45 new Peers?

[tony draper]

They are taking the piss aren't they? 800 of the tossers now

[stuart]

An absolute waste of money imo, most of them just seem to turn up for their expenses and the rest seem to be asleep !

[om15]

Isn't one of them the bloke who invoiced us for his duck pond maintenance? so in answer to the questions, - looks like it

[angels]

The Torygraph says the Honours Committee refused 10 peerages because the nominees were not suitable because of their financial affairs. Only about 40 have ever been refused before and this selection manages a quarter of that alone! If a party nominates you, the only reason they can decline you a peerage is because of your financial misdemeanours.

If you are nominated as a cross-bench peer you have to jump through a lot of impertinent hoops such as being good at your job, not being a crook and being a credit to society.

[Tom Joad]

Isn't one of them the bloke who invoiced us for his duck pond maintenance? so in answer to the questions, - looks like it

Utterly shameful - yet I bet he would be first in the que to decry the "idle masses" on benefits. Some of them do good work but I wouldn't lose any sleep if reform happened tomorrow.

[om15]

Yes I was right, it is Douglas Hogg QC, this is the comment published in the Telegraph today, it least sometime appreciates public opinion.

Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has called for the body that rejected Mr Hogg's proposed peerage in 2011 to explain the reversal.
He also warned that the appointment was making the House of Lords look like a "farce" in the eyes of the public.
"The House of Lords Appointments Commission has to explain the rationale for changing their mind [on Mr Hogg]," Sir Alistair told The Telegraph.
"I think the public will be puzzled as to what has happened since 2011. Clearly his difficulties with parliamentary expenses caused them to think he wasn't an appropriate person to enter the House of Lords then, so why have they changed their mind?
"We need increased transparency about why certain people were acceptable when they weren't a few years ago."

Asked if those who were blocked by the Appointments Commission should be named publicly, he said: "That would act as a deterrent to allowing their names to go forward in the first place and help reduce the size of the Lords."

Asked about the impact of Mr Cameron giving Mr Hogg a peerage, Sir Alistair said: "I think the public will think the House of Lords is becoming a bit of a farce. Their cynicism of our political system will just continue to increase in a depressing way."

[tony draper]

Well they realized a while back the great British public are apathetic and ineffectual, we will moan a bit on tinternet about the latest outrage then forget about it,I have said in the past governments no longer fear the mob, specialy in this country where we have never dragged them their ilk outside and strung em up from lamposts,they can more or less do what they like.
Just look what the bankers recently got away with.

[A Lutra Continua]

Time to set up Mme le guillotine outside parliament and randomly execute a dozen or so to set the tone. After that any overstepping of the bounds of decency will result in a short walk outside in chains and a quick loss of 15 lbs of ugly fat and bone.


Politicians? I shit 'em...

[handsfree]

Keeps them off the streets I suppose.
Although hanging a few from the lamp posts of Pall Mall would make for quite quirky decorations.

To paraphrase ... est bon de tuer de temps en temps un politicien pour encourage les autres
(excuse the ffrench Mr D).

[Ancient Mariner]

Peers? Sorry, though I had a great number of new namesakes.
Or it could have been Ibsen's Peer Gynt.
Per

[Ex-Ascot]

Absolutely ridiculous. I only see two who deserve it. One ex-PM (briefly) and the guide dog and his man.

Yet again my fiver to the Tory party a year has failed to gain me a seat. How many fivers do they want?