17 May 2011

An Elected HoL would Challenge the apparent autocracy of the Commons.

I would like to get on a constitutional reform soapbox now and I make no apologies.

Clegg announced proposals today in Parliament to change to an elected House of Lords, amid speculation that he would be facing revolt by peers.

The peers who are against the move are quoted in the I paper as saying:

"'the supremacy and authority' of the Commons would 'inevitably be challenged' by an elected Lords."

It appears that they see this as a bad thing. Where as the majority of supporters of democracy would disagree. Challenge to a dictatorship is surely a positive thing, and any body that sees scrutiny as a bad thing has something to hide.

The Evening Standard does observe that such reforms will not commence until 2015 (potentially just in time for a Tory majority to reverse them).

It is basic common sense to have two thirds of the UK executive elected, now we need to move towards the final third.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device


  1. C'Mon Kelly - the entire Bill was a "dog's breakfast"! At least when we had the hereditary Lords we had men/women who had had an education, had wisdom and could exercise said wisdom.

    See: http://witteringwitney.blogspot.com/2011/05/lords-reform.html

    for my views, views that may well have you "spitting blood" as a LibDem. I can but quote a certain PM and film director......... :)

    Await the volcanic response.......

  2. Rubbish David, the majoity of Lords are appointed by political parties and comprise of ex-MPs and people who couldnt get elected.

    It's the most diabolical extension of the Ol' Boy's Club I've ever seen, and there is no democratic accountability at all.


Hi, thanks for commenting. I moderate all comments before publishing, hence your comment will not appear immediately! But I will get to it sooner or later!