Why We Need a House of Lords
I'm straying into dangerous territory today and saying that I think our House of Lords is an important institution that provides a counterbalance to the House of Commons. Lord Benjamin Mancroft has created a furore today (I was just listening to him on the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2) by criticising the standards of healthcare he was given when hospitalised in Bath recently. He singled out the nurses as being 'grubby' and 'unprofessional' amongst other things (read the story at the BBC News web site). Whether he was right or not, I don't know and I'm not taking sides in that argument. However, he said one thing that struck me. I can't remember his quote word for word but it was along the lines of:
Most people don't have the platform that I have to raise these issues. I don't care what people think of me, but I needed to raise these issues on behalf of the people of Bath. I could not have done this as an MP in the House of Commons because I would have to worry about getting voted in again.
With the main political parties having just a gnats whisker between them in terms of policies and prime ministers becoming ever more presidential, our House of Lords is more important than ever. The government clearly finds this reality check inconvenient, therefore the moves towards abolishing the Lords as we know it and replacing it with an elected body. An elected House of Lords will presumably be voted upon by the same voters electing the government, the likely outcome will be a House that agrees with the government all the time. It will therefore cease to provide the important counterbalance that it does today and will become irrelevant. We cannot afford to lose our second House. It is important that the House of Lords is appointed and not elected, precisely so that the Lords do not need to worry about votes and can feel free to raise these important issues and force them into the public arena.