The House of Lords
Reprinted here for your perusal and comment upon is the text of a speech I recently made for a competition named Youth Parliament, in which there was a debate about the House of Lords. In my role as Leader of the Opposition, I had to produce a stout defence of that venerable institution. Feel free to pick as many holes as you like - all I ask is that you tell me what they are afterwards.
It strikes me, Mister Speaker, that the real reason behind the Bill put forward by the Honourable Members opposite is borne not out of the perceived need for constitutional reform, not out of a resolve to strengthen democracy, nor even out of a wish to simplify the political system of this country. All of the aforementioned would be valid. More likely, though, is that it has come from fear. A fear of rational debate. A fear of the other side’s argument. A fear, in effect of opposition. It would seem that the majority enjoyed by the Government, the votes of whose drones will always ensure victory in a ballot in this House, is not enough for a party obsessed by power and control. The Members opposite are afraid of the House of Lords, because there the Government is subjected to sustained, constructive criticism of its methods, instead of the ingratiating drivel that so often spouts forth from the backbenches opposite.
Make no mistake, Mister Speaker, my party and I are not opposed in principle to constitutional reform, democracy, or even simplification. What we are opposed to is not change for the right reasons, but ill-thought through change for the wrong reasons. The Labour party is pressing ahead with these reforms without even waiting for the results of the Royal Commission it set itself to look into the scheme. Indeed, the Labour party does not even know what sort of Upper Chamber it does envisage for the future. It seems to look no further than the end of its nose, in simply getting rid of the hereditary peers, who have so often provided us with fully rational and critical debate on Bills. The ninety-peer reprieve (which we support) is nothing more than a panicked reaction to the realisation that without the hereditary peers, there is hardly any Lords - and without a proper plan for the aftermath of this destruction, what is there?
To sum up, Mister Speaker, this party is opposed to the Bill laid before the House. It is opposed to the lack of thought as to the aftermath of the Bill; it is opposed to the wish to stifle the right and proper constructive criticism parties receive in the Lords; and so we will vote against a Bill which will damage our country.
Comments, questions, etc....you know where to send them (bottom of left-hand frame if you don't).