Our Sweet Lords
Out-of-touch, privileged, cosseted from the real world, little or no interest in what goes on beyond their bubble, imbued with an arrogant born-to-rule sense of their own importance; sons, daughters, nephews and nieces of former occupants, inheriting the family business in an act of smooth hereditary nepotism; perceived as uncaring, avaricious, and as bent as a nine-bob note (as the old saying goes). Yes, residents of the House of Commons certainly belong to an elitist institution.
What of those who inhabit the contrary nest of radical vipers lurking down the gilded corridor, though? Unelected by the people they may be, but peers these days are drawn from a wider circle than their careerist contemporaries in the Lower House, those graduates of a tiny political gene pool who have travelled along a conveyor belt running in a straight line from prep school to big school to university to Spad internship to selection for Parliament by their parties. The landowning gentry that once had a seat in the Upper House handed down the generations are thinner on the ground since Blair’s late 90s Lords reforms, an invisible presence overshadowed by the commoner usurpers; and beyond the grandees awarded a life peerage as a Westminster carriage clock in the hope they will retain old loyalties following years of service in the Commons, crossbencher troublemakers and even C-of-E pillars are bringing government to task in a reversal of tradition that is skewering the complacent expectations of an administration no longer bound by concessions to lily-livered coalition bedfellows.
The Government’s bloody nose at the hand of the Lords this week was not unprecedented, but it is still a relatively rare occurrence. At a time when the Commons is governed by the first Conservative majority in a generation, the Tories are outnumbered in the Lords; and whereas the Liberal Democrats are now very much a minority in the Lower House, they can boast a significantly larger representation in the Upper House, something that comes in handy when old scores need settling. Any governing party with a majority will push its luck with unpopular policies, especially one gifted with the cushion of a fixed five-year term. Yes, the Tories broke their pre-election promises re tax credits, even though that’s hardly unique; yet, their determination to make life worse for those they were once so fond of lionising as ‘The Hard-working families of Britain’ looks poised to backfire on them. The general public perception is that they simply don’t give a toss about the fate of anyone not belonging to their elevated social strata and the Lords now seems more in synch with public opinion than the Commons.
The traditional solution for a government facing mutiny in the Lords was to create enough new peers to tilt the balance in their favour, as PM Earl Grey urged William IV to do in order to ensure the passage of the 1832 Reform Bill; but the Upper House is already bursting at the seams with the ridiculous numbers of peerages created over the past five years, so in this particular case, such cynical tactics would expose the Government to further criticism. It’s worth remembering that just three life peers were created during the eleven-year Premiership of Margaret Thatcher; compare that to the staggering 117 Cameron created in just his first year as PM.
The long-time supremacy of the Lords over the Commons began to be eroded as the nineteenth century progressed, even though most Cabinets continued to contain a sizeable number of peers, enabling the Upper House to still delay or destroy legislation, as happened with Irish Home Rule in 1893. It was a sign of the times that the lead character of Anthony Trollope’s ‘Palliser’ novels, the Duke of Omnium, crowns his political career by becoming Prime Minister whilst resident of the Lords, and though the Lords lost its last Prime Minister in the real world following the Marquess of Salisbury’s retirement in 1902, this didn’t necessarily mean peers had been completely castrated by the Commons. Lloyd George’s 1909 ‘People’s Budget’ was defeated in the Lords, which was at the time dominated by Tories who stood to lose out should the Liberal Government’s proposals for heavy taxes on rich landowners be passed. Liberal revenge came via the Parliament Act 1911, which effectively ended the ability of the Lords to again veto major legislation.
Hereditary peers had always dominated the Lords, with the honourable exception of the Lords Spiritual, Judicial life peers and ex-PMs, military heroes or former colonial governors, who were often there merely to make up the numbers; the passing of the Life Peerages Act 1958 altered the composition of the Upper House forever, with a greater female presence one notable side-effect. Such a noble gesture was hardly the prime motivation for the move, however; what Betty Boothroyd later referred to as ‘lobby fodder’ was the main gain for governments facing Lords opposition to bills they were eager to become law. Ironically, the man who was PM at the time of this Act, Harold Macmillan, remains the last non-royal to have been given a hereditary peerage when he was created Earl of Stockton in 1984.
Abolition of the Lords was an integral Labour policy more or less from the off, though the Upper House had already suffered this fate during Cromwell’s Protectorate, eventually restored along with the monarchy in 1660. By the time Neil Kinnock became Labour leader, the party mantra had been watered down to a demand for an elected chamber. Following the 1997 Election victory, Tony Blair tweaked the plan and proposed the removal of all hereditary peers; when this bill worked its way through Parliament, Blair compromised and allowed 92 hereditary peers to remain, initially only until full reform was completed, though the 92 remain there to this day, now very much in the minority.
