|
Furthermore, that the Lords aren't democratic was a strength IMO.
If you ever watch debate in the Lords and compare it to the Commons the standard is far far higher - thoughtful, measured and civilized.
They don't pander to the electorate in the way that MP's have to and thus avoid the squalid vote-grabbing debates that can often happen in that chamber.
The only poor performances I have seen in the Lords have actually been from these new Labour appointed 'life peers' - definitely lowering the standards.
The reason the Lords have been getting so much negative publicity is largely due to Tony Blair's government stampeding over the constitutional heritage of our parliament. The Lords is supposed to act as a moderating force to the actual process of law-making which avoids any confrontation. Blair is just running into problems because his legislation is ill thought-out and (rather than moderate his bills) chooses to try and ram it through with the Parliament Act.
Unfortunately, all Blair has to do is simply blame the Lords obstruction on their being undemocratic and the average punter laps it up without having any knowledge about the standard of debate in the second chamber. A sad state of affairs. I would be willing to bet that no Prime Minister in British history has ever taken such liberties with our constitution or our parliamentary conventions. He needs a good kicking.
[ 02-05-2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]
|