Monday, March 12, 2007

The Lords and lordy...

Jackart's bang on the money about the Lords reform.
Now a democratic Lords may smell better to people brought up to equate "democracy" with "good", but it will spell more bad legislation. It will lead to unchecked power when a party has a majority in both houses comprised of party hacks. Democracy for the lords will remove a check and further entrench the elective dictatorship.

In the event of what the French call "Cohabitation", elected Lords (they'll probably be called something vulgar like senators) will lead to gridlock as you will not be able to fob people with democratic "legitimacy" off with the parliament act. The idea that our politicos schooled in Tribal mud slinging will behave like independent minded American senators is ludicrous. You need to be rich before you become a senator - this gives independence. Both parties (labour are naturally worse) are stuffed with career politicians dependent on their parties for their pay cheque.

The loss to the country of the ability to reward notable subjects with medieval flummery rather than a salary and a party whip will be huge.

Elected lords would be a disaster - better cronyism and corruption. Better still, let the lords decide their own composition independent of party machines.

I agree entirely; I can't think of anything worse than a whole bunch of party apparatchiks being ushered in and Whipped into submission (at least the current Lords do it in their spare time. Possibly), even if it did mean that UKIP might get some more representation.

Except, of course, that I don't think that they will. Let's face it, the Big 3 don't like anyone else horning in on their party and there's no way that they'll let BNP members sit in the Lords: so they will, of course, stitch it up just as they're stitching up the state funding proposals.

Under the current proposals, a political party will need to have two first-past-the-post MPs before they get any state funding; what do you want to bet that the proposals for the Elected Lords has a similar provision, eh?

Fuck, we're ruled by a bunch of corrupt turds, are we not?

5 comments:

haddock said...

perhaps we should use an extension of the system for picking a jury of 12 that can decide on a man's life. Take a couple of hundred names off the electoral rolls at random and invite them at say, £50,000 a year full time, for a couple of years at a time. Secret ballot in the house, no party politics/whips/trooping into lobbies.Peers as in peer groups.

Surreptitious Evil said...

Yes, we are ruled by a mendacious bunch of turds whose egregious corruption lets even vicious dictators poke fun at what is supposed to be one of the world's great democracies. And, frankly, there is no immediate hope.

Mind you, the Westminster Council report into the hygiene at the HoP kitchens, and the chance of the odd vial of H5N1 being available in various labs in Norfolk, does give me a few ideas.

S-E

knirirr said...

The current UKIP West Lothian document does mention an elected Lords. I think that that part needs revising, too. ;-)

Prodicus said...

I dread an elected Lords. Just imagine all the do-gooders who will want to occupy its benches. We'll be up to our necks in the sort of Wimmin who seem to chair all the quangos these days.

Viva Lord Onslow - bursting with common sense, intelligence and experience, not a shred of democratic cred and doing a sterling job in defending our liberties.

LFB_UK *The Legend* said...

God knows how it worked but it did, why fix what wasnt broken??