It is inevitable Lords reform will be back on the agenda following the rejection the Government experienced at the hands of the Upper House this week. The treatment of society’s poorest, sickest and most under-privileged by the Coalition was regularly criticised and condemned in the Lords, particularly by those of the Spiritual persuasion; but with a far larger proportion of the public standing to lose out should the Government’s current proposals become law, the stance of the Lords has chimed with the consensus in a manner that those the public actually elected to Parliament are left dumbfounded by.
Since the New Labour House clearance of 1999, endless ideas have been put forward to reduce and reform the Lords anew, yet what the chamber achieved on Monday night to me says the Lords still has a crucial role to play in British politics, even if it is somewhat overcrowded at the moment, with 816 sitting residents compared to 650 in the Commons. The mix of hereditary and life peers, as well as the Lords Spiritual, ex-Commons starlets and ‘celebrity’ appointments such as Melvyn Bragg and Joan Bakewell makes the Lords a far more varied body of individuals than those currently occupying the Lower House. So what if they weren’t elected by the public? Neither were any members of China’s ruling body, and China seems to have done alright out of this arrangement over the past couple of decades.
Which party dare advocate abolition of the House of Commons, I wonder?
Petunia Winegum
-
October 29, 2015 at 9:24 am -
Anything that hurts Camorgueron and the BluLabour gang is fine with me,
Tax Credits were created to try and smooth over the problems created by having corporate socialism as the economic system rather than freedom and free markets/trade. Taxation, inflation (=state money printing to pay for expenditures that taxation alone cannot afford) endless destructive regulation and meddling (the rise of occupational licensing being an especial evil) , cronyism (trying to import migrants as cheap labour to please various business cronies of the state)–all these things have done huge damage. In my Fathers day a working man could support a wife, two kids and a slowly rising lifestyle on one wage. Now–because of the evils listed above and others two wages are barely enough and family life is disrupted to boot. Because of ever rising costs over here (ie the West) lots of jobs that could have stayed here–sans the state–have been sent to cheaper climes. Thus jobs over here are of a poorer and less well-paid kind. So–to add to their power and control as well as try to smooth over the consequences of their own failure and arrogance the state brought in Tax Credits. To top up the lowly paid etc.
In a free society tax credits would and should not exist. You should keep what you earn–not be robbed by the state with one hand and then have to jump thro’ hoops to get back some of what they have already taken from you.
To abolish–never mind cut–tax credits, all the evils above would also have to go. But that would be the end of 99% of the states power and also 99% of the stolen or counterfeited wealth it hands out to those who hang on it. The deep nastiness and stupidity of BluLabour is in the believe that they can just slash money to people (many of whom are working not skiving but rely on TC to make up their wages) and still leave in place –and indeed be busy increasing– the economic evils listed above. Evils that are the direct result of statism in general and socialism in particular, both vile philosophies to which the so-called “Conservative” Party strongly adheres.
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:21 am -
An alternate view is that Tax Credits were just a cunning electoral ploy by Gordon Brown to shift vast numbers into the ‘welfare recipient’ class, stealthily taking money from them but then more noisily giving some of it back – that way they were more likely to vote for a party committed to retaining those visible regular payments, i.e. Gordon’s Gang. The same tactic was employed with pensioners using Winter Fuel Allowance, Bus-Passes and TV Licenses (and the ‘Triple-Lock’ annual increase – the Tories do it too) – it’s crude vote-buying, simple as that.
Although Gideon Osborne’s attempt to unpick this viper’s-nest may have been somewhat clumsy, it’s the right direction towards allowing working people to keep more of what they earn and make their own decisions on how they spend it, especially when linked to the significant increases in the Minimum Wage and tax thresholds. That doesn’t prevent real benefits being provided for the genuinely needy, it just keeps the State out of the pockets of the rest every month, which must be a good thing.
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 9:48 am -
When I am declared King And God’s Vicar On Earth then my very first act, even before repealing the Smoking Verbot, will be to abolish and place ad cloaca in perpetuity, amen, the 1911 Parliament Act. Then I would return the HoL to what it was before Blair. …even better I would make the appointment of Life Peers solely something for Queenie-Poos to do in those long winter evenings (mind you she wouldn’t be allowed to appoint any ‘sporting Hero’….how does being able to run fast make one qualified to govern?) with no input from the Government.
I realised long ago that democracy only ‘works’ (if it can ever be said to ‘work’) when it has unelected oversight. Someone to protect us from our elected politicians, to protect us from ourselves.
