Why does Starmer want to add yet more peers instead of abolishing the lot of them?
Catherine Bennett
Published:7:02 AM
Hmm:
From 1985 to 1992, Bennett was married to Robert Sackville-West, who inherited the title of Baron Sackville on the death of his uncle in 2004
Has a point though. When the hereditaries all voted there was some point to it. Judging from the few I knew, they may not of been outstandingly clever people. But they were sensible people. Which is quite a valuable quality if you’re trying to run a country. What you basically have now is a chamber of the unelectable. Time served failures, Buggin’s turns, favour doers & social climbers. Qualities you don’t want for running a country.
That Mr Darcy!
In other words, Starmer must get rid of the Tories.
A more sensible approach would be to nominate all commenters on Tim’s blog. How does Baron Bog sound??
I’m in favour of that, Bogan. And my presumption is being a lord requires a horse, some armour & most particularly a fucking great sword*. Now when can I get hacking?
*I knew those school fencing lessons would come in handy, one day!
God!! I hadn’t thought of that BiS. If I tried to ride a horse, I’d fall off at its first step. And where would I keep it? In the garage?
As for the sword, I suppose Dad’s old machete that he bought home from WW2 would do. It’s good for trimming tree branches, so it should do for necks.
As for the armour, when I stroll down to the shopping centre, there’s a place that has suit of armour outside. But it looks damn expensive as well as damn uncomfortable.
I think I’ll need a pretty big allowance to be able to afford all this!!
A trifle more seriously, when I look at your argument BiS, I seem to remember that the House of Lords was your Supreme Court before the abominable reform which created one.
While we no doubt need courts to deal minor hiccups in the social system, if something reaches the High Court, I’d argue that it’d be really a political matter. For example the US Supreme Court deciding whether the Yanks had a constitutional right to abort their kids, or the High Court deciding whether the abos own all, or at least half, of Oz.
Sensible people making those decisions, instead of the legal eagles deciding that Bjelke’s abolition of the petrol tax was a constraint on interstate trade on some nit-picking legal grounds, is clearly a much better approach.
@Boganboy: “I think I’ll need a pretty big allowance to be able to afford all this!!”
Isn’t £300 a day just for signing your name sufficient? Plus all the non-executive directorships you can eat.
Because Labour don’t fuck around, they secure all the levers of power for themselves every opportunity they get, then use them mercilessly against their enemies (you).
Then “conservatives” defend it as the new status quo.
I’d just reverse the rules for the Lords. All hereditary peers get to vote and the Life Peers get to elect 90 of their number to sit in the House. (While I’m at it I’d make the Bishops and Archbishops of the CofE elect three of their number to sit. I suggest this as my contribution to the entertainment business.)
Personally I am indifferent to the “love a Lord” syndrome but I’m positively allergic to the sorts of twats who so often get made Life Peers.
So what he means is we’re in favour of the House of Lords if we get to pick the members. See also people’s vote – we like referenda if we pick the questions and citizens assemblies.
I’d go for a complete random House of Lords chosen by lottery from the electoral roll. 500 members, 100 chosen each year for a 5 year term. It would accurately reflect the opinion of the country. But that could never be allowed to happen