House of Lords reform: Part 94

Yet again British politicians are arguing about replacing the House of Lords. The main bone of contention seems to be just how elected it should be: 0%? 20%? 50%? 80%?

Maybe I’m not understanding something here. We are allegedly a democracy, if only of the rather stunted ‘representative’ or ‘parliamentary’ kind. So what exactly is the case for anything less than 100% elected? Beats me.

After all, there’s nothing to stop any government asking ‘Lord’ Putnam or ‘Lord’ Bragg (why aren’t these people embarrassed at the very thought of a title?) for their opinion about an issue if they really want to hear it. But putting them into Parliament with the right to make law, especially without any possibility of democratic recall, is completely barking.

These people do not represent anyone, have no right to govern anyone, have no right to tell me how I must behave, and cannot be given that right by anyone, even if they are the government. Full stop.

More of RJ Robinson at http://richardjrobinson.blogspot.com/

Leave a Reply