In among naps, I watched the Federer Murray tennis very last, and as expected, Federer received at a canter. The one factor that surprised me become that Murray was upset at losing! I suggest, get a fact check! And the same applies to the overhyped press and media. Tears followed defeat, shared via several who knew and cherished the lad, including his mom and existence partner who spent the entire tournament shouting the percentages like a fishwife buy a title.
But sufficient of Murray, and returned to greater urgent troubles.
The reform of the House of Lords is on the political agenda, or type of, with many Tory MPs hostile, and the Lib Dems insisting on reform as their price for supporting boundary adjustments. The whole enterprise looks very cheesy indeed!
The historians amongst you’ll take into account the Parliament Act 1911, while the Lords backed down and ceded primacy to the Commons on all fiscal topics. Since then, the Lords has become increasingly more a consultative chamber, and whilst push comes to shove, the Commons reigns supreme. Fair sufficient, because the House of Commons is the elected chamber, over which the voting public has a say in its constituent components.
The problem approximately the Lib Dems’ proposals is that an elected House of Lords chamber dangers elevating it beyond its present remit, to the factor in which they could, and probable will, assignment government regulation and endorse regulation in their very own movement. To a limited volume they can do this now, but it is, in particular, to a restrained extent.
An elected chamber must ultimately answer to its voters, in any other case it defeats the cause of the exercising. As an elector, I will now not anticipate my consultant to become a ‘sure’ man to the Commons, however to represent me in keeping with my chosen candidate’s manifesto. If he does not, then I shall not vote for him once more. After all, that is the basic precept of democracy.
Reforming the Lords within the manner proposed by way of the Lib Dems is the worst of each worlds. It risks changing their mandate with none tests and balances in place, and frankly, this can jar with the Parliament Act and all that followed. It quantities to a main constitutional change.
I am now not certain how it’s going to work. Do you have to be a Lord earlier than you may stand for election? If so, that narrows the sphere and likely disqualifies the maximum worthy applicants. If now not, do you end up a Lord if elected? And what takes place if you lose your seat? Do you revert to Mr. Joe Bloggs, or are you continue to Lord Bloggs?
There are two alternatives: both go away the House of Lords as it’s miles, warts and all, and adopt the memorable quip attributed to Louis B Mayer: “If it ain’t broke, don’t restoration it”. Or abolish the House of Lords, and feature a truely elected chamber similar to the American Senate. This tinkering at the rims proposed via the Lib Dems is a recipe for constitutional confrontation and, like so many of their thoughts, badly thought through if in any respect.