As has already been made clear,the Queen’s Speech is followed by five days of pure debate – roughly divided into broad subject areas. Last Thursday there were 34 speeches on the ‘Foreign Affairs ‘day. Of these, 16 mentioned Afghanistan; and of these two represented passionate appeals to rethink strategy and become seriously involved in reconstruction. Others while supportive of the British troop presence in Helmand demanded better operational support.
Europe and our post-Lisbon Treaty role came a close second as did Africa with special emphasis on the Millennium Development Goals – and the lack of progress in achieving them! At least one speech, in which it was exceedingly difficult to catch the drift, ranged from mirrors via Daniel Defoe and the balance of payment deficits to a recommendation that satellite imagery should be used to pick up instances of piracy.
Some speeches (indeed rather a lot) were erudite and heartfelt, some were carefully crafted overviews and some were vehicles for special interests. I value these days of debates, you never fail to learn and as a general, informed critique of government plans they point to the direction in which individuals and parties will go in subsequent legislation and as such should be valuable to the Government.
I do wonder how many are swayed by great oratory speeches, such as Lady Scotlands “jury speech” on The Police and Criminal Justice Bill recently. Lord Pannick saw it for what it was and I am grateful at times that the HoL has so many wizened, worldy, workers. There are other times I think they need to see things from a young perspective. Nothings perfect.
How many Lords do actually seek out the facts ? So many facts seem distorted to Government views recently it is incredible but with the “whips” still in place facts are neither here nor there.
It is worrying that those with the greatest oratory skills in my judgement have all seemed psychopaths or conmen. Indeed in Psychiatry it is well versed that psychopaths do extremely well in the area of business. Those who do well in business often being rewarded by Government.
We do all of course pigeon hole people at times, I have already on three or four of the blogging Lords/Ladies. It is difficult at times to keep an open mind and just deal with cold hard facts especially when such great speakers are employed. For that I am grateful that there such great legal minds who have heard all this before in the Courts.
Following politics even in the HoL is extremely difficult. Lord Norton whom I`ve come to admire, as others I believe have, is banging on about how great television of the HoL is and it should be more widely available is possibly right-but, and here is the nub, a few blogs ago he was also stating how most things/deals were done in private face to face. Thrashed out a long time before the cameras got to view anything. Rather gives the impression of secret liasons from the cold war ” You give us one of ours and we`ll give you one of yours” !
Difficult job this, seperating the great speeches from the good legislation or a mix of the two. I must say I do not envy it all the time, it`s not alway`s stirring stuff and can often be quite sedative. I`m sure at times that for £86 per day it can seem quite tortuous.
Carl Holbrough: Good point. I take the view that it is a matter of balance. “Their Lordships’ House” provided highlights of the day. I think coverage of general debates and the issues raised in Questions for Short Debate would make for interesting viewing. The sort of discussions that take place on the detail of legislation, on which the Government may concede the case for change, are not the sort of thing likely to mesmorise the viewing public. Thus, I can we can achieve more coverage without jeopardising the benefit from detailed discussion taking place away from the glare of the national media.
Baroness
Should Carl spend some more time in Parliament!? Just ask for Lord Norton, and the peers’ lobby.
There is a band of travelers near my home who call their site “Beirut”, probably thanks to the sound of Tank practice on all sides even during the night. It has been called that for so long,
it might well be renamed “Helmand”; that is where most of the…. practicioners will be going, when they have done practising.
Satellite imagery is part of the EDA (European Defence Agency) role
Did Daniel Defoe not get locked up, like so many writers in earlier generations, pace one current unnamed peer with leave of absence?
The only person to mention the Pashto of Afgh/Pakistan/Iran was Baroness Williams, and it was a foreign affairs debate. Taliban? Eat your hearts out!
“Should Carl spend some more time in Parliament!? ”
Perhaps with my middle “Christian” name being Mark, (Yes Mother went into labour on Highgate Hill), I have a vested interest.
Totally off topic I know, but I was christened Carl Mark and back in the distant bygone era we put “Christian” names on forms. Hence I am Carl Mark Holbrough on my Driving licence but not on my birth certificate. I often wonder who I am.
Please pardon my transgression of the rules my Lady.
Carl Holbrough, shame on you – you don’t, you say, believe in equality (Comment on Lady Deech’s blog). OF COURSE you are equal to a lord or a lady or your wife. You may not be the SAME, but equal you are!
That said, speeches can be ‘sedative’ as you say but that doesn’t negate those which make one sit up. Actually facts are pretty important and most peers go to great lengths to get it right. Only this morning one very distinguished peer told me how distressed he was because the official record of his speech substituted the United Nations for the United States, thereby altering the whole meaning of his text. It has been corrected.
Gareth Howell – not entirely convinced that a failure to mention a tribal group (albeit a large one) failed to be included in most peers’ speeches undermines the value of a foreign affairs debate?
