Monday, July 30, 2012

Nick Clegg attacked by Scottish pub

The Earl of Glasgow, says BBC News, has told the corporation that the Liberal Democrats risk looking "foolish" by pursuing reform of the House of Lords and that the party's election hopes could be damaged.:
"It's probably going to get bogged down [in Parliament] and I don't think it's going to get through. It's going to be another constitutional humiliation for Nick Clegg and, therefore, the party."
Quite why a Scottish house is pontificating on constitutional matters...

This just in. It has been pointed out to me that the Earl of Glasgow is not a public house but an hereditary peer who takes the Liberal Democrat whip. Who knew?

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice


David said...

Sadly he's not the only Liberal Democrat peer who's decided that the current House of Lords with themselves in it is just perfect. Better known ones are David Steel and Andrew Phillips, who just a few years ago decided it was such a waste of time that he took leave of absence. Now he's back to say why he shouldn't be abolished. You know we didn't suddenly decide to reform the Lords last week. It's been Liberal Democrat policy for over a hundred years. Perhaps they didn't know.

James Graham (Quaequam Blog!) said...

Actually, he is an elected peer himself, so it is understandable why he doesn't feel a need for more elected peers. After the death of Earl Russell, he was elected in a by-election by, um, 4.

Old Sarum was abolished in 1832.

Martin Veart said...

I like the Lords but dislike the patronage system that gets people there. Personally I would advocate selection by public jury assessing applications. And I mean public; not "the people's peers" whose jury was made up of The Great & Good and they selected The Great & Good.

Such a system would uphold the supremacy of The Commons, disrupt and perhaps destroy patronage and reduce avoid the risk of increased partisanship that party-backed elections would bring.