House of Lords Reform

I was appalled when I learned that the new Coalition government are going to attempt to turn the House of Lords into an elected Senate. So strongly do I feel about this travesty that I was compelled to send letters off to various members of Parliament (both Opposition and Government as well as the Lords). Below readers can find a copy of this agitation. I think it summarises my argument quite well, and I would be interested to read the opinion of anyone who happens to be passing through this section of the blogosphere.


An academic’s first duty is to their subject, and a bishop’s to God. Both roles can be found within the House of Lords, but does the value of these individuals as legislators diminish because of their devotion to their chosen field? Almost certainly not; in my own modest opinion quite the reverse is true; by first serving science, or philosophy, or whatever other subject may be represented in the Upper Chamber, peers such as Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, can bring expertise and a unique insight to a prospective law which would have been lost if he had been a politician alone. No matter how intelligent an MP may be, they simply cannot keep abreast of current developments in their past field as well as fully serving their constituents and going through the rigors of re-election every four or five years. This, of course, does not devaluate the hard work of our MPs, but it does highlight the need for independent life peers in the House of Lords who can scrutinise and debate Bills in a way which the House of Commons cannot hope to emulate.

I am not advocating that the House of Lords does not need to be reformed, but I feel that the creation of a wholly elected Senate would be pure folly; the great tradition of highly qualified independent peers would be lost, and this would be a dismal development for the national character: I find it hard to imagine Lord Rees standing in an election at the expense of scientific enquiry, and it would be incompetence in the extreme to force such peers to choose between the love of their country and the love of their subject; there seems no sane reason why the two cannot be reconciled.

I hope that I have clearly expressed my view on this subject, and I hope that you shall at least consider this view before voting on any legislation which may change the nature of our upper house.

And so ends my political agitating, at least for the moment!

Should the Monarchy Stay or Go?

What are my views on the Queen? There are various people within the nationalist community who believe that an independent Scotland (or a united Britain) should be a republic. The argument goes that the common people should be able to elect their head of state, but this I see as quite pointless. For instance, let us just imagine that Britain became a republic. In the British system at present the Queen acts as our head of state, and so it must be concluded that any elected official would perform similar functions: real power would still reside with the Prime Minister and Parliament with the President used as a figure head with limited constitutional powers. We would have a republic which would almost definitely be closer to the Indian or Polish model rather than the American one, and as such we would be replacing a monarchical figure-head with an elected figure-head.

Now if we conclude that the only difference between a monarchical Britain and a republican one is another election every 4 years or so, then from a philosophical perspective it must be concluded that there must be something special about electing our head of state or there would be no point in replacing the Queen. I would argue that this is not true. Although democracy in the Lower House is preferable to some kind of dictatorship, I would argue that an elected President merely adds extra cost (elections cost money) and uncertainty (will it be the twit who is elected? Do I really need to watch another party political broadcast?) without adding to the sum total of national wellbeing (would another elected official really make me any better off either economically or spiritually?). As such I would argue that on grounds of good governance replacing the already existing monarch with a President is an unnecessary, and quite laborious step which should be avoided.

Of course republicans tend to factor in cost-cutting as a reason to axe the monarchy, but this simply does not float. Almost all of the Queen’s properties (with the exclusion of Buckingham Palace and a few others) are owned by her and her family-if Britain became a republic these properties would remain in the Windsor family. At the moment the government has the right to receive the money generated from these business interests, and with them meet the monarchies various costs. Any money left over goes into the government’s budget. With a President we would have most of the costs (security detail, wage, state functions and the added burden of an election) with none of the added benefits brought out from the Windsor estates-unless that family was extremely generous. The idea that a republic would save the country undue financial strain is therefore ludicrous. As such I conclude that Britain (and indeed an independent Scotland) should remain a monarchy for the foreseeable future.

Are Labour Insane?

Of late I have been a bit of a post-election news glutton. Hung parliaments certainly make for interesting politics. Anyway, Labour last night announced that they would be willing to do a deal with the Lib Dems so as to form a ‘Progressive Alliance’, and Gordon Brown would stand down as leader if this were to happen. Despite the fact that adding the Liberals to the Labour bunch still does not make a majority, this would be utter madness. Although the Labour loyalists doing the TV circuits claiming that there is no constitutional barrier to imposing another unelected PM are correct, this does not mean they are justified in doing so. A Party leader will shape the policy and persona of their party, and as PM is the face of Britain abroad-for instance Thatcher Tory Party and Cameron Tory Party are different in many respects as too would a Milliband or Balls Labour Party. As such I think the electorate should at least have the right to know who they are getting as their leader when they vote for a party at an election. If Labour impose yet another leader on the British people without recourse to an election then I think they deserve to be punished at the polls.

In the personal opinion of this blogger I think that the Lib Dems should side with the Conservative Party. Although I may not like it more people voted Tory than any other single party, and a Con-Lib coalition may take the sting out of some of the worse Conservative policies-perhaps they will be more gentle with a southing yellow at the Cabinet. However, if they form a Lib-Lab pact then we are in for a messy term where nothing much gets done. This is bad in the best of times, never mind when just coming out of a recession. Come on Clegg, side with Cameron!