Three Men and a Vote.
The Messrs. Oliver, Llewellyn, and Lockwood are sitting at home in the stultifying heat, holding their breath, waiting to see if they can add the burden of an ermine cloak to the trials of this heatwave.
David Cameron, disappointed that Theresa May’s Camelot turned out to be Camerless for his closest apparatchiks, has nominated them for the House of Lords. Once installed, they could use their votes to act as back seat drivers for him, clipping Theresa’s wings if she strays from the Cameron path…
It is not only fellow civil servants who have complained bitterly – but other Tory grandees. Isn’t there a tradition of buying a Lordship donating freely to a party of your choice and, quite coincidentally, being called to give £350 a day lip service to democracy in the somnambulant and garrulous upper house? Not to mention a quite ridiculous title. Lord Pork of Ramadan, my Lady Tom of the Night. Those charged with raising funds for the party before the next election are outraged; how are they supposed to winkle cheques out of social climbers without dangling the prospect of such delights before them?
The House of Lord is already the reposiTory for several of Cameron’s close friends; last year’s honours list saw Kate Fall, humble coffee maker to the Prime Minister and former ‘squeeze’ of the Chancellor, transformed into the grandly named ‘Baroness Fall of Ladbroke Grove’. The better to add her knowledge of who takes sugar/who wants decaf, and George Osborne’s tickle spot, to the national debate. Similarly was Kate Rock transmogrified from Klosters chalet maid (wot nose where to obtain the essential supplies to keep George Osborne happy at a party) into ‘Baroness Rock of Stratton’ – just as well her name was Kate not Crystal. Now she can advise peers on the correct accompaniment to one’s Grouse. Bound to come in useful at a debate eventually.
Once you had to do battle on the medieval jousting fields to win honour, and you might be rewarded with a drafty windowless castle in a God forsaken Welsh valley (they are all God forsaken in my opinion) – at least that rewarded those who were prepared to take an arrow for the King. Now it has become no more than a bonus for having got the coffee order for the President of Ruanda down to a fine art.
Of course the cost of running the House of Lords isn’t just their £350 daily allowances – there’s all the other infrastructure costs too. The net operating costs of the House of Lords in 2013-4 were £93.1m, approximately equivalent to £118k per Peer. Times 798 of the fur clad buggers.
Only the People’s Republic of China can muster a larger unelected second chamber.
Part of the problem is that Blair’s ‘reform’ of the House of Lords merely succeeded in packing the Lords with ignoble former train drivers and bin men in order to gain a majority and get his legislation through. The next government had no choice other than to follow suit in order to make the country governable without invoking The Parliament Act.
Did you vote Brexit in order to reject what you saw as an undemocratic, unrepresentative system in favour of one where the upper chamber of Parliament comprises the eldest son of long dead sharp-archers, ‘married well’ chalet maids, friends of the Prime Minister and retired electricians from the gorbals?
At least limit the House of Lords (currently 798) to no more than the size of the Commons (650 – shortly to be 600) at the moment we have the ridiculous situation that even if the Commons was minded to reform the Lords – all 798 of them would turn up, at a cost of some quarter of a million quid for the day to us, and block the proposal.
- Bandini
July 22, 2016 at 11:59 am -
Did I miss Keith Vaz being elevated?
- tdf
July 27, 2016 at 7:24 pm -
@Bandini
Can’t answer that question, but my guess is that Vaz would probably prefer to stay on in the legislative house and fight his corner.
As a broad and general point, one of the things I’ve learned over the past few years is that the laws of libel, slander, defamation (or whatever our learned friends are calling it right now, and/or whatever their bosses are paying them) don’t seem to mean jackshit in this new social media age that we all live in.
But, who knows what will happen. We live in strange times, a ‘post-truth’ age as someone called it.
- tdf
- Antisthenes
July 22, 2016 at 12:08 pm -
For me 300 of the buggers appointed by proportional votes from the general election. Tories 39% of votes at the general election then 39% of the peers and so on. Still allows for place people as party leaders would appoint them. Churchmen, lawyers and the like would have to bugger off as there would be no place for them. They can say their piece from the pulpit or the courts whatever. Of course as it stands right wing government would never get any work done or legislation onto the statute books. Answer is make the lords advisory only and legislation scrutineers useful to weed out incomprehensible legislation. Sort of focus group really.
- Don Cox
July 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm -
Proportional votes would just encourage the party “system”.
There should be as many independent, cross-bench individuals in the Lords as possible. The great advantage of the hereditary House was that the members didn’t owe anybody any favours. I would like to see at least a third of the Peers be people whose grandfathers were peers.
The rest could perhaps be voted for by the public from a list of successful scientists, historians, engineers, surgeons, writers (including blog writers), artists, musicians, architects, and the like. Names can be proposed by anybody and then added to the list if they get enough support. Anyone who has been an MP or local councillor should be barred.
- Mudplugger
July 22, 2016 at 8:38 pm -
I agree about barring ex-MPs and councillors in principle – one refinement would be a rule that precluded anyone who had held any elected office in the previous 10 years – that would stop the Lords becoming an immediate retirement sinecure for failed MPs and, in so doing, remove much of the ‘party structure’ from it.
Another refinement would be to locate the Upper House somewhere else in the country – Coventry, Leicester, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, York – anywhere but the nepotistic heartland that is Central London. Modern communications mean that co-location with the Commons is now unnecessary, indeed there would be advantages in a hundred miles between them, helping the Lords to become a more independent forum, away from any undue ‘corridor influence’ from MPs.
