-
Yes, I accept your point above. However, by transformational change, I refer to the dissolution of the Lords and its replacement with a democratically elected body. Also. the introduction of P.R. Blair had a democratic mandate for both based on a manifesto commitment.
He refused both. The tories would have no choice but to live with the resulting change. There would have been no return to the existing status quo.
To be a socialist in England is to accept disappointment. Hence my scepticism regarding Starmer. Although, I am prepared to be suprised.
greytyke-
I'm still not sure how an elected upper house is seen as some sort of panacea given what's happening in the US.
A checking body not up for elections and less influenced by special interests paying for stuff has appeal.
I'd like to see some detailed proposals before I support changes to the lord's (other than maybe shrinking it and limiting it's numbers, plus maybe age terms)
Grumpy_Git
To be fair, in a parliamentary democracy no parliament can ever make laws which constrain a subsequent parliament. By definition no change can be forever.
But I agree he had more latitude to make more positive change than most PMs and he didn't take the opportunity to build anything as legacy-orientated as the NHS or what have you.