The fact that the government should be surprised that the House of
Commons should deliver an overwhelming and historic vote in favour of a
wholly-elected House of Lords is an indictment of our times and a shame
on the traditions of the Labour Party. The House of Lords as an
institution has always represented an archaic layer of British pomp,
privilege and patronage that Labour should have abolished a long time
ago, just like it said it would. That’s why politicians were
embarrassed to be heard arguing for anything other than a fully elected
House of Lords. Tony Blair and Jack Straw should be rightly ashamed
that at the same time as they go into Iraq preaching the need for full
democracy, that they are trying to reform the House of Lords in their
own country, with a system that would still see 50 per cent of them
simply appointed by the Prime Minister. After nearly 100 years, the
House of Commons has at last taken the momentous step to reform the
upper house and make it fit for a modern democracy. This should be
applauded but when you have been in power for a while, got comfortable
with the establishment and rubbed ermine-fringed shoulders with those
and such as those then maybe you forget that the thing you went into
politics for was to uphold the democratic rights of us all. Of course,
Britain’s upper house has not had legislative powers and has been there
to simply offer an often valuable and independent role which runs
checks and balances and pulls an out of control government back into
line with the authority of a respected elder but its undemocratic
nature flies in the face of what socialism should be all about. That’s
why one of our most loved politicians, who people from all political
parties cite as an inspiration, Tony Benn, spent years trying to
absolve himself of his hereditary peerage. There is no doubt that over
the years, the Lords has given us some interesting and independent
characters but if ever there was need for doubt about how and why it
exists then the cash-for-honours affair offers that in spades. It has
exposed the fact that even a Labour government, when push comes to
shove, will resort to embracing the dazzle of elitism and that once
they have run out of other favours to dole out, the lure of the upper
house can always be dangled as a tempting tit bit. The Scottish
Parliament does not have a second chamber, although it was something
that was discussed when the whole constitutional question was being
looked at. What it does have is a committee structure, which was meant
to afford the same checks and balances. However, as time goes by, the
committees are increasingly seen as toothless, with recommendations
rarely being acted upon, debate stifled and little dent being made in
the legislative process. While Westminster resonates to the sound of
smug politicians who, for once in the last wee while, have done the
right thing, perhaps our own MSPs should look at our own parliament and
make sure we use our committee structure for the purpose it was put
there for, and by democratic means. Now that would be worth lording
over Westminster.
No one has commented on this article. |
Holyrood news 
Holyrood magazine is the fortnightly insiders guide to understanding the complexity of Scottish politics and policy developments and is widely regarded as being the leading publication for political news and information in Scotland.
