[HoL] These Lords, Spiritual and Temporal

Day 664, 23:09 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by Arthur Wellesley

The great debate over the House of Lords continues to rage, and there is still no clear cut victor. At the time of my writing this, I am grieved to report that the bill to abolish the House of Lords has a majority, with 17 MPs left to vote.

I have been one of the most vocal supporters of the House of Lords, and as a Lord myself it is easy to see me as an entirely interested party. Some would say you should mistrust my opinion, that I am of the old guard, an elitist who doesn't care for democracy.

To these charges, I say to you, when you board an airliner to fly from City A to City B, who do you want in the Captain's seat of your 747? Do you want a 23 year old with 500 hours who has been flying since he got out of high school, or do you want the grizzled Captain with thousands of hours who has been flying since that 23 year old was in diapers? There's the old phrase "Old age and cunning will always beat youth and skill". I would say that being a member of the old guard is not a bad thing, but a good thing for all of us. This 'old guard' used to be a group that was trusted and respected, players that have been around, that know the game, that have seen the good, the bad -- and the ugly. Why is it such a bad thing to give that group the chance to let their experience go to good practice? Instead of doing that, there are bills on the floor to dissolve their traditional House, the House of Lords, or to emasculate it through removing it's voting ability and imposing term limits.

What of democracy? When the United States of America was founded, a little known fact about the American government is that the founders of the country had their upper house, the Senate, chosen by state legislators. They were not directly elected. Surely, you would not wager that the United States is a non-democratic government? Sure, it has warts, but so do all democratic governments. No system is perfect. The House of Lords is a body that elevates members to it's ranks, if they choose to accept, and those nominations (as we have recently seen) are subject to the oversight of the popularly elected House of Commons. Instead of destroying the institution, why not examine other options of appointment. For example, could not the Government appoint members to the House of Lords? The Government is just as accountable to the people as the House of Lords are: indirectly, through the House of Commons.

Furthermore, how democratic is the House of Commons? Have any of these MPs screaming for the dissolution of the upper house gone back to their Constituencies and asked their voters what their wishes are towards the House of Lords? Have they presented an unbiased account of the arguments for and against repeal, or the options for reform? Have they, they that love to speak of democracy, actually participated in the two-way street that we call democratic representation? I say nay, I would be shocked to find even ONE MP in the House of Commons that has practiced what he preached! They say the House of Lords is undemocratic! I say, if the Lords are undemocratic, so too are the Commons! Let us dissolve both before we dissolve one or the other, for neither are perfect, but with work the two can work together to better the UK!

Yes, I am an interested party. I have been in the House of Lords for a while now, but I was also an MP. I've seen the best -- and the worst -- of our little eDemocracy. Nothing is perfect, but I ask you to preserve this institution and help the Lords make it better, rather than destroying it and offering us no hope of improving the situation. Do not give up on the House of Lords, rather, and let us have government!

I am, etc.
Arthur Wellesley