In the lovely days when we were all just friends and before David Cameron came in and ruined it, there was a blogger, maybe still is, called Benedict White and he did a post on The House of Lords.
Meanwhile some Labour MPs wishing to do grave damage to our constitution suggest abolishing our house of Lord’s and moving to a unicameral system. That is one with only one house. There are clear reasons why that is a bad idea. It would lead to the dictatorship of the mob, or perhaps party machine. The House of commons needs checks and balances. If you want to see what sort of company we would be in if we had a unicameral system, Dizzy has this helpful map. I for one do not want to join that club.
My take on the whole thing is this. If you wanted to create a second chamber today you most certainly would not come up with the House of Lords. However you have to look at what it is for, and what it does. Fundamentally it is there to prevent government doing stupid things, at least with out a fight. It does not stand in the way of manifesto pledges but will seek to amend and alter bills particularly where daft or over authoritarian or both (like the various bits of anti terror legislation).
Many say we must have elected members of the House of Lords, or that having a combination of hereditary peers and appointed ones is bad. So what? Does it work? Yes.
At the same time, Martine Martin wrote:
I will argue that point to the death. I’ve never read an argument yet for this that stands up in any way. To say that an unelected second chamber is somehow “inappropriate for the 21st century” reeks of an incredibly superficial understanding of democracy and our parliamentary system in general. As we know, any banana republic can have elections. They’re meaningless compared to all the other nuances of a political system created in order to remove the potential for corruption or abuse of power.
People have argued against.
Benedict’s comments section included:
Parliament has become corrupt. MPs no longer represent the people they represent themselves, their party, their leader the EU. This is wrong.
Parliament is there at the behest of the British people, something has gone terribly wrong as we have ended up with a dictator whom we cannot get rid of until he wishes to go?
The only reform the House of Lords needs is to retire all those Lords who do not vote or sit in the house.. It is simple!
Furthermore it is apparent that some of the Lords instead of being there for the people, have become hungry for the success of the party and the monetary gain the EU can offer them. These too should be retired as they do not represent the people of the UK.
Many Lords of many parties make sound common sense judgements which protect the people. That is the 80% of this country’s people who do not have enough money for their voices to be heard!
Remember – that was 2007.
One reason for running this post now is there was a post on Them this morning and Them are represented in The Lords. Then again, Them are heavily represented in anything Labour /champagne socialist. Them are everywhere. They breed and infest local councils under Common Purpose guise.
The other reason is in response to Article 50, not about it – just in response to it:
Thoughts on the Lords?