Re: House of Loads

Where were all these rampant protests when Tony Blair was stuffing the Lords with sympathetic Labour supporters and donors. Its easy enough to elevate people to the Lords but not so easy to get rid of them. The lords was a supposed to be a means of checks and balance on the Commons and until Blair messed with it it did the job.

Re: House of Loads

Well I was complaining then too. No party should appoint people to the Lords it should be on merit and done by an impartial panel.

Re: House of Loads

There should also be a set number so that no new appointments can be made unless there is a vacancy.

Re: House of Loads

Yes I agree and we need to have about 150 - 200 IMO to be effective.

Re: House of Loads

Am I right in thinking the lordship is passed down to eldest son , who has the right to sit in this house and claim all monies due ?

Re: House of Loads

Some are hereditary, about a 100, the rest are awarded their peerage.

Re: House of Loads

Simple solution only allow new peers in when there is a vacancy, make them leave at a certain age.

Re: House of Loads

http://sleepylords.tumblr.com/

Re: House of Loads

Says a lot that does

Re: House of Loads

We have a similar setup over here called the Seanad or Senate in English but on a much smaller scale, it’s the same old story with failed politicians and cronies filling the place, a total waste of public money, but we all have to put up with political wasters in this world.

Was it not foretold in the Bible?
“After many years struggling as ‘B’ politicians in the political wilderness, Tony the Almighty leadith the chosen 800 Into the Valley of milk and honey where they relyith on green past years and repose in joyful sleep” Now all rise and sing verse 73, “What a Friend we have in Tony Blair”