The debate over reform to the House of Lords is already a long one, and is only set to get longer. No doubt there will be a multiplicity of arguments deployed by both sides, of varying quality.

But it’s hard to think of a less effective argument against election the Lords than that produced by Andrew Rosindell MP last week, who, according to the Guardian and various other papers,:

“said he would not vote for any measure that would remove Lady Thatcher from parliament”

As many of you will know, I’m quite a fan of Lady Thatcher. But Andrew Rosindell seems to have forgotten that the main reason for the existence of the upper chamber is not so that she can be in it.

By the same principle, he is also saying he will continue to support measures that will keep Neil Kinnock in parliament in perpetuity. Hardly a policy the Iron Lady – or her admirers – would find compelling.

Tags: Andrew Rosindell, Baroness Thatcher, Coalition, Conservatives, Democracy, Direct Democracy, Elected Lords, Freedom, House of Lords, Lady Thatcher, Lord Kinnock, Lords Reform, Margaret Thatcher, Neil Kinnock, opinion, Parliament, Politics, Socialism, Westminster

Categories: Opinion, Politics, Westminster

---

2 Responses

1. 

   Prentiz:

   This is clearly a cunning campaign from Andrew Rossindale to triangulate Labour on Lords reform. Can’t see them voting with Tory backbench rebels on this if their stated aim is to “keep Thatcher in parliament”!

   03.07.2012 11:35 Reply

2. 

   FrankC:

   I’m not sure that keeping anybody in the Lord’s who is in receipt of an EU pension is a good idea.

   03.07.2012 20:13 Reply