An ideal Upper House would have around 300 elected members, each representing two adjacent Commons seats (giving some constituency linkage), each serving a 5 year term, but 20% of them being up for election every year – that way there is a continuing refreshment process. No member would be allowed to serve more than three terms (it’s not a job-for-life), a mimimum age of 40 would apply on entry (to ensure some level of life-experience), and a maximum age of 75 for an election (meaning no members would ever exceed 80 years of age). Elections would be held at the same time as the annual local authority elections to save admin costs.
- binao
July 23, 2016 at 11:42 am -
I think the problem with Clegg’s failed master plan to take over the Lords was in replacing the existing roughly 80% impossible to remove bar death party hacks, has-beens and donors with 100% nearly impossible to remove of the same kind. (assuming I’ve remembered it right) The price we paid for not giving him his sweeties was no boundary reform, rather neatly confirming his tenuous attachment to democracy.
I’m not in favour of the hereditaries, but the present nonsense is a disgrace and in no way an improvement. It’s also hard to see any reform coming from the Commons that won’t weaken the Lords further.
We don’t have to have lords, with all that entails. Perhaps we need a system akin to jury service; it’s good enough for justice so why not for review & reform of proposed legislation?
- binao
- Mudplugger
- Don Cox
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 22, 2016 at 12:10 pm -
Did you vote Brexit in order to reject what you saw as an undemocratic, unrepresentative system in favour of one
Also all the waffle about ‘regaining sovereignty’ when it wasn’t the EU that de-sovereignised the Sovereign, His Britannic Majesty, Emperor of India and Defender Of The Faith, Gawd bless ‘im. If we wanted to return to being a Sovereign Nation we would repeal The Parliament Act , insist Brenda goes to every Cabinet Meeting, that She chooses the Lords (form an approved list of course) and revert the HoL’s to it’s former enititled Porphyria viral hot spot self populated by ” fur clad buggers” (love that one, coming from the furriest bugger around :P) whose only qualification is being descended from whichever King’s bastard….as is right and proper for an English Lord.
- Mr Ecks
July 23, 2016 at 8:35 pm -
Brexit means that we will have to fight with only one group of tinpot tyrannical turds–in Wankminster– instead of 28 of them working together controlled by even worse bureaucratic scum in Islamtown.
The war for our own lives back is only just beginning but Brexit is a mighty blow against tyranny.
Only the first of many.
- Mr Ecks
- Demetrius
July 22, 2016 at 1:06 pm -
There was once a time when the HoL might number only a hundred or so or not much more. Made up of the Monarch’s closest, the biggest land owners and the leading military of the time, it did have a role when the Commons wasn’t common, but distinctly upper middle class and ambitious. So it made a sort of sense at the time. Probably, abolition and/or replacement by an elected Senate, determined on a regional basis for the Union, might be one answer. The other could be part of the National Lottery, which I think would be best of all. I look forward to being the 1st Earl of Random Sample.
- Dickhead
July 22, 2016 at 1:25 pm -
Three men and a vote ….I like the title Anna
Check out my 93 men and a boat mutterings on https://dioclese.wordpress.com, click on the sidebar.
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 22, 2016 at 8:26 pm -
O/T slightly: German TV News this evening is reporting an ‘incident’ in a Munich shopping mall…possibly several dead…possibly terrorist attack.
- tdf
July 22, 2016 at 9:03 pm -
@TBB 5th anniversary of Breivik’s massacre. Just sayin’.
- tdf
- tdf
July 22, 2016 at 9:02 pm -
Also O/T, but a matter I’ve become concerned about is breaches of sub judice/contempt of court on social media. I am thinking relation to particularly to cases in the CSA area (though by no means just in that arena.)
I did ask a well-known barrister who also has a blog, and his view (not a formal legal view, of course) was essentially that that horse had already bolted, social media being virtually impossible to police.
I know a very high profile case (not a CSA case, but a matter of allegations of financial fraud) in Ireland was almost halted in recent years when an eagle-eyed barrister noticed that a posters on a politics discussion forum had posted at the start of the case implying that they personally were on the jury and would be ‘live-posting’ on developments from the court (the person responsible was joking/trolling) The judge, having assured himself that none of the jurors were responsible for the offending post, allowed the trial to continue, so no harm done. But it did show that some defense barristers do actively monitor social media, discussion boards, etc.
Could I be so bold as to ask the landlady if she would consider doing a blog post on the issue at some stage?
- tdf
July 22, 2016 at 10:07 pm -
Cheers Anna.
- Old Dog
July 22, 2016 at 10:27 pm -
I have not visited this blog for some time as I had thought that Ms Raccoon had retired. How glad I am to see you back Anna. I have just spent a pleasant evening playing catch up and reading many previous posts. The piece on Jenny Disco and the Hampstead Socialists is a masterpiece.
- Pat
July 25, 2016 at 12:23 pm -
IMHO the Lords need fundamental reform- and yes that would involve the Parliament Act. They need to be elected, individually but at a different time and a different basis from the commons. I would suggest that the longest serving quarter of them resign every two years, to be replaced by newly elected Lords each from a constituency consisting of four commons constituencies rolled together. We could restrict eligibility to those with a proper title- the Lords is supposed to be composed of people with experience, rather than exciting new ideas- so there would remain the possibility of elevating cronies to the peerage, but they would only get to sit in the Lords if they could persuade the public to agree.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }