Quote:
|
Nah they're actually effective at standing up for the nations interests, unlike the commons
|
I've been thinking about this in trying to reconcile Tony Blair's pride in various achievements (on-the-record lobby briefings, monthy press conferences etc.) with the evident disdain he shows for Parliament (today's Private Eye reports on how hard it was for the Commons committees to find out what Margaret Beckett and Buff Hoon were planning to do at the European Summit - they either didn't turn up, didn't answer the question or told the committee to get stuffed). I came up with the conclusion that for Blair, democracy ends when the winner is announced, and after that he can do what he likes. Since first-past-the-post has given us elections that depends on 2% of the population in key marginals, this and this alone is what gives Blair his 100% right to rule. The Lords, having no right to rule, are a lot more careful, knowing that anything high-handed has no legitimacy and will be seen as that. Blair can be as high handed as he likes since he 'won an election in 2005'.
The same attitude is used in Iraq of course, which is a failed state, not a democracy, however many purple fingers are raised.