-
October 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm -
The Blocked Dwarf,
Re: “I realised long ago that democracy only ‘works’ (if it can ever be said to ‘work’) when it has unelected oversight. Someone to protect us from our elected politicians, to protect us from ourselves”
To protect us from our own (or other people’s) ignorance and gullibility….
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 10:53 am -
The HoL should be returned to what it was – a place for the hereditary peers and if there is a need for life peers they can only be from industry and commerce, absolutely no political hacks.
That way that house gets back to its job of oversight of the idiots in the lower house without too much political favouritism.
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:12 am -
It was all going so well until… “Neither were any members of China’s ruling body, and China seems to have done alright out of this arrangement over the past couple of decades.”
It appears that some members of China’s ruling body have done very well indeed.
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:30 am -
Tongue slowly edging towards cheek at times…
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:49 am -
Yes, I should be accustomed to that by now. But this was a little close to home for me! Shame President Xi didn’t call in for a swift pint at The Raccoon Arms whilst he was over.
-
October 29, 2015 at 12:06 pm -
I doubt it would have been a ‘swift’ pint – I suspect we could have detained him for some hours!
-
-
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:20 am -
A believe we need a second house, but whether this is the Lords in it’s present form is doubtful. Originally it was comprised of the “Great and the Good”, but now it’s the not so great and far from good! An elected house has its merits, but if the election took place at the same time as the election to the Commons with the same constituencies, it would merely be a carbon copy.
Until we come up with anything better, I believe that peers should only serve for, say, five years from appointment and should be limited to around the same number as the Commons. At the end of the five years, the government of the day could re-appoint any that it wished, subject to the overall ceiling. That would get rid of those appointed years ago by previous governments whose positions can no longer be justified.-
October 29, 2015 at 11:29 am -
A smart variant on that would be to change 20% of the Upper House every year – that way, it would be continually refreshed to reflect the current make-up of the nation’s political viewpoint.
At our annual Council Elections we could also vote for our ‘local peer’ to represent a cluster of areas for his/her single 5-year term – thus also giving regional representation to redress the Metropolitan imbalance we currently suffer.
The current Upper House reflects nothing more than the preferences of the past few governments and, as such, needs a comprehensive restructure, but getting the politicos to agree on any new format may take longer than I’ve got left.
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:32 am -
Interesting post.
It’s seems ridiculous to even suggest ‘flooding the house of lords with tories’ to try and get the reaction they want, and makes me think if they can do that then what’s the point in even having the house of lords?
Perhaps they should be elected by the public, but I think on Monday night they did a good job in at least trying to give the government a bit of a reality check.
I like what this woman said about the proposed cuts to tax credits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34577535
But I think the information in the article is wrong, not everyone working only 16 hours a week can claim working tax credits, a person without children on the minimum wage has to work at least 30 (and probably less than 40) hours a week to be eligible for them. I know this because I enquired about them last year and my sister (with no children) and cousin (with children) received them for a bit….
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:33 am -
Another fine article.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said a loud hooray for the lords, especially in the years following the commencement of the Blair terror – with Blunklett and Straw at the home office and that new Injustice ministry created specially for Jack.. Thank goodness the upper chamber hasn’t (yet) been make into the upper house of clones New Labour wanted.I’ve a feeling only the HoL can and might save the nation from nasty Theresa Cruella’s pending plans for the abolition of freedom of speech (EDOs)
-
October 29, 2015 at 11:57 am -
The problem with Tax Credits is that the system is so damned complicated that pretty well whatever you do to try and sort it out, somebody somewhere is going to end up a few pence a week worse off, and will then be loudly trumpeted by the loony left as an example of how the nasty baby-eating Tories are just in it to bash the poorest in society. That doesn’t alter the simple fact that that it’s a good thing in general to try and steer the country towards higher wages, lower taxation of the lowest paid, and if possible much less public resources sunk into Welfare payments, which should be there for those who need them, but not used as an electoral bribe for those who don’t.
On the House of Lords, I’m with the Dwarf and Ivan; tell all those Lords appointed since 1997 to stand down, and ask those Hereditaries who wish to take up their duties again. If you try for an elected chamber, you just end up with two Houses of Commons, and if you have an appointed chamber you end up with the appointees looking after their own interests. Any combination of the two just combines the flaws of both.
-
October 29, 2015 at 12:42 pm -
Tax credits are one of the cases examined in Anthony King and Ivor Crewe’s excellent book: “The Blunders of Government”. The book mainly focus on the administrative debacle of their introduction.
