Smaller Government, Mr Cameron?

[the_neurotic_cat]

The prime minister has created more peers more quickly than any of his post-war predecessors, having ennobled 117 people in less than a year.

BBC: House of Lords full, peers warn David Cameron

Are these the choices of a man who is serious about 'smaller' government?

Having so many egocentric megalomaniacal twerps waddling around the corridors of Westminster Palace trying to be clever is just going to further reduce the efficacy of an already inefficient community of control freaks.

The more Cameron does the easier it is to picture him in a baseball cap, slumped in a urine soaked doorway somewhere with a can of cheap lager in this hand.

"The Government will be bringing forward a draft bill before the end of May proposing a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords.
"The Programme for Government states: 'In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last General Election'.
"The current system of appointing peers will therefore remain until the Government's reforms are in place."

sky link

I think there is more to this than first appears

[mertle]

I have always felt peerage is political time bomb open to abuse to whoever is in power. I have been shocked nobody has in the past is this the first abuse. I have felt its a Underhanded way bringing in unelected politics to britain especially when more powers was given.

Although in the past there has been some good overthrowing some really dodgy parliment MP's voted in favour. So there has been some good but worry theyre not elected by us public. You can get political biase disfunction.

My feelings its waste of money and slashing it would save the country some money. Another in me says they keep these rogue politicians in line when they vote stupid policies which then get overtuned by house of lords.

Originally Posted by mertle

I have always felt peerage is political time bomb open to abuse to whoever is in power. I have been shocked nobody has in the past is this the first abuse. I have felt its a Underhanded way bringing in unelected politics to britain especially when more powers was given.

Although in the past there has been some good overthrowing some really dodgy parliment MP's voted in favour. So there has been some good but worry theyre not elected by us public. You can get political biase disfunction.

My feelings its waste of money and slashing it would save the country some money. Another in me says they keep these rogue politicians in line when they vote stupid policies which then get overtuned by house of lords.

well you need worry no longer as the aim is to have an elected house of lords more representative of the government

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

well you need worry no longer as the aim is to have an elected house of lords more representative of the government

Which will simply rubber stamp anything from the government of the day.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Which will simply rubber stamp anything from the government of the day.

well that's the thing isn't it ,the elected peers won't nescesarily be from the same party ...in theory ..but the way i see it if the public elect ,for example, a tory government ,the same people will elect a tory majority in the lords

[beeman]

Thats why IF you have an elected second chamber the elections should bee "mid term". ie if the parliamentary election was in 2010 the second chamber should bee elected in 2012-13 and using a different electoral process (ie FPTP for parliament, PR for lords). That way you wont get a second chamber that is just a clone of the main one.

With the apathy there is right now towards voting is it really worth having something else to vote for. What we need to do is get the people of the UK feeling more connected with politics and wanting to vote before throwing more things at them to vote on.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by beeman

Thats why IF you have an elected second chamber the elections should bee "mid term". ie if the parliamentary election was in 2010 the second chamber should bee elected in 2012-13 and using a different electoral process (ie FPTP for parliament, PR for lords). That way you wont get a second chamber that is just a clone of the main one.

So would that mean that they would simply block everything? Hardly an improvement.

[Chrysalis]

why is the PM allowed to add peers in the first place? seems very wrong.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

why is the PM allowed to add peers in the first place? seems very wrong.

They need something to reward donors to their party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours