Polly, really now…..

Cameron has already appointed 117 new peers, a third of the number in all Labour\’s years. Half are former MPs or councillors, a further fifth special advisers or party staff.

Yup. Because Cameron was PM when all those Labour MPs, SpAds, Ministers and Brown\’s resignation list got their coronets.

The end of a government always produces a surge in ennoblements but they are from that previous government even if the bloke doing the actual ennobling is the new PM.

Why not abolish it? Why bother with electing a new void? Lords buffoonery has to end.

Because we most certainly don\’t want a unicameral legislature. Who knows what lunacies would be enacted without a revising chamber?

And quite seriously, a country without a written constitution really doesn\’t want to give MPs the poower to enact anything at all that crosses their pea brains.

10 comments on “Polly, really now…..

  1. I’m trying to start a “House Of Lottery” meme; that is, the second chamber should be appointed on the jury system. We don’t want another chamber full of Party Favourites.

    Let’s get the politicians out of politics! Vote for the House Of Lottery!

  2. One of the things I really loathe about Blair is his constitutional vandalism. He broke a bad system and made it worse.

    The HoL was an anachronism. We all knew that. It was conservative with a small “c”, it functioned quite well in revising and slowing some idiocies under Thatcher and Major. Of course having hereditaries was bad. But Blair simply filled it with stupid Labour supporters and left the question of what should replace it to someone else. He split off the judiciary from the other two arms of the state (without any understanding of the balance of power between them) – he seemed to think that we should be going for a US style separation of powers – FFS the unwritten constitution had evolved over time to deal with the conflicts, now we find constant new conflict because the ground rules are not clear. And for what? Has any of the Blair vandalism made things better? No.

    Wonderful. Now we are going to end up with an elected HoL. The balance of power between the two houses is now going to be a source of instability for years – no, more likely decades. It’s going to increase legislative uncertainty and could well threaten the ability of the executive to respond to crises.

    No matter how the law is put together when the second house is elected, it fundamentally alters the relationship between HoC & HoL, the HoL will have democratic legitimacy. The old Parliament Act will be of doubtful legitimacy.

    Tony Blair is an ignorant stupid vandal, who should be deeply ashamed of his actions.

  3. Even Polly isn’t so dim as not to know the point you’ve just made. Therefore she was being deliberately misleading, or as a schoolboy might say, lying.

  4. The said schoolboy would justify his blunt verb by allusion to “suggestio falsi”: schoolboys talk of little else.

  5. Nice one, dearieme. Polly can sue you for calling her a lier but she’ll have to admit that she’s been lying about her knowledge of the system works for years.

    That would be fun.

  6. Electing any legislature is only a half measure. Very few, if any, MPs get to master a brief in the allotted time and rely heavily on the Civil Service for guidance and implementation. The Non-elected HoL at least allowed tenure of a portfolio without constant pressure ‘to do something’. As a revising house they seemed to stop some of the drivel spewing through the portcullis from the lower House. As a semi-appointed house of former activists it is, more than ever, cleaving to party lines, with only the cross-benchers holding the ropes. Under the hereditary system the majority of peers held a semblance of responsibility in that putting the Nation first was a consideration in their deliberations. Elected members will always attach to one or another of the HoC parties as belonging will be one way of being put forward as a candidate. Independents always have a much harder time of it.
    What is needed is a pool of wealthy, educated, intelligent and cynical people like the contributors to this blog to make up the second chamber.

  7. Aust has a similar system to the US, despite being culturally based on the Westminster system – lower house elected on roughly equal sized constituencies, upper house of review with a fixed number of elected reps per state.

    And PM Paul Keating famously declared the Senate “unrepresentative swill” when they stymied his legislation.

    Warning to Polly – be careful what you wish for.

  8. And in the silly questions department

    Who wants a US system designed to gridlock government?

    Umm, me? We have exactly that and things are mostly fine.

  9. Under the likely proposition for the new HoL, there will be 90 appointed peers. But 12 of these will be C of E Bishops. It is curently 26,and will be reduced to allow for peers to represent other faiths. WTF is that all about? Do we really want maybe 20% of appointed peers to be chosen just because they believe of a sky daddy?

    It is a disgrace that churchmen have a right to participate in the 2nd chamber. The only other country which does such a thing is….Iran. NOt exactly good company.

  10. There was a Labor government in Queensland years ago that abolished their Upper House. Then in 1949 for reasons of self-interest they introduced an over-representation of rural districts: easily done with no Upper House. Finally they were careless enough to lose control of the Lower House in 1957 leading to a Country Party government until 1987. Ha bloody ha.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.