However, that and how they have grown like Topsy are functions of the basic problem from the start that they were a Gordon Brown wheeze developed by him and his little coterie of advisers and introduced without Blair or just about anyone else in Government being consulted or indeed being told what was going on – one aspect of the “dual” government and internecine warfare between Blair and Brown camps.
-
October 29, 2015 at 12:53 pm -
They also demonstrate one of the fundamental problems with subsidies of all sorts: they are very easy to introduce but very difficult to unwind. Even when introduced for ostensibly laudable reasons such as helping nascent industries to become established rather than simply to buy votes/influence or buy off trouble, and leaving aside how they are “gamed” and encourage very dysfunctional markets, individuals and organisations adjust their behaviour accordingly. So when attempts are made to withdraw them there will be many “losers” who will howl like mad while “winners” just keep their heads down.
-
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 12:07 pm -
There are a few of us so reactionary as to wonder whether the 1832 Reform Act was really such a good idea. Rule by the Whig Grandees had served us pretty well over the previous 144 years – empire, thrashing the French repeatedly etc.
-
October 29, 2015 at 1:30 pm -
Indeed. One of the historical theories given for the wealth of Britain after the Commonwealth – which gave us the financial muscle to beat the French in the later Georgian period – was that the House of Commons, elected on a property franchise, actively promoted the bourgeoisie’s interests – low taxation, the legal protection of property, cabotage and mercantalism – while the French state – with its over-spending, special interests, and state monopolies – simply treated its subjects as the state’s milch cow.
-
October 29, 2015 at 3:26 pm -
My greatest English political hero has long been the much maligned Colonel Sibthorp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sibthorp-
October 29, 2015 at 6:29 pm -
‘When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.’
-
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 1:38 pm -
Does anyone have a list of the peers who lost their seats? I’ve tried searching for a list but cannot find it.
-
October 29, 2015 at 1:50 pm -
Interesting article. I don’t see the Lords as flooded by people of privilege in the old sense of the word. I see the balance there now as being overwhelmed by the appointees of whatever political party is in power. The reason for the bloody nose is that it’s currently flooded by Labour and the Lib Dems. That’s the same Lib Dems that got wiped out in the last election. It’s grossly unrepresentative whether or not you agree they got it right this time around.
The answer is not now for Cameron to flood it with Tories so it all just escalates again. There has to be another and better way – but what?
See the piece over on mine today : http://dioclese.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/hp-sauce.html
-
October 29, 2015 at 3:15 pm -
Can’t we bring back the old rules?
Closure of the UK’s energy intensive industries; export of those jobs to non-green China; arrest of Baroness Worthington of Climate Change Act fame; removal to Tower of London; removal of head?
As to the idea that we should be governed by the likes of Bragg and Bakewell, we must be mad.
I would prefer to have something like a national jury, ‘ordinary’ people selected at random, empowered for a short term to review and reject anything that our political and judicial elites impose on us. Of course we would need to have our own government first.
-
October 29, 2015 at 3:33 pm -
One of the best of the Lords (now, alas gone) , who survived the Bliar’s cull of hereditaries was the Earl of Onslow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Onslow,_7th_Earl_of_Onslow -
October 29, 2015 at 5:45 pm -
When you consider what ‘juries of ordinary people selected at random’ have done recently in convicting old blokes of alleged historic groping on the strength of repetition rather than real evidence, perhaps the jury-selection system may not be the optimum model of reviewing a government’s acts. For example, with a silver-tongued Blair (straight kinda guy) presenting the case to them, they’d agree to anything – as they did three times in elections.
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 4:06 pm -
Just a point of information: Osborne chose to amend the tax credit regulations by the process legislated in the act setting up the credits. This requires that the statutory instrument enforcing the change be approved by a simple one-off majority in both Houses of Parliament. As such the Lords have the right to discuss and vote on the SI; finance connected or not. The government could have chosen to amend the tax credit rules by a new finance bill which, had it passed the Commons, would have gone through on the nod in the Lords. The government chose not to but chose instead to ram it through the Commons on a single vote on the SI and, keeping their fingers crossed, ram it through the Lords similarly.
Osborne/Cameron forgot – or ignored – that the Conservatives don’t have a majority in the Lords and, moreover, here was a heaven-sent opportunity for the losers of the recent general election to get some revenge – and so they did. IMHO this whole fiasco was not a constitutional impropriety demanding wholesale reform of the Lords (although that’s needed for a host of other reasons). This was Osborne getting a well-deserved custard pie in the face for his arrogance and complete incompetence.
-
October 29, 2015 at 4:24 pm -
An interesting story, especially at this time of year. I wonder if Mr G Fawkes had the right solution.
