Copyright 2001 Bristol United Press
Bath Chronicle

November 12, 2001

EDITION: BATH CHRONICLE

SECTION: Letters, Pg.11

LENGTH: 295 words

HEADLINE: Plenty to criticise in Lords changes;
Letter

BYLINE: NICK SPURRELL

BODY:
THE Government's extreme new plans for reform of the House of Lords have been greatly - and rightly - criticised.

The proposals have one fifth of the house elected and the rest appointed.

Consequently, the tiny democratic element will be used to justify undemocratic partisan 'cronyism'.

It is not long since Blair expelled the vast majority of hereditary peers from the Lords.

This too was wrong. Despite its peculiar composition, the pre-reform House of Lords worked because its members were, in practice, independent.

Even party-affiliated members have illustrated this by repeatedly voting against their party.

Unlike in the Commons, members did not have to obey the whims of party whips lest they lose their seat in Parliament.

Instead, peers listened to all the arguments in a debate and would vote according to what they personally believed was right.

As Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance has pointed out: "It is their independence, not their birth, that makes (hereditary peers) so objectionable".

In another example of his 'controlfreakery', Tony Blair wants to control not only the Commons but the Lords too.

The pre-reform Lords was not a democratic institution. But it was a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, a means of preventing power-crazed prime ministers from getting their way all the time - as both Thatcher and Blair have found out to their dismay. The new plans would allow prime ministers to do just this.

If Blair succeeds in imposing his latest proposal on this country's constitution, it will be a sad day for freedom.

As Alexander Hamilton declared:

"Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments."

Faulkland View Peasedown St John