Oh Lordy

 

 

 

We have a long political history in the UK. Some of it is tradition and quintessentially what makes the drama of Westminster’s pomp and ceremony very ‘British’. Whereas, some aspects from the days of Robert Walpole, William Pitt, et al, lack all logic in today’s society.

 

Let’s take the House of Lords, the upper house to the House of Commons. It is made up of 776 sitting Lords who have been ‘selected not elected’ to scrutinise bills that have been approved by the House of Commons.

 

Whilst it can review / amend Bills from the Commons, the House of Lords is unable to prevent Bills passing into law (except in exceptional circumstances) but can delay Bills and force the House of Commons to reconsider their decisions. In this capacity, the Lords act as a check on the House of Commons that is independent from the electoral process.

 

But here’s the thing……do we really need 776 Lords to act as chief checker to 650 MP’s in the House of Commons?

 

More importantly……do we really need the cost to the public purse strings of this simply to maintain tradition?

 

The Electoral Reform Society recently reported that in the 12 months leading up to the 2015 General Election, 64 Lords / Ladies claimed combined expenses of £1.2 million yet did not speak, debate or act during that time (at a cost of £18,750 per person). Or to put that another way……£1.2 million to not really do that much checking. The total cost of the House of Commons is over £90 million a year. Times of austerity you say?

 

Which all begs the question……what is the point? History is simply that……history.

 

But don’t expect too many MP’s campaigning to abolish or amend the House Of Lords……it contains too many of their friends!

 

Is it too much to ask for a political system that is fit and fair for 2015?