The real scandal of the peers-for-sale row

It is no surprise that four peers have been gulled into seemingly admitting that they would change the law in exchange for money. Many members of both houses receive money from lobbyists for acting as "consultants". It doesn't smell too good, but since in this case no reward changed hands, no offence has been committed. Saying things to reporters, even if they are very foolish things, is not a crime, however repugnant and apparently crooked. Silly old peers, especially that Lewis Moonie, once a prefect at Scottish Uncle's rufty-tufty school in Dundee.

The real scandal though concerns the Labour leader of the Lords, the flame-haired Baroness Royall. None of the mainstream meeja seems to have picked up on this, but a quick perusal of her Wiki entry reveals that this person has never once been elected to public office. She is not a hereditary peer and seems to have made her way through public service, though to be fair to her she did seek election to the Commons in 2000, losing out in the candidate selection process to someone with a silly name. Two silly names in fact. Does this smell, or is it just a case of Sir Compton being a bit senile and living in the past again? Do we have democracy in this benighted country or not? Once again, the answer appears to be in the negative. Sir Compton has no idea whether this peer is any good as leader of the upper house and doesn't really care one way or the other but thinks that the holders of such offices should have put themselves before the electorate at some point. Does anyone a) care or b) agree?