So the House of Commons has given its opinion – both of them – on the composition of the ‘other place’.
80% elected or 100% elected, they’re not sure. The Lords themselves are. They reject both options, and of course they would, wouldn’t they? Who cares anyway?
I do, for one. And not just because I’m a traditionalist, with a taste for pomp and pageantry and idiosyncratic British institutions. No, we need a House of Lords, or a Senate, call it what you like, that that can save the House of Commons from itself.
Because the Commons, for all its posturing as being the supreme law-making body and the watchdog of the executive, is a failure. It’s a place where debate is superficial and partisan, where most legislation goes through without any scrutiny at all, either because its another statutory instrument or a European directive. It’s a place where members are bullied, bribed and blackmailed by the whips into conforming, and where success is measured, at best, in terms of office or, at worst, in mere re-election.
In the recent past, at least, only the House of Lords has shown intelligent thought on issues or demonstrated any concern for the constitution and our liberties.
So I find myself, surprisingly, against an elected upper House, whether 80 or 100%. As I see it, the proposals carry the following implications:
Ø We are set to lose the experience, even wisdom, of many of our appointed Lords. People who have made and have nothing left to prove or gain. Even the odd bishop can have a point of view to contribute, not to mention judges, generals, former PMs, businessmen, artists and trade unionists. They no longer have to be ambitious and therefore corruptible.
Ø Many of these people, and even former party MPs, do not accept a party whip,the so-called crossbenchers. They are not susceptible to the threats of party managers
Ø Instead the second chamber will be composed wholly or predominately of elected and therefore party men. They are likely to be the same kind of candidates who stand for the European so-called Parliament, second-raters and non-entities.
Ø And they’re going to be there for 15 years at a time. That means you only have to be elected twice and it’s a job for life. Despite that, unlike the current unelected Lords, these are people who will do as they are told. Some MPs have expressed fear that an elected other place will give it ‘democratic legitimacy’ and lead to constitutional conflict. I don’t think it will, which is a pity, because we don’t have half as much conflict as we should.
Ø It will be made even worse because they will be elected on the ‘list system’ of PR, which puts the whole process in the central power of party machines.
What about democracy, I hear you say. My reply is that the Commons provide the democratic representation of the people and it doesn’t matter if unelected people contribute to the democratic process, whether they be the Queen, civil servants or the barmaids in the pub next door to Westminster.
80% elected or 100% elected, they’re not sure. The Lords themselves are. They reject both options, and of course they would, wouldn’t they? Who cares anyway?
I do, for one. And not just because I’m a traditionalist, with a taste for pomp and pageantry and idiosyncratic British institutions. No, we need a House of Lords, or a Senate, call it what you like, that that can save the House of Commons from itself.
Because the Commons, for all its posturing as being the supreme law-making body and the watchdog of the executive, is a failure. It’s a place where debate is superficial and partisan, where most legislation goes through without any scrutiny at all, either because its another statutory instrument or a European directive. It’s a place where members are bullied, bribed and blackmailed by the whips into conforming, and where success is measured, at best, in terms of office or, at worst, in mere re-election.
In the recent past, at least, only the House of Lords has shown intelligent thought on issues or demonstrated any concern for the constitution and our liberties.
So I find myself, surprisingly, against an elected upper House, whether 80 or 100%. As I see it, the proposals carry the following implications:
Ø We are set to lose the experience, even wisdom, of many of our appointed Lords. People who have made and have nothing left to prove or gain. Even the odd bishop can have a point of view to contribute, not to mention judges, generals, former PMs, businessmen, artists and trade unionists. They no longer have to be ambitious and therefore corruptible.
Ø Many of these people, and even former party MPs, do not accept a party whip,the so-called crossbenchers. They are not susceptible to the threats of party managers
Ø Instead the second chamber will be composed wholly or predominately of elected and therefore party men. They are likely to be the same kind of candidates who stand for the European so-called Parliament, second-raters and non-entities.
Ø And they’re going to be there for 15 years at a time. That means you only have to be elected twice and it’s a job for life. Despite that, unlike the current unelected Lords, these are people who will do as they are told. Some MPs have expressed fear that an elected other place will give it ‘democratic legitimacy’ and lead to constitutional conflict. I don’t think it will, which is a pity, because we don’t have half as much conflict as we should.
Ø It will be made even worse because they will be elected on the ‘list system’ of PR, which puts the whole process in the central power of party machines.
What about democracy, I hear you say. My reply is that the Commons provide the democratic representation of the people and it doesn’t matter if unelected people contribute to the democratic process, whether they be the Queen, civil servants or the barmaids in the pub next door to Westminster.
No comments:
Post a Comment