Oh dear oh dear, just as some hope was coming along after 13 years of Labour’s waste and the next huge disappointment gets reported. Why am I surprised?
The house of Lords – a potential hot potato of debate and recently reformed for the better, allegedly.
Along comes Cameron – and within a year he has broken one of his election manifesto (why are we surprised) promises to cut the cost of politics by creating an unprecedented number of peerages in the last year. A £6 million bill for 117 new peers created by Cammy at an average of £156,000 per member. I wonder how many are Tory fundraisers.
This number is higher than any other PM in his first year, leading to a very cramped chamber of 792 peers. This after he vowed to slash the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Democracy in action.
Bring on the revolution! I can’t wait to vote on May the 5th. That’ll show ’em.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Bring back hereditary peers; leave the House of Lords alone!
The whole thing was turned into a sham when they appointed that eejit Prescott.
I could do a Cromwell quote for that as well… 🙂
Why are you surprised?
It seems that things were, prior to 1997, generally in good order. The government worked, the economy was in decent shape, industry was not what it once was, but was somehow still there, usw. Then Bliar-Bruin took it over and everything was ruined. Bring back the hereditary peers and return to the pre-Bliar composition. The first I would like to see leave is Mandelscum.
I recently watched the ‘press review’ on sky where some woman columnist, also a member of the House of Lords was lamenting over this. Her points were the lack of seats, having to get their early (very, very early), only being allocated 3 minutes to make points on important legislation, sometimes not being able to make a statement at all and a few others, 792 does seem like an awful lot of people.
By the way, if I take your £6 million and divide by 117 I only get £51,282 (6000000 ÷ 117) not your £156,000.
I’m with you, Araminta. An Upper House of churchmen, law lords and hereditary peers worked perfectly well until Blair, as Christopher says. Now we have a small group of bent Labour peers like Uddin among the other placemen.
Soutie – that is what comes of using figures published in a National Sunday newspaper. Silly me!
I have to say 13 years ago I was glad of reform of the upper house as it seemed illogical to have an unelected house. However, the mess Blair, Brown and Cameron have made of it makes me start to think…there must be a better way! Prescot or a bishop….hmmm, tough one that!
And indeed, why am I surprised? Because I still naively think that the Government has the best intentions of the nation at heart. I’ll grow out of it!
What’s May 5th?
Referendum on the Electoral system and some local elections.
Thanks Araminta – I hope that the pros and cons of the proposed changes in the voting system have been properly explained. It doesn’t seem to me that there has been sufficient time – but I’m here and not there – so I really don’t know. 🙂
There has been a fair amount of discussion, Boadicea but the cons seem to be winning at the moment.
My bet is that nothing will change, and I suspect the turnout will be an all time low, but I could be wrong.
This article by Andrew Roberts in the Spectator is fairly typical; the whole subject of AV is regarded with an enormous amount of suspicion or apathy.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6845818/a-vote-against-folly.thtml
Shame Araminta.
I have recently been listening to the Archived Programs of In our Time – fascinating!
As you know, I am totally lost after about 1630 something, but I listened to a programme about The Great Reform Act of 1832 . I have no idea whether what those historians said about how Joe Blogs felt about politics was true – but I was left somewhat saddened to realise that there are very few people now who think it worth their while to vote.
Interesting, Boadicea. I’ll have a look at your links. I’m off out soon, but I’ll catch up later. 🙂
Thanks for the link Araminta. I’m increasingly of the opinion that our ancestors, poorly served as we might think educationally-wise, used what they did know a deal more wisely than many people today. That article is pathetic with no reference to facts or use of reason.
My thoughts too, Araminta
I did point out that when the Crown used to rule as well as reign, the Parliament acted as comptroller of the public purse. Who or what is there to act in that capacity now?
It seemed that things actually did run a lot better when the ‘great and good,’ managed the nation’s affairs, both Nationally and Locally.