Mary Riddell Is Wrong

Writing in the Telegraph, Mary Riddell is atop her high horse on the subject of reformation of the House of Lords.

She writes:

"Mr Brown came to office on a promise of constitutional change, rooted in opennness and liberty. There is no talk now of 'moving towards a written constitution'"

Well, she is right on one aspect; namely we got the constitutional change with Brown's signing of the Lisbon Treaty and with it a written constitution.

Commenting further on in her article she notes that:

The Commons, as Charles Clarke argues in a new pamphlet, should be given extra duties and powers"

but fails to point out that Charles Clarke is one of the many MPs who have given away 'rights' to the European Union without the electorate's consent, nor how this might be accomplished when the Lisbon Treaty empowers the EU to take yet more 'competences' as and when it feels like it!

The main point of this article, written by someone who professes to be a journalist, is that the House of Lords should be wholly elected; something which has not exactly made the House of Commons whiter than white. It would seem that generally, unlike the heredity peers, those ennobled as 'placemen' are not bred with the characteristics of honesty and a sense of duty. She then proceeds to have a 'rant' at the monarchy, although what this has to do with reformation of the House of Lords, heaven knows.

Her article ends with the advice that now is a good time to throw the House of Lords into the melting pot. In actual fact it may be a good time to throw Mary Riddell into the melting pot!