Sue Nye
Jane Campbell
James Sassoon
The last line in the Hansard for yesterday in the Lords reads:
House adjourned at 11.43 pm
We had a late one because 46 Lords wanted to speak in a debate on the Comprehensive Spending Review that started at 3.39pm.
We had a lots to say and I was lucky to be number 11 rather than have to listen as others made the points I had carefully prepared. But it was also worth listening to contributions on all sides. Lord Lamont and Lord Newby made good attempts at justifying Government policy. Lord Oakshott, interestingly the LibDems Treasury spokesman from outside government, continued his pressure on Government over non-dom taxation. There was a really powerful speech from Baroness Campbell on the effect of withdrawing the mobility element of Disability Living Allowance on people like her. The Bishop of Leicester expressed his concerns of the effect on the disadvantged. And I thought excellent speeches on my side from Lord Myners, Lord Haskel, Baroness Hollis, Lord Eatwell and three great maiden speeches especially from Baroness Nye.
The only real disappointment was the summing up from Lord Sassoon.
After seven hours of over 40 speeches I was shocked that the minister read out his pre-prepared summing up speech. After three minutes, and a fair amount of disquiet on Opposition benches, it took an intervention from Lord Foulkes to get him to actually answer points raised rather than revert to rhetoric. That then opened the floodgates of questions because once he started answering points it appeared he wasn’t so sure of his ground. In the end it took the intervention of the Government Chief Whip to get the minister back on track.
“Rather than have to listen as others made the points”
And perhaps as an afterthought : “But it was also worth listening to contributions on all sides.”
The one thing I find destructive about politicians is the “Us” and “Them” attitude, it`s something I feel shouldn`t appear in the HoL.
Over the past 6 months we`ve had many a discussion on “Are the Lords listening”. Are you LK ? I`m not interested in which Party you belong to, I am interested in whether you`ll listen to logic and reason before the Party line.
By all means give commentary on the game but please don`t come in singing “1-0 to the red corner”, it shows a mentality that belongs elsewhere rather than a Chamber of independent scrutiny.
I think generally the Lords listen more carefully than the Commons and it is a much more intellectual level of debate. In many ways that is what was disappointing about the final speech from the minister – using phrases we had specifically referred to in the debate and without then referencing our comments and his reaction to them. I’m afraid language about “one side” or “our side” in inevitable in any chamber that is arranged in an adversarial fashion. If we had a modern fan shaped chamber the point would be more valid.
I’m afraid language about “one side” or “our side” in inevitable in any chamber that is arranged in an adversarial fashion. If we had a modern fan shaped chamber the point would be more valid.
Always assuming that not everybody understands the self-placing of individuals far from or near to the speaker, or separated by the speaker in view of sudden explosive differences, in the first chamber, and always assuming that very few people understand the
placing of the Independents, and the rationale of the Independent grouping in the second!
Even in a fan shaped chamber you can still be “opposite” another member, and then it is a question of ‘how far’ opposite!
There are of course a dozen different shapes for chambers worldwide, and in Roman times did they not have pillars in the forum itself?
I`ll perhaps remember that when I`m sat opposite the wife or kids for that matter !
“It is a much more intellectual level of debate”.
I`ll cancel me application ! 😉
So all we need is a fan shaped Chamber and all those other reforms you mentioned in the other post and you`ve got it all sorted ? Wow you`re good, wonder why no one else thought of that !
Sorry, you`re welcome to join the I don`t like Carl very much Club, see Lord Soley for membership. You won`t be lonely !
😉
It ceratinly wasn`t one of latest of nights in the Chamber, I think 3-4 a.m. was one such last sitting.
Certainly I`m partially in agreement with you on some of the latter aspects of your speech, the beginning was just a defence of history and very much us and them mentality.
I do wonder though, if previous opposition, who are now Government, knew little of the financial state of the Nation how does one begin to question what to all intents could be an unknown ?
The CSR is wrong, it is unfair and personally I feel the Government hasn`t done it`s sums at all. The latest figures for a rise in unemployment due to cuts is 1.5 million yet the Government thinks they`ll all become self employed entrepeneurs who`ll raise the Nation. Of course they are wrong, people are going to suffer, the cost of Housing Benefit to the Nation will rise as HA`s and Councils raise their rents to Private levels. People will struggle, crime will rise as we see cuts in the Police Force, prisons will become overcrowded due to cuts in that sector and the Tory Government will fall not to be seen for another 10-15 years. Not that Labour will be any the better next time but exactly who is the least worse ?
Sounds like fair, well rounded comment to me Jim.
When there is an adjacent body – the Commons to the Lords, or a District to a Parish, or County to a District Council – there is usually a tendency for it to be more relaxed and less “political” as it is erroneously put in the less powerful body.
Conservatives of various kinds usually like to exaggerate that in their own interests.
Don’t worry, Be Happy, you’re doing great, exercising your critical faculties is next best thing to the reform of electing the Lords!
adversarial fashion. If we had a modern fan shaped chamber the point would be more valid.
Directly opposite means crossing swords; it means eyeballing the debating “opponent”. It means trying to defeat the opponents point of view, whereas having one’s eyes on the subject matter of the bill on the Chairman/speakers table, with no need to see the opponent at all, seems a much better way of making new law.
You are still opposite in a certain sense; it is all a matter of degree and emphasis.
A house of lords chamber would well be converted to a different shape now that peers may represent themselves in the house of commons.
It would cost a bob or two, but if the chamber were reduced to a couple of hundred a
circular or horse shoe shape would be fine, but if Lord Knight is correct about the intellectual level of debate, there is scarcely the direct opposition to make it worthwhile.
The question of higher level of “intellectual” debate in the house of Lords is….. arguable! It may be nothing at all.
It may just take longer from people who demand respect for past, and possibly vain glories.