Burns on the Lords

‘The quality of the debate in the Lords is enriched by the presence of captains of industry, retired senior civil servants and military figures, people from the arts and voluntary sectors, diplomats and bishops,’ he added.

‘Many are figures who would never contemplate standing for political office on a party ticket. It seems obvious to me that Parliament would be worse off if we swapped this for 400 party placemen.’ 

Absolutely.  Clegg out please and he can take his wife with him.  Do you get the impression iDave will not discipline anyone severely over this upcoming defeat?

8 comments for “Burns on the Lords

  1. Robert Edwards
    July 10, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    This is obviously another LibDem ambush. Given that they are facing an electoral ‘endlosung’ at the next election his Lords initiative is a clear effort to introduce PR via the tradesman’s entrance, a matter about which all too many of them are already familiar.

    Single transferable vote? Hey, and guess who gains! It will be interesting to see if their bluff is called. If they ‘dissolve’ the coalition and a Conservative minority government is the result, then the first Vote of No Confidence must then surely trigger an election.

    Or have I got that wrong? 😕

  2. July 10, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    I’m against an elected Lords but don’t agree with Burns.

    Retired civil servants, luvvies and “voluntary” (read State funded charities) sector? Talk about entrenching high spending cretins in the system.

    Captains of industry? Fred Goodwin or Diamond perhaps?

    Bring back the hereditary peers. We need a Lords which doesn’t, directly or indirectly, rely on people used to suckling at the public tit.

    • Andrew Duffin
      July 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm

      Yes indeed.

      Let’s put it all back as it was before the blasted Blair started meddling.

      It wasn’t broken, and didn’t need fixing.

  3. July 10, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Robert – let’s wait and see.

    DofB – yes, probably right here.

  4. Mudplugger
    July 10, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    It’s quite surprising to see the myopic Lib-Dems still banging the drum for forms of proportional representation, even for the Upper House – haven’t they noticed the curve on the graph of UKIP’s polling figures and where it’s leading ?
    Imagine trying to get any pro-EU legislation through a Senate stuffed with 15-year-term Farage-clones….
    Turkeys voting for an early Christmas again.

    • Robert Edwards
      July 10, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      But – they assume that on a PR system, they will provide the bulk of the second vote. Personally, I’d rather spoil my ballot paper than allow a LibDem anywhere near either house.

      And I rather agree that disinterested hereditary peers made for better revisions than the current lot. I mean – Lord Prescott can barely write his own name, let alone understand the subtleties of a well-crafted bill…

  5. July 11, 2012 at 6:27 am

    The ghastly thing is that this ridiculous ‘debate’ is costing millions that the country simply cannot afford…

    ALL unnecessary debate such as this, ANYTHING not directly connected with reducing the deficit should have been shelved at the beginning of the term. no nannying, no pointless debates, no new laws, no ‘reforms’…

    ALL MPs should have been focussed on looking at ways to save the country money (aside from all hanging themselves obviously)… 🙄

    A pathetic waste of time and money and a distraction from the real issue – we’re broke. 😡

  6. Greg Tingey
    July 11, 2012 at 9:08 am

    VESTED INTERESTS
    Want to keep the system as it is.
    Enough said?

Comments are closed.