Reasons to Keep the Lords (1)
They are kewl. I could give many intelligent reasons - and I have, elsewhere - but the fact is, the ceremony is brilliant. And it wouldn't be the same if the Lords were/was not the Lords. You couldn't have the robes, and the pomp, and the ritual with a Senate or a Chamber of Deputies. It would, quite frankly, be rubbish. Played out. Analogous to a boy band reuniting after a 20 year split.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be elected. In fact, I've argued elsewhere that they should be. But they must remain the Lords.
I also fail to see any reason to erase such a symbollic aspect of our culture only to rename and rebrand it as Lords-lite. Whish is what a Senate (or any other name) would be.
On this, the dear Bard was wrong (okay, I know he was writing about roses and love, but there is patriotic love in this) - The Lords by any other name would not be as sweet.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be elected. In fact, I've argued elsewhere that they should be. But they must remain the Lords.
I also fail to see any reason to erase such a symbollic aspect of our culture only to rename and rebrand it as Lords-lite. Whish is what a Senate (or any other name) would be.
On this, the dear Bard was wrong (okay, I know he was writing about roses and love, but there is patriotic love in this) - The Lords by any other name would not be as sweet.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home