mine in the volume of Lords appointments they made. Given that there is no procedure for getting rid of any group of Lords on the grounds of over-representation, the only way balance things up is to appoint more.

    • January 22, 2012 at 11:26 pm

      Thank you — well said!

  3. January 22, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    How about appointing, say, 2 person at random from each parliamentary constituency as for jury service, paying them 150% of last year’s salary/declared profits/benefits, and obliging them to tune into an online Hansard channel for, say 20 hours per week? They have to vote, even if to abstain, and they can speak to the Wstminster peers via Skype if they have input to make. No way for the parties to fix the selection,and only registered electors can be selected [no illegals or foreigners], and political hacks are outnumbered by these’term peers’ who might just reflect the views of the nation at large – instead of being selected for party allegiance and [more importantly] fro being political class voice recordings. Extra half year’s pay for pension fund – no golden superannuation plans – and they get to keep [and rememeber] their truly diverse lifestyles – and what life is like for us taxpaying voter slobs. Cut out the Oxbridge PPE and trade union blocs in one fell swoop.

    • Dave G
      January 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm

      Solutions are anathema to the PTB. The system is they way they want it and if it’s NOT the way the want it, they’ll do exactly as they please to make it that way.

      You and me? We can go fcuk ourselves as far as they care…..

  4. ivan
    January 22, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Since the government, any government, thinks they have the ‘power’ over the people, they do not like being told ‘NO’ like naughty children – which they act like anyway. Hence the stacking of the HoL.

    They keep on talking about reform of the HoL. The best reform would be to throw out all the political appointees and hangers on and restore the Hereditary Peers to the task of keeping the commons straight.

    Will they do that? Not unless they are forced to – too many are unable to give up troughing at our expense.

  5. Brian, follower of Deornoth
    January 22, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    I’m not sure I understand.

    The government is to make changes to the House of Lords so that the Government may pass legislation proposed by the Government. The sole entitlement of the Government to pass legislation is that they were (mysteriously enough) elected, but it is outrageous that the elected Government should be able to pass legislation if this voter doesn’t approve, because in a democracy, the opinions of that voter are sacrosacnt and the rest of the electorate can go to the devil.

    (I can’t quite discern what that particular voter is in favour of, apart from the unconditional obedience of the rest of the population, because the website doesn’t render too well in my browser).

  6. January 23, 2012 at 8:32 am

    The Who had something to say on that, no?

Comments are closed.