"The Lib Dem leader's plan is noble yet naive; against his party's interests and destined to fail. But do we need a second chamber anyway?" More »
The unintended consequences of Nick Clegg's Lords reform are too unpredictable. If one really can't stand the upper chamber being unelected, then it should just be abolished in its present form. Allow the hereditary peers back and let it be a 100% ceremonial body, maybe convening only during the Queen's Speech.
Clegg's reforms seems only for the sake of having an elected upper house. Is there real dissatisfaction over how the Lords run their business apart from the fact that they are appointed/hereditary? Additionally, does the necessity of their functions justify taxpayer expenditures for more than 800 members?
If the Lords are doing a decent job, then reform should not be a priority for now, perhaps ever. If their role in the governing process is barely significant, then maybe they should not exist at all.
One may resort to the argument for preserving tradition. Keep in mind hereditary peers were expelled from the chamber and its judicial functions were stripped in the space of 12 years. The current House of Lords barely resembles what it was 20 years ago. Abolition would not be such a radical idea.
 |
| House of Lords assembled. (Leon Neal/PA) |
Clegg's reforms seems only for the sake of having an elected upper house. Is there real dissatisfaction over how the Lords run their business apart from the fact that they are appointed/hereditary? Additionally, does the necessity of their functions justify taxpayer expenditures for more than 800 members?
If the Lords are doing a decent job, then reform should not be a priority for now, perhaps ever. If their role in the governing process is barely significant, then maybe they should not exist at all.
One may resort to the argument for preserving tradition. Keep in mind hereditary peers were expelled from the chamber and its judicial functions were stripped in the space of 12 years. The current House of Lords barely resembles what it was 20 years ago. Abolition would not be such a radical idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment