Iain Dale in his blog has, like last year, invited nominations for the most fanciable political journalist. However, on this occasion he has added a new category:
” Last Valentine’ Day, I caused a minor stir in the press lobby by compiling Top 20 Fanciable Journalists list a Top 20 Fanciable Journalists list in response to Boluton & Co’s Top 10 Fanciable MPs list. Boulton & Co’s Top 10 Fanciable MPs list. Well, this year, let’s go one better.
I now call for your nominations not only for your most fanciable political journalists, but also, just so they don’t feel left out again, your nominations for most fanciable peers.”
He invites nominations by the end of the day. I notice there are not that many nominations for journalists, though the number far exceeds that for peers. At the time of writing, only one peer has been nominated. I put this down to the fact that we do not get that much publicity.
While I think all this is a little bit silly, I do have to suggest that, given the typical age range of members of the Lords, they are unlikely to be pin-ups of the generally younger, male readers who tend to read blogs.
Having said that, I was almost pleasantly surprised when I was researching the youngest female peers for your quiz the other week.
Gulp! Since the house removed most of the HPs they’ve probably lost the youngest peers. However sticking with present members, I do remember in the 90s a female member of group I was with watching a young Lord Goschen with interest as he crossed the tea room.
I think part of the problem is also that people who nominate on such occasions are influenced unduly by superficial considerations, such as looks.
Lord Norton, how wrong you are – some of us have been contacting Mr Dale secretly via email, and therefore anonymously, as is traditional 😉
Quite so, Lord Norton. It is always a good idea to look at the descriptions before choosing from a box of chocolates.
Bedd Gelert: In that case, it will be interesting to see the shortlist at the end of the week!
Ladytizzy: Quite so. I am not quite sure whether that means one should look for peers with soft or hard centres.
I suppose it’s surprising a wider cross-section of people don’t vote in this contest. After all, it isn’t often one has the chance to vote for members of the Lords!
Hmm, I always leave the coffee or Orange flavoured chocolates. How I work out which peers are orange or coffee flavoured is anyone’s guess!
It’s rather hard as only other peers really know many peers personally. So at best we outsiders can only judge on speeches, anecdotes or some other quality. On the latter, Lord Onslow might be the most charming or worst conversationalist in the Lords – I have no way of knowing – but whenever I see him in the house I smile because of his family motto ‘Festina Lente’ translating roughly ‘make haste slowly’ or loosely ‘On Slow’ :-).
Lord Freyberg is a bit of a hottie.
Howridiculous.
One of the great joys of growing older is that suddenly one realises the devastating attractiveness of the opposite sex when they’re in their sixties and seventies. I’m not sure about all this soft centred stuff but give me a Lord with good brain, a warm smile, a well cut suit and a good wit. I’ve got a private list of course which I couldn’t possibly share. We did have a lovely romance in the House a year or so back when two Lib Dems fell for each other quite suddenly, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is 72, and the blonde and elegant Baroness Walmsley who is a mere young thing of 65. A coup de foudre, and now married, which gives her two baronetcies, one of her own and one courtesy title
In spite of my preference for the mature model there are still a few younger hereditaries that I should be loth to lose from the House on the grounds of decorative appeal.
I bet Baroness Murphy wants to shackle up with Earl Listowel
@baronessmurphy:I knew of a few married couples in the house but I wasn’t aware of any that had met and married after both were members. That must have been a source of much gossip/amusement and delight among other members. Btw I think you mean baronies not baronetcies, the latter is the plural of the dignity held by a baronet of which women have in 397 years only held four times.
Croft, I stand corrected.
Oh well the results are in on Ian Dale’s site: The winner – Lady Warsi (C) with a nice photo actually. The top lord, a bit of a surprise, Lord Coe – it must help he’s got such a high profile. We weren’t so far wrong with some of the younger remaining hereditary peers making up a high proportion of the list.
Now of course the reaction in the house will be the most interesting?
Croft,
“Btw I think you mean baronies not baronetcies, the latter is the plural of the dignity held by a baronet of which women have in 397 years only held four times.”
Crikey ! Don’t tell Harriet Harman, or doubtless she will have to undertake some form of ‘review and inquiry’…
Croft: As you say, the results are on Iain Dale’s website. Whether they attract much comment in the House remains to be seen. If we had contests to identify the most cerebral peer, the most effective speaker, and so on, I suspect we might get a better response rate.
Bedd Gelert: You’re quite right, careless talk costs lives…or titles 🙂 It’s a strange world really as titles discriminate both ways. For instance all daughters rank ahead of all younger sons (that’s the reason Earls’ daughters are Lady but younger brothers only ‘the Hon’) The wives of knights are by law Dame but have for centuries used the higher courtesy form of Lady. Like many simple things the reality is a more complex beast.
lordnorton: I’d be disappointed if the Lord’s can’t enjoy a little leg pulling about the ranking among themselves. Intellect is a strange quality, I doubt I’m the only person who as a student wondered both at the brilliance of their lecturers and at the same time if, so bound up in high thought, some of them managed to tie their own shoe laces or find their way to their offices unaided. 😉