It’s not often I agree with either the Daily Mail or the Tories…  In fact almost never.

But, it really is time that Britain did something about a house of parliament that allows aristocrats, placemen, donors and churchmen (from only one church) to make decisions on behalf of us “ordinary people”.

The SNP, which point blank refuses to appoint anyone to serve in that house, has been arguing this for years.

The strange thing is that the Tories only got all het up about its existence when it started thwarting their mad Brexit plans (if plans be the word?).

Not so long ago Mr Rees Mogg was arguing that “privilege of peerage” should allow members of the House of Lords to enjoy a better vintage of champagne than enjoyed by members of the Commons. Moreover, he advised against reforming the House in any way and insisted that the Lords should remain independent.

And then Douglas Carswell suggested that unless the Lords was not independent and voted the way that the Tories wanted them to, the government should create 800 new peers to outvote them.

Aye, why not, I say! Only 800 x £300 = £240,000 a day, plus expenses. Cheap at half the price. And when your debt is already £2 trillion, what’s a little extra expense on aristocrats?

Still, never mind the reason. There’s a chance of getting shot of the house of old duffers and vintage champagne drinkers that cost us a lot of money.

It’s an ill wind, as they say.

But let’s do it before we spend billions doing up their part of parliament in a suitably aristocratic way.

39 thoughts on “SO, WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?”

  1. Yes I agree with abolishing the HoL too. Only I want to do so because I’m against unelected legislatures in principle unlike the Mail who want because it is now thwarting something they want

    Liked by 3 people

    1. The hypocrisy of the Daily Mail and the Tory (and Labour) Brexiteers is on show by this very front page, which juxtaposes a demand that this ‘anachronism’ be ended with a picture of Her Majesty, looking pleased, and followed by a drippingly saccharine, fawning piece. HM is the source of ALL these Westminster powers which are exercised in her name and are promulgated by her from the throne in the HoL.
      The Tories don’t want rid of the HoL and the privileges it brings. They want rid of the renegade-basturt lords that voted against Brexit! They would, like a shot, replace them with Farage, Banks and other ‘sound’ people.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. All parties want to abolish HL at some time. Argument against them is unrepresentative/unelected. Issue of cost non starter as replacement eg House of reps would still cost money, possibly more.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, I accept that if you had to pay them all salaries it would cost more. On the other hand the whole of the USA manages with 100 senators. That’s 325 million people. with less than a quarter of that population it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the UK to have around 20-30 senators.

      And the thing about the USA Senate is that a state like California has the same representation as a state like Wyoming with a tiny population.

      So the UK could have 6 senators from NI, and 6 from England; 6 from Scotland and 6 from Wales.

      That might at least in part redress the inequality that we have in a not unreasonably highly English House of Commons.

      I think another thing to save money would be to house them in a more everyday chamber.

      Being in a royal palace costs too much and gives them ideas way above what they are, which is servants of the people. (At least in theory.)

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Now there’s a nice idea, all the countries that make up this rancid Union having the same influence in running said Union. Sorry tris, but too late. They had their chance to make the HOL more democratic but didn’t. I want nothing but Independence.

        Liked by 5 people

        1. Labour has been ranting for 100+ years about abolishing the lords. To be fair they managed a few reforms, but in 2018 we still have this massive House stuffed full of place men, aristos and CofE bishops. Amazing!

          And jus becaused o this occasions their wishes are pretty much in accord with mine doesn’t make me warm to them any more.

          They are simply an anachronistic joke.

          Like you, I care very little what they do. I want independence.

          Liked by 3 people

    2. Actually weegie, we could save money on the Commons too.

      Again, USA with its 325 million have only 435 members in the House of Representatives. Whereas with a population of 66 million the UK has 650. Let’s bin a lot of them.

      I know that they also have state legislatures, bu then so do two of our countries.. and all four should have.


      1. For a country of 5 million the danger is over government. We already have local authorities who theoretically can respond better to local needs. This would be analogous to the USA federal government and local state governments. I agree that after independence we should have a think about what representation looks like but certainly no HoL or similar clones.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Yes, after independence we need to look for a model that suits Scotland best.

