Monday, 17 May 2010

Do we really need more Lords?

Guido has just tweeted that the Condems are going to create 100 new Lords. Given that we have so fucking many of the cunts wandering around already, is there really a need to do this? Isn't this just "meet the new politics, same as the old politics"?

Update: This is definitely the new politics, same as the old politics.



marksany said...

If it is about making the number of peers reflect the election, shouldn't they just shoot 100 labour peers. It'd be popular.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Oooh, I like that idea!

Joe Public said...

If successive governments can't de-nobleise existing peers, yet each needs to create a majority of sycophants, then in 8 - 10 governments' time, even Obo might be nominated.

Umbongo said...

Assuming marksany's excellent idea is not implemented, the ConLibs are not in danger from Labour. According to the Times report quoted:

"None of Labour’s 211 existing peers can be removed, so the coalition must appoint dozens of its own to rebalance the upper chamber. Lib Dem estimates suggest that the number of Tory peers would need to rise from 186 to 263 and Lib Dem peers from 72 to 167."

Seems to me you've got 258 ConLib peers now as against 211 Labour ones: the opposition is already outvoted although the cross-benchers (who probably represent the electorate far better than the crap now in office (and in opposition) can provide a balance.

BTW HMTQ is constitutionally and legally able to refuse this request by Dave. If she won't, we might as well live in a republic rather than a banana monarchy.