Saturday, 9 February 2013

Paper Peers

Late last year, we were told that Cameron was going to create 100 new Coalition Peers. The ridicule for that seems to have stopped him, at least for the time being.

Although, now that I think about it, would those really have been Coalition Peers, members of both parties, "Conservative and Liberal Democrat" like the "Conservative and National Liberal", and before that the Conservative and Liberal Unionist", MPs of old? And like the "Conservative and Liberal Democrat" MPs of the near future?

Now, however, we learn that he does after all intend to create an additional 50, for whom no designation could be more appropriate. Their purpose will be to ensure the passage, so to speak, of the Marriage Bill for which he himself could not be bothered to turn up and vote.

Instead of this constitutional outrage, the Parliamentary Lobby lists 53 of what are therefore State-licensed print newspapers and magazines. Over a designated weekend, why not include in each of them a coupon to send back, nominating a potential Peer of the Realm?

In each case the two with the most nominations would go out, on another designated weekend, to a ballot of all readers by means of the inclusion of a ballot paper in each copy. Resulting in 53 new Peers.

Of course, this would only be possible because we already have, as we have had since time immemorial, a State-licensed press. The most diverse press in the world, based on that list. That list of State licensees.


  1. "Constitutional outrage"

    You are right-but, as usual, you don't seem to realise you're own Party's role in causing this.

    It was the Left-wing revolutionaries of the Labour Party who threw out the incorruptible hereditary Peers, for the crime of opposing the EU-so that it could be filled with Labour placemen.

    So now Cameron can fill it with his placemen. The Tories warned this would happen.

    But Blair sneered that they were "the party of hereditary peers and foxhunting".

    Now we are once again reaping the rewards of 13 years of Labour.

  2. for the crime of opposing the EU

    Beyond parody. And I opposed that, as the logical extension of getting rid of trade union barons.

    But you are all in favour of bourgeois triumphalism; based on your comments on another post today, you think that it is Toryism! Yes, an exclamation mark. And no, I don't normally use them.

  3. Not as funny as the people claim gay marriage and Leveson being imposed by the EU. Cue links from the loons. Gay marriage is being imposed by Ireland, Malta and Poland, is it? Is that why Farage was for it until Cameron decided to make it happen? But that one really is doing the rounds. As you have said before, it would be all right of they kept away from the limelight but they do the cause real harm by hogging it instead.

  4. It is interesting that they are so determined to let Cameron off the hook for the marriage legislation by blaming the EU instead.

  5. Oh dear, old chap. Your ideological house of cards is really falling to pieces. It's sad to witness.

    What part of your delusional post addressed the key point that Cameron is only able to fill the Lords with his placemen...because Labour scrapped the hereditaries so it could fill the Lords with its placemen?

    To be precise, which you never are (you don't like dealing in historical specifics, as they are inconvenient to your worldview) it was for the crime of opposing a Continental 'closed-list' system of electing Euro MP's that Blair said he was getting rid of the hereditaries.

    Straw threatened them that if they didn't vote for this they'd be removed.

    They refused-and Labour removed them, citing this vote as one of the principal reasons.

  6. Prime Ministers have always been free to create as many Peers as they liked. A thousand at once, if they happened to feel like it. Never did it. But periodically threatened to. And always had it within their power. The removal of the hereditaries has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Closed lists were not the EU's idea. Blair decided to have them for reasons of his own, still, like many of his reasons, shrouded in mystery. And there'd be no UKIP MEPs without them.

    You are hopelessly out of your depth. Come back in 10 or 15 years' time.

  7. Does that Ukip boy seriously believe the number of Lords is fixed, the hereditaries had to be cleared out to "make room" for appointees? Pig ignorant buffoon, probably even looks like Nigel "Chicken" Farage the Eastleigh non-candidate, another pig ignorant buffoon.

    Good point about bourgeois triumphalism, I like that term. The entire Right and New Labour embody it in Britain today, completely lost touch with Tory roots of Conservatives, Radical roots of Lib Dems, Tory and Radical roots of Labour.

    Ukip is just Thatcherism in exile, so you can't expect anything else. But in that case it should support abolishing hereditary barons like abolishing trade union barons, and on libertarian principles should support gay marriage the way Farage did until a few months ago.

    He still does support legalising drugs and prostitution as any believer in the free market must.

  8. "the removal of the hereditories had nothing to do with it"

    Are you a professional comedian? The removal of the hereditaries was specifically carried out to empty the Lords of Tories so it could be filled with Labour placemen.

    At least you've finally found your reader (Lindsay's little fan-boy below) We're going to have to get that man a nappy.

    The liberal elite couldn't take over the House of Lords (as Cameron is now doing) until they'd got rid of the built-in Tory majority; the hereditary peers.

    Are you and your fan-boy so thick you do not even get that?

  9. You still don't grasp the basic point. Any Prime Minister always could appoint as many new Peers, life or hereditary, as he liked. There was no need to get rid of the existing hereditaries for the purpose. That was just done as a logical extension of Thatcherism.

  10. There was every need to get rid of the hereditaries-Blair (or Cameron) would have had to appoint about 300 new liberal Left-wing Peers to balance them out!

    Blair specifically said he wanted to get rid of what he called the "unfair built-in Tory majority". That was his raison d'etre for getting rid of them.

    That paved the way for him and Cameron (his heir) to replace them with a pack of servile liberals.

  11. If he had wanted 300 new Peers, then he could just have created them. He nearly did. I have seen the list. Years after the event, but I have seen it. Prime Ministers can create as many Peers as they like, for life or on an hereditary basis. They don't need to abolish any who already exist, since the number is limitless.

  12. He could-but his motives would have been too obvious if he did that.

    By getting rid of the hereditaries so he didn't need to, he could make it look like he was motivated by a desire to 'reform' an undemocratic system of 'ermine privelege'.

    The liberal media swallowed it-the Guardian celebrated his ending of centuries of constitutional history and aristocratic conscience.

    They didn't realise his purpose was just to increase the liberal elite's power.

  13. his motives would have been too obvious

    To whom?

    So what?

    We have had to wait for Cameron to arrive at the impending creation of scores of Peers in one go. But any Prime Minister could always have done it. It was just that they didn't.