Hero of Excellence wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Not being funny, but haven't the politicians - Mr Clegg in particular - got more pressing matters to worry about right now than the reform of the House of Lords?
As an aside, I'll take Bishops over (elected, sycophant, line-towing) Pawns anyday. And anyway, in all seriousness - what the fuck is the point in having an elected second chamber...? The first elected chamber is surely and self-evidently bad enough.
So you're against the whole idea of democratic representation? Both those of your arguments have historically been used by dictators and dictatorships as arguments against democracy: "we've got a national crisis on, we can't be distracted by democracy!"; "we can't have
elected politicians, they'll all be populist careerists!".
Whoa there, I didn't say I was against democratic representation, did I? I just don't want to see all the upheaval, expense and government/parliamentary resources consumed (where these are surely needed elsewhere) - ultimately for something new that's demonstrably worse than what we have, as clearly imperfect as it is.
Sorry, but there *is* a national crisis ongoing at the moment; this is unprecedented, certainly within my own lifetime. We look (vainly) to our politicians to do the job that they're elected to perform and for them to seriously analyse the problems and formulate meaningful, substantive and worthwhile solutions that are within their gift so to do. So yes, I unashamedly believe that this is absolutely not the time to be indulging in this stuff, notwithstanding the fact that yes, something definitely does need to be done - cautiously and unrushed - that offers worthwhile, more accountable improvements, for less cost, and further enhances the independence of the second chamber from rank party politics. (Albeit, to the extent that the public tend to elect vapid morons who are no more than conduits of power for those very few individuals at the top of political parties and most tellingly, corporate interests entirely outside of the political process, I am extremely wary of an elected second chamber, which I suppose could be construed as 'undemocratic'? It all depends how it's done, and by whom. I believe in a Meritocracy myself, with meritocratic principles; let us populate the second chamber with people having a proven, empirical track record in business, the professions, the arts).
This sense of priority doesn't make me akin to a dictator - let Clegg and Co. sort out the much more pressing, urgent matters requiring their immediate attention before stuff like this, which can wait.
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong