If there's anyone out there who still opposes reform of the House of Lords…
… I have two words for you: Ian Blair.
What? This is utterly wrong on two levels:
- Difficult cases make bad laws. Yes, The fact that Ian "shooty" Blair has gained a peerage makes me want to fucking vomit—but is every appointment in this round of honours utterly unsuitable? In fact, we don't even know that Ian Blair will not be a good, sensible and conscientious legislator (although I seriously doubt it).
- Ian Blair's peerage is not a symptom of the need to reform the House of Lords: it is an indication of how bankrupt is the elected House of Commons. Blair was not given his peerage by the Lords—he was nominated and approved by Members and servants of the elected House of Commons.
So, when Dan Hannan asks this question...
How can an elected Upper House be worse than what we have now?
... I would tell him to look at the self-serving corruption of the elected House, and cite the elevation of Ian Blair to the Lords as evidence of said turpitude.
So, yes, Dan: I can think of many, many ways in which an elected House of Lords could be worse than what we have now—how long have you got?