Distaste for David Cameron’s new appointments to the House of Lords
|
Version 0 of 1. David Cameron’s appointments to the House of Lords last week have inadvertently highlighted exactly what is wrong with our unelected second chamber. Of the 45 new peers appointed, over half are Conservative; the Lib Dems, who now have just eight MPs, gained 11 peers, while the 1.1 million people who voted Green at the general election have remained ignored. The 26 new Tory peers are an impressively embarrassing group, including an ex-MP who claimed expenses to pay for the cleaning of his moat and a banker who donated £2.8m to the Conservative party (Cameron backs term limits for peers as latest list brings cronyism claims, 28 August). The second chamber’s purpose is to scrutinise bills that have been approved by the Commons. It is extremely optimistic to think that this can be carried out sufficiently by people hand-picked by the government writing those bills. We cannot expect this almost laughable round of new peers to represent the electorate, to debate, analyse and propose amendments to bills the Tories are putting forward, when they are there as a reward for their continued support for the Conservatives. Our House of Lords is in desperate need of reform to make it fit for the 21st century. We need a smaller second chamber that is directly elected by proportional representation, that is democratic, diverse and accountable.Natalie BennettLeader, Green party • I have a suggestion for David Cameron. Like other magistrates, I was obliged to retire from the bench when I reached my 70th birthday. If the magistracy must do this, why not the legislature? Judith MackCorby, Northamptonshire • In the recent general election my constituency, Hornsey and Wood Green, gave the Labour candidate (Catherine West) an 11,000 majority – one of the biggest swings in the country – over our deeply unimpressive Lib Dem former MP. The latter has now been elevated to the Lords, and we taxpayers have to continue funding her. Feels like a kick in the teeth. Roll on House of Lords reform.Marcia HeinemannLondon • One way of expressing distaste for the latest round of ennoblements would be to refuse to use the preposterous titles that life peers acquire: let them remain for ever Hogg, Lansley and so on. The Guardian could make a good start with this. Michael SheldonNorwich • The appointment of another 45 peers is indeed ridiculous, but if David Cameron is doing it as a means of “packing the red benches with cronies” (Editorial, 28 August) then he is incompetent as well as cynical. The changes only make a change of seven to the difference in numbers between the Conservatives and the combined opposition parties in the overcrowded House, yet the government has already been defeated 10 times in this parliament by majorities larger than this. Meanwhile Martin Kettle (Opinion, 28 August) asks “What is the point of a House of Lords that rewards failure?” But neither he nor you ask the more important question “What is the point of a House of Lords?” The answer, obscured by the understandable scorn at Mr Cameron’s behaviour, is that without the Lords both our legislation and our governance would be much worse than they are. The tragedy is that the real chance for democratic renewal of the upper house during the coalition was thrown away in the Commons by the combined treachery of the Conservative rebels and the official Labour opposition, who between them dumped the reform bill in the Thames.Tony GreavesLiberal Democrat, House of Lords • In 1942 my mother was awarded the BEM. Her citation notes that says “you rescued people from bombed houses while raiding was still going on, fought fires, evacuated a number of people from the area where an unexploded bomb had fallen, and generally behaved in a resourceful and courageous manner in circumstances of great danger with complete disregard for your own comfort and safety”. What will the citations for Mr Cameron’s gardener and catering staff mention, I wonder?Barbara RocheWeston-super-Mare, Somerset |