House of Lords - peers behaving badly

I have been dismayed by the recent behaviour of ther House of Lords. They (they being largely Labour and crossbench peers) have been obstructing the passage of the referendum bill which paves the way for a May 2011 referendum on AV and sets in train the process of making constuencies equally sized. These are manifesto pledges by the Conservatives and so, under the Salisbury Convention, the Lords should not obstruct the proposals. But they are. The unelected chamber is defying the will of the elected Commons and, to add to the insult, are behaving in an extremely childish way, wasting time and using archane procedural rules to delay the bill. Pathetic. It matters not whether one agrees with the measures.

How sensible Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, has been on this. He points out that the Lords' behaviour will reinforce demands for an elected second chamber. BUT, of course, an elected second chamber os MORE, not less, likely to behave like this again. Unelected peers make mischief because they are not accountable to anyone.

So we ae left with a Catch 22 situation. The bad behaviour of the Lords may hasten their reform, but reform means election and they will behave even more obstructively if they are given more elective authority. Sadly Robin Butler has no answer to the conundrum other than to appeal to the appointed house to behave itself in the future or they will all lose their jobs.

It looks to me like a case for an appointed second chamber with less powers or......abolition ?

But seriously, we could do without a second chamber provided the Commons becomes a more independent, influential legislature along Ameroican lines. It won't happen but think about it.





http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01