-
October 29, 2015 at 8:02 pm -
Ah, Betty Boothroyd, *sigh*. A heroine of mine and one of our finest ever Speakers.
I had the privilege once of attending a reception of hers in the Speaker’s House. (Not a political invitation, but to do with other activities in my pre-retirement life.) She was a charming hostess. Ashtrays everywhere in those days as she loved her little cigars, and as a smoker I was very happy too.
Beautifully written piece again, Petunia.-
October 29, 2015 at 8:16 pm -
Thanks. I always liked Ms Boothroyd, for I felt she wouldn’t take any shit from that shower under her. Quite a contrast with that nauseating little creep occupying the Commons hot seat today.
-
October 29, 2015 at 9:59 pm -
I am not a fan of the current speaker as I think he has become partisan which is exactly what any speaker must avoid at all costs. I wouldn’t criticse him though on the ‘not taking any shit’ score. If anything he is too sharp and impolite.
-
October 29, 2015 at 10:16 pm -
Hear hear re Betty Boothroyd but Bercow is a pompous little shit.
-
-
-
-
October 29, 2015 at 9:29 pm -
Nearly every single mum I know switched to part time 16 hours when the tax credits came in and they realised they could get as much if not more by cutting their hours. What really annoyed me was when I read that Big Issue sellers could also claim as self employed, that might have been ok when it was started but now all the sellers seem to be Eastern Europeans, often women with kids who may not be in this country. I think the old H o L was better at least any privilege was bought by long dead ancestors. S
-
October 29, 2015 at 9:56 pm -
I generally don’t like to pidgeonhole my views but most regulars on here would tend to regard them as fairly to the left in general. It might thus initially seem strange then that at least since Thatcher, and definitely since Blair, I have regarded the unelected Lords far more representative of my opinions than the elected Commons. But with more and more appointments every year the distinction between the two is being narrowed. I am not sure the solution but a revival of the old Greek practice of selecting representatives by lot has a lot to recommend it and already has a few supporters:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/matt-hall/sorting-out-sortition
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/max-atkinson/sortition-wont-lie-down-blueprint-for-truly-representative-house-of-lords -
October 29, 2015 at 10:13 pm -
One Noble Lord I remember with great affection was the late Lord Lucas of Chilworth a junior minister in the old DTI during the Thatcher administration when I was working on Post Office policy and he took PO Questions in the Lords. He was a lovely man but not the greatest “on his feet”.
Most PO Questions were either about the then awful quality of letter service, or sub-post office closures. But many of the old buffers in the Lords took a while twigging that BT and PO had been separated – and generally did not seem to get out much into the real world. It often took great discipline to stifle the giggles or groans when sitting in the Officials’ area eg when you heard the almost obligatory reference to the letter service in days of yore when you could drop a line to say you would be late home: “Just read your Sherlock Holmes”.
Lord Lucas used to swing between asking for maximum or minimum briefing.
On one magnificent occasion when in his minimal mode he read out the Answer to the main Question and dealt with the first supplementary well enough: “Does my Noble Friend agree that much of the problem (letters arriving late) is use of that abomination: the ball-point pen?”.
However, he was completely thrown by the second one (hoary old chestnut that we had not dealt with in minimal mode and he had forgotten from previous occasions) “Can the Noble Lord explain why the Post Office has not taken the obvious step of including postcodes in telephone directories?” Unparliamentary Answer: because clever dick (not) : (i) telephone directories are the responsibility of BT not the PO and (ii) because it would be a complete waste of money as (a) it would more or less double size of directories because most entries were 1 line and adding postcode would make them 2; and (b) very few people have more than the directory for their local area in their homes.
In his infinite wisdom Lord Lucas replied: “It is a matter of security”. When challenged on his way out of teh chamber he said he was joking. But his (pompous) questioner was not amused and as promised wrote demanding an explanation. Sadly I cannot now remember what bollocks we (I) came up with to get him out of that one. Ah..the joys of democracy (or not) in action.
-
October 30, 2015 at 8:51 pm -
I confess an extremely cynical view of the introduction of tax credits & firmly believe they suppress ambition to improve one’s lot. I think it was cynically created benefit dependency and, like the 50p tax rate was equally about establishing political poison pills for any future government.
On the Lords, cynical and unacceptable proposals to replace the Lords party appointees with er.. almost unremovable party nominees didn’t get support from the tories so the worm Clegg (who?) blocked boundary reform. Clearly demonstrating his party’s equal contempt for democracy.
I find it difficult to find the Lords any less legitimate than the lobby fodder Commons. At least the Lords don’t always do as they’re told.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }