We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

How many Lords?


spider9
Resolved

Likes # 1

click here

Is Cameron the new Blair? He's appointed more Lords than ever before (and looks like he's now going into Libya, too.) adding 117 new peers in the last year - more than any other PM in post-war history.

Why are so many 'Lords' needed, why are 'Lords' needed at all? If ever there was a time for a smaller, elected, upper chamber, surely this is it.

I thought the Government was trying to save our money and cut bureaucracy! Cameron's words are ringing a bit empty at present

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

fourm member

I was simply trying to point out the irony of having 'a full day's work' but no definition of what that actually means.

"With full publication of the payments, it's easier to see if they are giving value for money."

Surely value for money can only be established if we know what is actually done for the money.

Even the Lords themselves say the increased numbers will hinder their efficiency, which means it will be costing us more, won't it?

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

Is there a Lord Muck?

Like this post
flycatcher1

Likes # 0

spider9. No sarcasm. I meant what I said. Sometimes I agree with one, sometimes the other, often neither but I stll like hearing opposing views.

Some posters seem pretty fixed in their political views and often have good reason. I hope that I have a fairly open mind - must have I've voted for four different parties in my time though once was by accident.

Like this post
Condom

Likes # 0

For G* sake give it a rest. They're all as bad as each other and I get enough of this on the news.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

fourm member

Sorry, but these are the nit-pickings of someone losing an argument, and needing a whole day to think up a response.

As you appear to be in pedantic mood, the report did not come from the peers, it came from the 'independent Constitution Unit at University College London' and was endorsed by the 13 peers who were a cross-party group of senior members of the House.

Look at the names among those 13 and tell me they are not respected peers and a decent cross-section of their Lordships.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

Condom

"For G* sake give it a rest."

Are you being forced to read this thread? If you are, for G* sake seek help!

Like this post
john 52

Likes # 0

It boils down to the fact whatever way you wish to dress it up that we are in times financial cut backs meaning important services to vulnerable people are being cut and what is the solution ! add 117 new peers .

Will these 117 new peers make any useful contribution to enable the lords to function or is it a case of a job for the boys. This could be David's idea of a job creation scheme

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"Are you being forced to read this thread?"

No we're not.

The trouble is that you and your adversaries and allies tend to take over and dominate so many threads that we are hard put to it to know which ones to pick to avoid you.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

mordwydd

With all due respect, this has been one thread amongst many currently 'live' topics on which I have not posted at all. If you take the trouble to maybe check how many threads our 'contretemps' actually happen in it is not all that many.

Granted, when a discussion does develop, it invariably gets lengthy - but by that stage everyone surely realises that such a debate is ongoing and can therefore avoid it if they wish.

I fail to see how it affects anyone else who does not wish to contribute - as FE once said, there are many who, while not contributing, seem to enjoy and watch the threads.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

fourm member

Your last paragraph, in the 9.05 post, seems to suggest that increasing the Lords makes it harder to get bills through - so why is Cameron doing it? Just to make life harder for himself? I think not. (That maybe should be "I hope not", for then I question his sanity)

Does that actually mean you agree with my original post that these extra Lords are a nonsense, and a complete waste of money? (Especially in a recession!).

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

LED vs Halogen: Why now could be the right time to invest in LED bulbs

IDG UK Sites

Christmas' best ads: See great festive spots studios have created to promote themselves and clients

IDG UK Sites

Why Apple shouldn't be blamed for exploitation in China and Indonesia