          That should look at head of state, parliament, and councils and find out what Scottish people want, and what will work best for us as a Nordic nation.


  3. I agree that the House of Lords is an anachronism, but I think it’s important that we consider what is happening. The referendum was held to heal Tory divisions over the EU, but this strategy hasn’t worked out for them (to put it gently). Leaving the EU could constitute a significant blow to parts of British business. With Universal Credit being rolled out, the consequences of job losses will be extremely painful. Brexit, Windrush and Universal Credit have shown the utter incompetence of the British state, but if we simply get rid of the Lords power will be further concentrated in the hands of people who are not necessarily to be trusted. Now is not the time for constitutional tinkering. The time has come to decide whether or not we should go ahead with Brexit without another vote by the people. Only when the question of our relationship with the EU is addressed in terms of a customs union and/or the single market can the political parties focus on what kind of revising chamber is needed. Ditching the House of Lords for doing its job might be unwise; it would be tactical to get rid of it when it was holding up progressive legislation.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I couldn’t agree more, we need to get rid of the HOL and the rest of our archaic systems of rights and privilege. The retirement jobs for loyal old troughers and useful dirty dealers needs to be over and the sooner the better.

    The thing that strikes me though is that we are seeing the current Tory default position ie. if it doesn’t agree with us get rid of it and replace it with something that does what it’s told. Dissent/disagreement will not be tolerated. Think, the current assault on the Scottish Parliament and devolution.

    It leaves me wondering if this latest assault on the Lords is actually yet another attack on people not of the ‘right mind’ by the devious unprincipled fcukers currently in power. I know it sounds daft because I want the lords abolished but we just can’t trust this lot to come up with an alternative that would work for the people. Even if the Torys are serious and this isn’t as I suspect just a shot accross the bows.

    Let’s by all means get rid of the lords but it has to be replaced with something democratic, modern and useful that works for us and not the Tory party. We cannot trust that will happen given the low calibre of today’s political class.

    The Torys, as we all know, cannot be trusted.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Oh I totally agree with that.

      I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could spit them.

      Normally people like them adore the Lords, presumably because they hope to end up there, and get an ermine collar and be called your lordship.

      Some of the dross they have put in there is unbelievable. The utter joke of people like Mone for example… Speechless.

      I absolutely agree we need something smaller, cheaper, and elected by a proper system.

      I just thought that it was worth a post that the Tories want to get rid of a house of aristocrats when it disagrees with them.

      Any other time, they think it’s a grand old British institution.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. I’m sure all of us who follow the Enlightened Path of Munguin surely appreciate the irony of that front page with its picture of Brenda, the apex aristocrat, right beside the headline about pulling the plug on the Lords. Yes, let’s do it: let’s scrap the rotten lot of them – lords, ladies, dames, viscounts, earls, dukes, archbishops, princes, princesses, arse-lickers, place-seekers, scroungers, hangers-on, kings and queens. I sometimes start ranting (sometimes?) when I think we’re living in the 21stC and we’re in a country that still adheres to monarchy, aristocracy, privilege and all that goes with them – cutrseying, knee-breeches, Black Rods, Heralds Pursuivant, Ladies of the Bedchamber, State coaches, 21 gun salutes, etc., etc., ad nauseam. What we need, folks, are a new fleet of vehicles for our royalty and aristocracy – tumbrils!

    Liked by 6 people

      1. It will be soon and if we opt for a referendum it will be 58.7 % Yes 41.3% No. Of course, we know there are other options. The unionist dam is cracking and the 60,000+ there on Saturday are part of our very own Dambusters squadron

        Liked by 2 people

  6. I think they should moaners
    Who wish to ban the house of Lords.

    The Tory’s at best would only
    Re-jig the Lords in their favour
    Then be quite content.

    Alongside fixing the commons
    With less MPs but more Tory ones and nil from the snp

    Not forgetting only people with
    English passports being allowed to vote .

