The shambles of the Lords reform vote shows why MORE elected politicians are the last thing we need
We can all breathe an almighty sigh now that the Government has dropped a key vote on Lords reform in the face of mounting opposition.
Those men and women sent by the voters to Parliament came very close to having to vote for something on our behalf.
Our elected politicians were seemingly edging towards creating yet more opportunities for us the voters to send more men and women to Westminster.
Confusion: The Government has dropped its programme motion for Lords reform, meaning MPs can delay the bill indefinitely
Fortunately there are a sufficient number of elected politicians who disagree with the idea of more elected politicians.
There was of course mounting opposition to reform, despite the manifesto pledges of the three parties and the coalition agreement. Pledges which meant that the public never got any meaningful say on reform in the first place.
Share this article
Proponents of Lords reform wanted to increase democratic accountability, and yet favoured having Senators who would never be able to seek re-election, and had no reason to concern themselves with their electorate. They wouldn't have a constituency anyway, because they would have been voted for under proportional representation.
Lords reform was said to put an end to cronyism, but the top names on the Proportional Representation lists - guaranteed to get in - would be chosen by the same sorts of people who ennoble the current Lords.
More from Rupert Myers for the Daily Mail...
- Whatever your views on gay marriage, the debate should be dignified and sensitive 16/08/12
- Young, Bright, and on the Right: A PR facepalm for Oxford's young Conservatives 10/08/12
- Please can the national good mood continue long after these games have ended? 08/08/12
- Louise Mensch's resignation shows that we need more mothers as MPs, not that they can't hack it 06/08/12
- London 2012: You don't need sporting prowess to feel included in Team GB, so stand up and be part of the action 30/07/12
- The Olympics have given us a chance to look back with fondness - and forward with hope 29/07/12
- Are the Olympic Games a celebration of the peak of human physical achievement, or a corporate jamboree? 11/07/12
- Until and unless Scientology behaves openly and transparently, it will continue to be considered a cult 02/07/12
- An issue of CLASS and the ever-continuing fight for the soul of the Labour party 29/06/12
- VIEW FULL ARCHIVE
If you want to change the voting system you get a referendum. If you want to change the voting system AND alter the constitutional arrangement, no referendum is required. No basis for distinction between these changes which removes the need for a referendum has been provided.
You couldn't fill Henman Hill with serious people who think that the House of Lords does not need some element of reform, and yet our three major political parties (to say nothing of their rebel elements) are engaged in a fandango of constitutional tinkering which has so far resulted in nothing.
Every time the foolishness of this reform or that is mooted by one of our Members of Parliament, that minority of Lords who punch their card, collect their cash, and only stay to vote if it's in opposition to Lords reform looks a little safer on its benches.
Every time the House of Commons behaves like this, one is forced to wonder if replicating that model in the scrutinising chamber would improve matters.
From start to finish, the Lords reform saga has been a dismal victory for the politics of Lewis Carroll.
