Friday, January 02, 2004

Tony Blair's Distaste for Democracy

Aussie econoblogger John Quiggin has an excellent post up on Tony Blair's aversion to an elected House of Lords:

Tony Blair likes to be thought of as a 'moderniser'. So it's startling to see that, on a basic constitutional issue, his position is identical to that held by Australian reactionaries in the 19th century, namely that the Upper House should be nominated and not elected. Athough there are some differences between Blair's position and that of the Australian opponents of democracy, they are minor and not all in Blair's favour.

[............]

He doesn't want any parliamentary check on the power of the executive government - in practice the PM. If he were honest, he'd advocate abolition of the House of Lords and not reform. If he were really honest, he'd advocate an elective dictatorship.

I don't agree with John Quiggin about much of anything, politically speaking, but on this issue he and I are in (almost) complete agreement (I have a strong distate for proportional representation in any guise). To use a trite phrase, read the whole thing.