    It’s called Democracy Tory style

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Of course they would.

      There are more Labour, Liberal and cross bench Peers than Tory at the moment.

      I suppose May could appoint piles of new ones so that she could get her way, but it is such an obvious manipulation of “democracy”, that I suspect even she wouldn’t dare.

      That said… you can never tell what utterly bat shit mad thing she’ll do next.


  7. All of these shenanigans serve to remind us that we live in a feudal state which has a veneer of democracy but hasn’t actually changed since England won the world cup in 1066.
    An unelected HoL trying to overturn decisions taken by HM government using the royal prerogative to bypass HM parliament.
    The Tories will do what they and Labour have always done and try to ensure they have a majority in that establishment.
    I see your 350 Labour peers and raise you 100 Tories and so on forever and ever amen.
    Unless they start dying off at a greater rate,very possible given the amount of subsidised booze they consume at the office,we are going to have to use Wembley stadium to house them all.
    What an appalling prospect.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I thought it was the French that won the world cup in 1066, Guillaume (le Bâtard) le Conquérant scored a perfect goal in extra time… which was one in the eye to Harold Goodwinson! (Although, he might have though about changing his name as it was seriously inappropriate… I mean good win son, I ask you!

      They thought it was all over…well, it was for him.

      Ha ha… I like that:

      “An unelected HoL trying to overturn decisions taken by HM government using the royal prerogative to bypass HM parliament.”

      Perfect description.


    2. “The Tories will do what they and Labour have always done and try to ensure they have a majority in that establishment.”

      Let’s not forget though that it was the Liberals that started this nonsense.

      “An unelected HoL trying to overturn decisions taken by HM government using the royal prerogative to bypass HM parliament.”

      Whether it can be described as “HM Parliament” or not is debatable, but it’s worth remembering that Parliament as it exists and functions in the UK is made up of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

      Don’t get me wrong, reform of the HOL is necessary and long overdue but simply to abolish it would be crazy and put far to much power in the hands of the Government; the House of Commons isn’t generally strong enough or capable of holding the Government to account. If we are going to advocate reforming or even abolishing the HOL, I think it is entirely necessary that that we reform the HOC and this has to be done in tandem. Colour me cynical if you like but I see that, if it happens, being done to the advantage of cabinet government rather than parliament or people.

      As you can probably guess, I’m very much in favour of a second/upper/revising chamber. Having said that, I don’t think this constitutional safeguard has to be made up of placemen and/or old farts dressed in ermine. Until Scotland is independent, the Scottish Parliament ( elected, lest we forget, by proportional representation) has a crucial role here; in matters of devolved competence it should have an absolute right of veto over anything the HOC dreams up as legislation ( in so far as it involves Scotland), and in matters which HM Government and the HOC have claimed to themselves as “reserved”, the Scottish Parliament ( and the other UK devolved assemblies, if that’s what they want)) should have that second/upper/revising chamber role. If England wants to keep the old farts in ermine system that’s a matter for them ( on the understanding that they restrict their noble selves to matters that only pertain to England).

      Liked by 2 people

      1. If we are stuck for a while with the UK, I really can’t imagine anything changing.

        In Scotland I’d like to see a proportionally represented Chamber Revising chamber elected for 4 years, but at different times.

        Clearly I’d like to see a president… Munguin’s Republic could hardly support hereditary heads of state… elected too, but probably not an ex politician.

        The Brits won’t change. Their roylas and their aristos will always be there.

        This is a few daft Tories, and their even dafter Daily Mail trying to stir up even more hatred.

        Hatred clearly means money for the Viscount and his lackey, Dacre.


  8. Heartwarming to see the unelected representatives of the Ku Klux Klan minus their hoods. Then £300 a day Baron Bottle busy being a legislator after a heavy lunch.

    I look forward to a lot more of this sort of thing after Brexit. The British and their adorable madcap traditions.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Have you ever seen the queen looking so happy?

    I’d be looking bloody happy if I’d been successfully sponging and holidaying for the last 90 years.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.