The events of this week tempt me to doubt whether Parliament should exist at all; yet to give in to such sentiments would be to join the New Labour technocrats in rejecting the ancient constitution of this kingdom. The Commons appears to want an elected ‘House of Lords’ – and, to add insult to injury, elected by proportional representation, no less! The Times thinks that the resulting ‘house’ will even be renamed – such enormities make me want to leave the country. The life peers will be out on their ear like the hereditaries – who would have thought? This new ‘upper house,’ whatever it may turn out to be, is a pretended Parliament that stinks of the Convention of 1689 – fake and unconstitutional. No loyal Englishman should even consider voting for those members who tout themselves for such an affront to our ancient constitution. Tory support for a wholly or partially elected house is particularly shameful.
I could not care two pins for ‘the sovereignty of Parliament,’ so it is rather ironic that the strongest defenders of the sovereign right of the Commons would end up agreeing with me on Lords reform, that a wholly appointed house is to be preferred to this monstrosity. A so-called ‘democratic mandate’ for the upper house is as threatening to a Member of the Commons as it is to a monarchist. However, I am puzzled as to how the Lord Chamberlain, with his responsibility for all parliamentary protocol, and the Earl Marshal who is the head of a branch of the judiciary (the Court of Arms) could be ejected. In any case, it looks as though the Lords will make an attempt at self-preservation, and the story is not over yet.
1 Comment
March 18, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I completely agree with your post. The abolishment of the Lords in favour of an elected body is indicative of the Commons’ senility in this regard. Or perhaps in general. Still, I look forward to the endless arguments between the two houses over who is the superior body. If both are elected, I can see no reason why this shouldn’t happen.