In these days of so-called democratic government the removal of the hereditary entitlement to sit on the red benches was probably inevitable. But an entirely elected House of Lords - as last weeks Commons vote may have presaged - would be to take reform too far.
We would end up with a weaker version of the Commons, which is, for the most part, ineffective against the power of the ruling party and its whips. And the valuable scrutinisation of bills, hastily and imperfectly dealt with by the Commons, would be all but lost as Party took precedence over all other considerations. In other words a waste of money and space.
OK, the House of Lords is far from perfect as the current cash for honours debacle illustrates. But jokes about superannuated peers are unjust. Age does not necessarily dim the intelligence of people with years of experience in industry or government - qualities that sometimes seem to be the least criteria needed for membership of the Commons.
So, while Tony Blair's desire to leave a legacy is understandable I believe he should leave the Lords alone. He has done more than enough already.
What has this to do with rural life? you might ask.
Quite a lot, actually. For there are a significant number of peers who understand agriculture, either because they are or have been farmers or ministers of agriculture. From time to time they pronounce upon it with erudition and authority. Farmers have few friends in high places these days, especially not in the Commons. Blair's new look Lords would quickly become an urban dominated Chamber, just like "the other place" at the Palace of Westminster. It is my firmly held belief that were the planned reforms to go ahead farming would be even less well represented in parliament than it is now.
Comments (1)
Large betting portal with daily FREE predictions and analysis,
bookmaker reviews and info.
Posted by betting | November 27, 2007 1:23 AM
Posted on November 27, 2007 01:23