The House of Lords and constitutional reform

So while we are in the worst recession in living memory, the government attempts to create a distraction by going for some populist and traditional-voter-appeasing policies - Lords reform - removing the remaining hereditary peers.

The hereditary peers should never have been removed in the first place - they provided a good check on illiberal policies and the executive, something seriously lacking since Blair's gerrymandering of the late 90s. Now they have been shown to be the least sleazy - the bad Lords are generally appointed Labour lords.

The problem here is that the Lords has become a glorified quango - a means of elected dictatorship, a bit of window dressing. There's no accountability when the people you are meant to hold to account appoint you!

However I don't see the hereditary peers returning, so we have to look one way - to democracy. I don't want to see a carbon copy of the Commons. The Lords has to be a chamber of experts and local politicians - I'd like to see elected mayors sitting in the Lords, as well as other elected "experts" - although how an "expert" is determined for election is difficult, since you have the regulating the regulator problem.

It really is an open-ended question, but whatever happens, it must be more accountable. At least there's one good speck in this bill - the ban on protests outside Parliament that have been affront to British liberty for too long would be ended. However it's just a small part of the bill, and not one everything else should rest on.

Britain constitutionally needs a renegotiation of the EU arrangement and a localist agenda to devolve power as locally as possible, with each budget-setting authority raising its own funds. This is more important than the issue of the Lords.

Lord Sugar

Alan Sugar is the sort of person we need in the Lords - real world, business experience. However I can't understand why any right-minded person would take up a position in Gordon Brown's government.

Utter hypocrisy

We are told today that a Dutch far-right MP, Geert Wilders, has been banned from entering the UK on grounds of "public security".

I do not support a lot of his views, but his film is quite truthful - it's about why militant Islamists have used the Koran as grounds for terrorism. Whether you agree with it or not, he should have the freedom to share his views.

A travel ban is incredibly hypocritical. For one he's an ELECTED MP of an EU country, and even though I disagree with the freedom of movement provisions of the EU, they are the law and just because this man is anti-Islam doesn't mean you can flout it. Funny that MPs want more rights in this country but want to take them away from foreign MPs who disobey the politically correct line.

There's also the small issue of the number of radical imams who preach hate and preach overthrowing the government - who aren't removed because Islam must be treated with kiddy gloves, and they can't be accused by a few idiots of being racist (despite the fact that Islam was a religion last time I checked). We also have Learco Chindamo, a permanent citizen (not just a short-term visitor) who is allowed to stay because of the human rights hysteria. THEY are the real threats to security in this country.

Not only this, but Lord Ahmed (who seems to be the only person in the country who wants Wilders to be banned from entering) has threatened to bring 10000 Muslims to protest outside the Lords if the MEETING goes ahead. Elected politician versus appointed politician? I think Lord Ahmed's threat should be investigated as a terrorist threat to be honest.

This sickens me. The government seems to be priding itself in removing opposition, be it by arresting opposition MPs, banning members of certain political parties from joining the police or not allowing a foreign MP into the country.

We were once the bastion of freedom. No longer.