OF COURSE you are equal to a lord or a lady or your wife. You may not be the SAME, but equal you are
=================
OF COURSE YOU AREN’T.
Only Lords and MPS get to make get a say on whether or not an act becomes law.
Only Lords and MPs have special laws that exempt their expenses from taxation.
We are not equal
Re: Afghanistan
I can’t quite see how the goal becoming seriously involved of reconstruction and better operational support for troops could possibly be at variance, did no one argue for both?
Re: The Environment
Did anyone address the horrible and horribly important topic of climate change? & if not why not?
@ Jana
How can you reconstruct when you can`t even guarantee safety ? What we have is swift (?) action teams, they are not holding areas, they are not able in a province whose area is 2 1/2 times that of Wales to guarantee anyone is safe to build anything.
Re: Equality
Equality is of course a measure of value. First we have to decide what unit we wish to measure in.
In terms of me being the same value of a Lord this is not so.
The law certainly would treat us differently and the ability to be in a financially better position would mean differences. The public have seen many times over decades that when famous people fall foul of the law they are indeed treated differently.
In terms on male or female again the law treats us differently especially in Divorce and Family Courts. The protection by the Police, quite rightly imho, given to women will be better.
I could go on stating various areas where we are not and never will be equal.
If you could, my Lady, I would like you to state the measure you would use for equality.
If you carry through equality to how I believe my Lady would like it, we`d all live in a communistic utopia. I do so love that idealism and as a young man thought I could help make it happen, however realism and cynicism came with age.
No my Lady, in every aspect of life you would be treated differently to me, unfortunately that is the truth.
Nick – I have a feeling I’m not going to make much impact with this but it is worth trying!
We are equal in terms of humanity, the human condition,individual rights, emotional capacity to name just some attributes. These may not always be available but that does not in my opinion negate the attributes.
Thus we are not the same in that there is not equality of opportunity, or ability, or access to resources.
The Equality bill shortly to come to the House of Lords (2nd Reading on 15 December)attempts to address some of the unequal opportunities in the UK but it rests upon the acceptance that we are all equal human beings.
Jana, unfortunately the budget is always limited and I would argue that the whole budget for our commitment in Afghanistan be reviewed so that a greater proportion is allocated to serious, long term reconstruction in those areas which are still relatively safe.
Climate change is now a topic rarely off the agenda and featured heavily in yesterday’s day-long debate in the Chamber.
Thus we are not the same in that there is not equality of opportunity, or ability, or access to resources.
================
Quite, but that is missing the point.
To quote Orwell, some are more equal than others.
You either through patronage or birth have rights to do things that the rest of us do not. The right to Lord it over us and tell us what to do, with threats to back it up. That is not equality.
A consequence of this is that you along with the commons have implemented tax privilidges that apply just to yourself, and not the rest of society.
It’s not about equality of opportunity. That is a separate issue. It’s about the Lords and the Commons and their members treating themselves differently at the expenses of other people who have to bear the costs and the consequences.
“The Equality bill shortly to come to the House of Lords (2nd Reading on 15 December)attempts to address some of the unequal opportunities in the UK but it rests upon the acceptance that we are all equal human beings.”
How the Daily Mail reports it.
Equality
Companies with more than 250 employees to have ‘gender pay audits’.
[b]Firms allowed to favour equally qualified women over men and black and Asian candidates over white people when recruiting.[/b]
Bans age discrimination outside the workplace
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228892/Queens-Speech-Browns-ditch-fightback-unveils-plans-free-social-care.html?ITO=1490&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0XrX6hfLI
Favouring equally qualified women over men(of any colour) is discrimination and not equality.
The concept of Equality, like that of Liberty, has a long history in the political philosophies of Western Europe, although I did hear an MP making scathing remarks about it some time ago.
It may have been redolent of the Barricades of the French revolutions; a battle cry; but if you consider Women’s rights alone, in the class of Equal rights, then its huge value
is obvious.
There are Men’s rights as well, and those too, in their place, are a matter of Equal rights, and I am not making a “funny” remark in saying so.
Saying that Parliamentarians have more rights than others, is ridiculous. They do enjoy the privileges of Parliament when they are there, but then we all do, albeit limited privilege of those who attend for the day or the debate.
I was rather pleased when a recent Speaker’s committee, made this judgment on behalf of non-members, and members of the public who attend the house regularly, or even for a day or two.
Saying that Parliamentarians have more rights than others, is ridiculous.
It is not.
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 section 292 onwards
This act gives Parlimentarians tax advantages (rights) that others do not have.
Nick
It can be rather difficult to decide whether an MP is an employee of the state or a director of it, which is probably the implication of that act ,which I shall look at. Thank you.
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 section 292.
Nickleaton may be thinking of the Expenses row still. I am not quite sure.
Allowances for overnight stays are even allowable by a job applicant claiming social security/paying tax, so I can’t quite see what the problem is?
If he is saying the methods for paying those allowances to MPs have been badly misused over the years, that is an entirely different matter.