Wednesday, March 07, 2007

HOUSE OF LORDS NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED NOT REFORMED

Today UK Westminster MP's voted for a 100% elected upper house. A step towards democracy? A momentous day in history? A blow against class privilege?

Sadly no, it looks like British MP's are merely playing daft games. Put forward an unworkable plan and then when the Lords send it back, kick it into the long grass where it won't trouble new proposed PM Gordon Brown. Brown doesn;t want to consider doing anything which might democratise society, no he wants to Be King Gordon, after King Tony, his career comes first, as always.

Blair made some half hearted attempts at reform early on in his administration, clearing out a layer of hereditary peers. Unfortunately the modern hangers on (dubbed Tony's Cronies by the tabloids) are no better than the hereditary ones - in fact sometimes worse - after all sometimes an evil individual can have a decent son or daughter. If you are reliant on the patronage of the current PM it hardly encourages dissent!

The house of Lords is of course an anachronism. MP's like to pretend to consider reforms but they really prefer it as it is. A house of irrelevant idiots in ermine robes who put on a show for the tourists but who are rightly ignored by the media.

The only problem with electing the House of Lords is that it would effectively become a rival to the House of Commons and with two elected houses there would be little to choose between either. The 'upper house' would be much more tempted to meddle in the other chamber and there would be no clearly dominent parliament. 'We've been elected as well' they would cry.

A second chamber is not actually required at all.

The real underlying problem is that the FPTP system used to elect the British Parliament's House of Commons leads to absolute dictatorships by minority parties. The Blair Government only attracted 30 odd percent of the vote at the last UK elections. Despite this fact FPTP delivered Labour a workable majority. The second chamber in theory acts as a balancing mechanism, it stops the Government's more absurd proposals and ensures all legislation is properly scrutinised. Unfortunately it doesn't actually do any of these things.

Yes, the Lords can make slight amendments and can send laws back (three times) but ultimately the 'lower house' can overrule it and any determined Government can push through any draconian law. This has been proven on numerous occasions.

The simple answer for Scotland is of course to get independence and then we don't need to worry about the anachronistic institutions and the non existent constitution of Britain any more. It can't happen soon enough.

The powers wielded by Tony Blair (on behalf of the monarch) are considerable and in reality the Blair Government is a dictatorship which rules MP's like sheep through the whipping system. (A highly appropriate term).

The only way the undemocratic constitution of Britain can be unraveled is by setting up a new one under a democratic republic. This could happen in Scotland with independence but it won't happen for the foreseeable future in England.

The answer to the question of Lords reform is very simple. Dump it and elect one chamber by PR. At one stroke the problem of undemocratic minority Governments is solved. In future all legislation would have to be passed by parties representing the majority of the people. They will still get it wrong occasionally which is why all parliaments have regular elections.

Anyone who suggested a second chamber for Holyrood or for our future independent Government (or a new monarchy for that matter) would be laughed out of the room. Sure the quality of MP's and MSP's is poor and certainly some of the relics in the House of Lords have useful experience but while these people are appointed to rule over others (usually by naked bribery or by patronage) then a country is not free.

Most peers are completely out of touch with reality and they ignore the views of absolutely everyone. Most are has beens with no more sense than any other person in the street. All have lived lifes of extraordinary privilege and most cannot imagine anything better than the status quo.

Every former minister can get their place in the Lords and few refuse. Lord Lang, Lord Forsyth, failed Governor generals for Scotland, politicians who chose to sell their soul to England and made a career out of running down their own country. These characters are a total waste of space.

If any of the Lords want to represent the people they should stand for election. If they won't do that then they are not fit to help run any Government.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This piece demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the whole British Constitution.
The house of Lord’s is a place for revising legislation. It is not a place where party political battles can be fought out. If you compare the slow painstaking debate on wording in the Lords with the party political cut and thrust in the other place you will see the difference.
When we remember that the Lords has, both under the Conservatives and Labour, actually defended our civil rights it is as well to remember that it has got an important part to play in protecting us from the behaviour of the executive.
Of course the hereditary element is outdated. Might it not be replaced by a lottery where people’s names are drawn by lot? That is what the hereditary principal is the luck of who your parents are. What is much more important are the cross benchers, non party political experts who are the real experts who actually do contribute to the wellbeing of the nation. They need to be appointed by some non political method as they would never dream of running for office.
What is of vital importance is the idea that once they are there they cannot be got rid of unlike an elected member who can be deselected by his party.
Actually I am at a loss to understand why you have commented on this matter. For the people of Scotland this should be of only very short term interest.
In an independent Scotland there will of course be a single chamber legislature, and legislation will be scrutinised by specialised committees as happens today in the devolved chamber.