David Cameron is "shallow" and "an utter joke", say campaigners after the Tories last night said there was "no justification" for abolishing hereditary peers.
David Cameron has been described as “shallow” and “an utter joke” by democracy campaigners after the Conservatives last night said there was “no justification” for the abolition of the remaining hereditary peers.
Guy Aitchison, contributing editor of Open Democracy, told Left Foot Forward:
“It’s an utter joke that after 100 years of trying to reform the Lords he now says he wants to keep the hereditaries. Privately Cameron has said it’s a third term issue, yet only last May, during the expenses crisis, he wrote of the importance of reforming Parliament and redistributing power.
“He talked about redistributing power from the powerful to the powerless. That pledge was shallow as we can now see. Labour aren’t without blame though, they’ve had 12 years to reform the Lords and have failed – we still have 92 hereditary peers.”
Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve, speaking during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill yesterday, said of the Government’s proposals to abolish hereditary peers:
“In truth, there is no justification for such action … From our point of view, the continuing election of the hereditaries remains a key way of ensuring that working peers can get in and be maintained”
• Have your say on the future of democracy by voting in the Power 2010 poll.
UPDATE 2:05
This is the full list of Shadow Cabinet Ministers who voted to protect hereditary peers:
Ken Clarke
George Osborne
William Hague
Dominic Grieve
Philip Hammond
Nick Herbert
Theresa May
Oliver Letwin
Andrew Lansley
Owen Paterson
Greg Clark
Mark Francois
Cheryl Gillan
Michael Gove
Jeremny Hunt
Andrew Mitchell
David Mundell
Eric Pickles
Grant Shapps
David Willetts
Theresa Villiers
Sir George Young
19 Responses to ““Shallow” Cameron an “utter joke” on Lords reform”
Lee Griffin
Thomas, how does removing hereditary peers cause a “parliamentary dictatorship”?
Thomas Byrne
For me, it’s just a step towards an elected lords, in the same fashion that AV is s stepping stone for those who wanted PR. I don’t want any more messing around with it, and it shouldn’t have been done in the first place
There is cause for concern however that removing them removes even more the indepedence of the Lords. I’m not averse to talking some sort of elected Lords, however only if the Parliament act was given the boot, which no-one I’ve talked to about it wishes to concede. (hence what would cause the PD)
Mr. Sensible
Shambles!
I don’t agree with all the reform proposals; change to the voting system and an elected upper house I do not agree with, but I believe abolishing the hareditary principle is important.
Yet again, all airbrushed talk and no substance.
Anon E Mouse
Remind me again where we are on “Reform of the lords” from the Labour Party conference 1995/6/7….
Guy Aitchison
Thomas, if the second chamber became elected then it would inevitably gain greater powers because of the greater legitimacy it enjoys, so I’m sure the Parliament Act would need to be re-considered.
By supporting the hereditaries in there you’re supporting an illigitemate, and therefore weaker, unelected chamber which, if anything, is more likely to mean a “parliamentary dictatorship” (or “executive dictatorship” which I think is more accurate).