Lib Dems and their peers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.IN HIS column, "Paddy's 'new-found clarity' seems as muddled as ever", (24 September), Alan Watkins asserts that Liberal Democrat peers are indulging in particular "luxuriance", and that their very existence undermines our opposition to a second chamber based on selection, rather than election.
Lib Dems have accepted peerages because, although we oppose the system, it would be an abdication of responsibility not to play our part in the political process as it exists.
If Mr Watkins finds the existence of Lib Dem life peers so iniquitous, then surely he should join us in opposing the creation of a chamber based on selection by elite (Labour's plan) as being little or no better than one based on selection by chance of birth. Furthermore, he should support our plan for a second chamber that is based on election by the people - the conclusion to Paddy Ashdown's point which Mr Watkins chooses to omit.
Next, Mr Watkins turns to electoral reform. Lib Dems are critical of Mr Blair's promise of a referendum because, one, past experience gives us reason to doubt whether it will ever be delivered, and two, because it means that after 16 years of dithering, Labour still does not have anything like a clear stance on electoral reform.
We emphatically do not oppose the idea of a referendum per se, agreeing with Mr Watkins that where fundamental constitutional changes are involved - whether because of Europe or because of electoral reform - it may well be desirable to seek popular assent.
Robin Teverson
MEP for Cornwall & West Plymouth
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments