Bethan Jenkins AC/AM Blog

THE Telegraph today has received leaked information suggesting that the Labour Government in Westminster is about to propose new changes to the House of Lords – to make it directly elected, possibly with 300 members, via a form of proportional representation, for new members to pay tax in the UK, and a US style ‘recall ballot’ that could disqualify a member for incompetence.

The spin on the Telegraph article, as you might expect, is that Labour are intending to use this announcement as a way of creating splits in the Conservative ranks, so that they can embarrass Cameron for backing privilege when he has purported to support the reform of the House of Lords in the past. The line would clearly be – look at the Tories, same old, nothing changes. Party of privilege and of the upper classes.

Nonetheless, I hardly think that Labour can take the moral high ground on this agenda. They have promised reform of the House of Lords for as long as I can remember. Tony Blair promised reform when he became PM, if I remember correctly. So too did Gordon Brown.

Yes, they have ended the tradition of hereditary peers, but it is still an undemocratic institution that they have done very little about until now, we are told. These proposals may have something to do with the fact that many members of the House of Lords have been embroiled in the expenses saga, I’m not sure.

However, commentators on the Andrew Marr show today said that reform of the House of Lords would not do much to sway the public in a General election. But with public confidence in politicians at an all time low, this may be the boost that some people need to get out and vote. Who knows?

All I will say is that if it is reformed, then better late than never, but if there is to be a truly democratic second chamber, and more talk of constitutional reform, then this cannot be done without considering the role of the royal family. The government can’t harp on about the House of Lords being undemocratic, while supporting an outdated monarchical system for the UK. Yes, I am sure that reform on this level is a step too far for many to consider, but if the government are going to do it, then please do it properly.

I am on the record previously as having opposed sending Plaid Cymru members to the House of Lords. I stand by that opinion. When Dafydd Wigley, Eurfyl ap Gwilym and Janet Davies were elected to put forward their names to Gordon Brown to be considered as Plaid peers, I sincerely believe that members thought we would get at least one in the House of Lords.

Let’s be frank – for a party that has judged the undemocratic nature of the House of Lords at every juncture, did we really expect Gordon Brown to make one of our own a lord? Who were we kidding? Yes, I understand the argument that our Plaid peers would have made a difference in terms of scrutinising legislation. I never doubted that for a minute. But I think our priority should be to create a stronger Wales, and build for a referendum on further powers before 2011 for the National Assembly. The individuals named above and many others in Welsh society have much to give in that respect, and their energies, in my humble opinion, are best served working here in Wales, for the people of Wales. If they still wanted to stand for an elected, democratic House of Lords, then that would be their own decision for the future.

I guess a discussion on a possible second chamber for Wales is for another day, but the crux of what I think is that if we want democratic institutions, and if we want them to flourish, then we can’t leave things out. Every option should be on the table, including considering the future of the monarchy.

I was so annoyed by all this media interest in Samantha Cameron (or ‘SamCam’ as she is being annoyingly termed) today, that it has motivated me to write a blog. Samantha Cameron is set to do an interview with Trevor Mcdonald tomorrow night about life with her husband, David Cameron. ( I’m sure some of you are keen to stop reading now at this very thought, but try and carry on)

Now, to start with, I’ve never seen Trevor Mcdonald do a type of interview to get any gossipy information out of people a la Piers Morgan, so that got the alarm bells ringing. I.e what’s it all about then?

But reading Zoe Williams’s comments in the Guardian today sparked another level of cynicism- what will this interview actually say about anything at all to do with their real lives, and does anyone really care? Sarah Brown and Michelle Obama have hinted at a few small failings of their husbands in previous interivews- making annoying remarks, disrupting Sunday dinner with blackberry’s flashing and what not, but Zoe Williams hits the nail on the head, saying-

‘ The formula became: don’t say he’s perfect. That sounds a bit Stepford Wife and will damage your credibility..But likewise, don’t say anything that might be meaningfully true..I think SamCam fell on this particular knife…(She doesn’t even call her husband straightforwardly messy! He’s messy while he’s cooking. Even when bad, ladies and gentlemen, he good)’

So yes, friends, it’s all a media parade. Let’s line up the wives and see if they will make our men look better and more electable. You can just see now, in party HQ’s The Thick of it Style, party strategists talking about how wives speaking ‘frankly’ about life at the top, or life with a future PM will do wonders for the public image.

And this during the week that marked International Women’s Day.  A day when all I did was talk about empowering women in their own right, or giving confidence to women to have their own aspirations, or encouraging women to stand for election themselves, so that they can make a difference.

Fast forward four days, and International Women’s Day might as well have not happened as far as the media is concerned. It’s a fight between Sarah Brown and SamCam, we are duly told. Who will big up their husband best?  We must know what they think, what they are wearing, what they do to cope, how they stand by their men so gracefully and supportive, and the rest.

No no no!  If we want to inspire women, then these are not the images or the discussions we need. Yes, talk about the wives because they are campaigning on a certain issue, or they are making their own mark in the World, but not because they  happen to be married to some high powered men. What happened to independent women making it for themselves? What happened to women walking in to a room, and being quizzed on their presence because they are there, not because they are attached to someone else?

As you can imagine, this agenda angers me somewhat. But let’s turn the argument on its head for a minute, shall we? If Gordon Brown or David Cameron can’t be bothered to tell people themselves that they are messy, or if they have an unnatural relationship with their Blackberry’s, then why do the women in their lives feel it necessary to share that with the World? I don’t want to know. If Brown and Cameron or anyone else thought this information was so important to them actually getting elected, why not mention it themselves?

Or, more crucially, if the wives are THAT much of an electoral asset, shouldn’t they just stand themselves, and talk about the issues that matter most to them?

Who knows? I’m just off to scour the latest edition of Vogue to find out what Carla Bruni is wearing this month;-)