I imagine the House of Lords as a bunch of old drunks who slur around their corridors and say things like 'we can't let the plebs think we're not on their side. They may stop subsidizing my cornish game hen farm!' I believe many others hold this picture, with varying degrees of pleasure. But it's usually these guys who don't believe in detaining people without charge instead of the people's representatives. The reality is many times the Lords appear to be less drunken charlatans and more suited to government than many of the hand puppets in elected parliament.
This stark situation, in my opinion, is due to the House of Lords being made up of say 50%* people who read the
Financial Times instead of the majority of the British public who glance at
The Sun. The Lords, owing to a number of financial and social factors have the good sense to realize tossing people into the gulag without a reason could possibly be a
waste of public funds. They realize wasting money is a bad thing. It leaves less for things like healthcare and the military. The elected Labour government, however, tend to richly bleed all over the carpets when it comes to having a few pennies in their pockets. What's a little more to fight the English spat over terror? Who cares if it takes the next 10 years of tax payers money to lock up the whole of Huddersfield? It will make the barely literate constituents feel so much better and there are always gold reserves if things get desperate.
Overall I approve of many of the Lords' decisions. But there are always exceptions, such as their insistence that fox hunting is the only possible way the farmers of England can have their chickens protected. According to them, the most efficient way to be rid of vermin is to dress up in riding gear, take out the hounds and spend a day drinking brandy whilst the dogs sniff around in the bushes. It's not just an excuse for a traditional aristocratic party, it's pest control! So there is just a little bit of madness in the House of Lords to be enjoyed.
Most of the Lords' insanity is contained in small and easy to overlook bites. Most recently it's coming from Lord Tanlaw who has proposed a bill to
advance time by one hour throughout the year for an experimental period. It would mean that we would set the clocks two hours back as opposed to one and set them ahead accordingly in Spring. The justification for the bill isn't included but can be assumed to draw from a certain amount of yearly griping from the Brits over BST. Or possibly and more likely meant please his fellow members of the
British Horological Institute. All of the winding and rewinding necessary to accomodate forgetfulness and the extra slight turn of the dial might mean a bit more money for them. As said above, Lords like money.
I'm not entirely sure what positive difference this would make. I may be able to wake up after dawn all the way into mid December but the nights will also be colder and deeper. Instead of it just being cold when I walk to the tram it would be getting cold
er and my bits would be even more freezing during my frequent waits. On the other side during the summer it might be nice to go to bed at 11:00 pm when it's actually dark. I couldn't find any actual debate from the Lords about the bill at the time of making this discovery but eagerly anticipate what they may have to say.
Lord Tanlaw, as a bit of background, has a stellar record of finding clear and present threats to English society:
Protecting the Earth from
giant asteroid collisions: "Does the government not have an obligation to future generations to look beyond the event horizon of the next general election and to prepare to mitigate future risks from near space?"
British
space exploration: "I shall go right back in time. As I said, I am quite out of depth on the economics of the debate. But, I dream that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren might be given an opportunity, such as the issuing of letters patent as happened in the old days, to explore the regions of space by private voyagers and private merchant venturers."