The new reforms to the lords has thrown up some interesting debates. My gut reaction is they’re a good thing – why should the upper house be made up of antiquated old fogies not elected by the people? It’s undemocratic. However, in this article tom Shakespeare points out that the ‘other place’ is more likely to be peopled with crippled since it’s population is older etc. as such, the lords are more likely to be in tune with disability issues. As he says:

” For example, we’ve seen life peerages given to the broadcaster Rosalie Wilkins, and most recently, DRC commissioner, and independent living activist, Jane Campbell.

One of the real benefits of the Lords has been the opportunity to include people with expertise of different professions, or sectors of the population. The upper house has a vital role in improving legislation, and curbing the worst excesses of the Executive, so it’s good that disabled people are being represented and included in our parliamentary process.”

I’m in two minds about the lords. One half of me says it has no place in the twenty-first century, the other half is quite affectionate towards it. Do we now go back to calling Lord Attenborough Richard? I think scrapping it would be a mistake, for it is a vital way of keeping the executive in check (god forbid if CaMoron gets into power, they’ll hopefully stop him implementing his criminal plans for special education) but it must be more representative of the people.