#1
I'm seriously lost for words. There are are limits. Bollocks. I'm off down the pub. The world has gone crazy ( weird I can understand, but crazy is a different thing altogether)
#2
Just a thought before I go. Wilson had the Lavender List (Lady Forkbender etc. Any idea of the colour of this list of sycophanths.)
They make Kagan look a good choice! At least the bastard was waterproof?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
This is absurd. Labour have 29 new peers, Conservaives 16 and LD's 9 so far. The HoL is meant to be changed to meet the balance of votes according to the coalition agreement. This means in total about 200 new peers will be needed. Absurd is not the worde. This is yet another mess left by Labour - their botched constitutional changes. Wonder when the reforms will be finalised.
#4
Sorry. About to go out, but John Hutton a total nonentity! Also ennobled.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
picturing the scene now, john prescott attired in his ermine robes and muttering the like of "bloody hell do i 'ave to dress oop in this poncey clobber".
Alec Sheldon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 18 Aug 2008
- Posts: 1,037
#6
Lady Pauline will be loving it. Time to get a new hairdo.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#7
3 cheers for john prrescott,may he have a good time.
all it needs now is blair and brown to get a peerage.
#8
Think of all the pies he can hide beneath the robes!! MAking time for a quick bite as he sashays down the aisles of the Lords............
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#9
Think it's fair to say I have said before I have no time for the H.OL but its a bit rich BARRYW to complain of the labour party putting people in it, when tories in past flooded the place with its UNELECTED cronies.
Reform yes, dismantle altogether even better
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#10
Prescott has proved himself to be a hypocrite by accepting the Peerage.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#11
The proof of the pudding...............
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Read what I said Keith and dont misrepresent me.
Labvour botched the reformation of the HoL, it was a job left unfinished and the result is what is happening now.
You cannot just abolish it. It has an important Constitutional job to do as a reviewing chamber. It must be reformed.
#13
Why not just put a stop to any new appointments until the review and reforms are completed?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#14
Barry/Keith, both of you make valid points. Since the first life peerages in 1958, both main parties have been guilty of packing the upper House with highly unworthy individuals. Jeffrey Archer and Michael Martin are two examples which come to mind. But honestly, a peerage for Prescott? It's enough to embarrass Caligula's horse.
PG.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
#15
Picture the House of Lords, represented by people like Archer and Prescott. It makes you weep!!!!!
#16
Makes me tremble with fear and anger Bern. I'd prefer to have the genuine unelected old style Lord's sitting there instead of bloated "don't know when to retire" politicos.
#17
What sort of justification, I wonder, would Cameron and Clegg come up with for this kind of obvious old boys reward system, given their sworn committment to egalitarian and democratic principles?
Actually, just picturing Archer and Prescott in the same room makes me quake. With giggles - who could possibly take them seriously?! Buffoons, the lot of them!
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#18
BARRY W
Reform yes, but tories did block most moves labour made to make it better.
thats why it ran out of time.
Is the HOS justified
wonder what the bill is to keep that outfit going?
bet it;'s high
do peoplet today realy feel it's of benefit/
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
surely the simple answer is a democratically appointed upper chamber.
#20
How many chambers does it take to change a doctrine?
