Throughout the time I have been Convenor of the Cross Benches I got used to the ill-disguised jibes directed at the Cross Benches – there are too many of us, it was said, we don’t get out to vote, we don’t contribute to the nitty gritty of legislation, we don’t attend enough. Some of this was/is true but since the election we are increasingly ‘courted’ by both Government and Opposition. The reason is not hard to fathom!
At the moment before the next huge influx of Coalition peers the Cross Benches can, at times, sway the vote for or against the Government. My Lordsoftheblog colleagues have already pointed this out but from the Cross Bench viewpoint these are tricky times. We are guaranteed to annoy (a mild term) at least one half of the House in any one division depending of which side we vote with.
Of course this also depends on how many Cross Benchers actually vote; their record is poor – something like 16%- 18% of 183 peers appears to be the norm. On occasions however that rises considerably, usually to do with a vote on limiting the power of Government or preserving individual liberties. I have long urged the CBs to get out and vote – they argue that they really need to know the details of an amendment before doing so. I see my job as providing that information in as much detail and as early as I can. But when the CBs turn out in force and swing the vote, we are then accused of acting as a party group.
One can’t really win but as long as the criticisms come more or less equally from Government and Opposition benches then I reckon we are probably doing OK.
My Lady, I can`t think of a cross bencher who has posted on the blog who couldn`t take criticism and indeed would think all accepted the position knowing this would occur.
It is said “A critic is someone who never actually goes to the battle, yet who afterwards comes out shooting the wounded.”
I don`t agree there are too many but I would like to see greater contributions from the ranks, though at times some have been superb. Of course the definition of superb depends on which side you are seated.
Considering the noble Baroness does her job with a handicap, that of not really being part of the “usual channels”, I think she does incredibly well.
Lady D’Souza, I can see the dilemma, but I would hope this criticism is more restricted to the party front-benches rather than the backbenchers. The cross-benchers play such a vital role in the House in keeping policy balanced and reasonable.
Also, can I ask whether this 16-18% is the same 16-18% or not? I assume it depends heavily on the subject under discussion, but I’d hope that you don’t have swathes of non-attending cross-benchers for months at a time.
I’d appreciate any light you can shed on this for me – and keep up the good work!
And another person on the ‘cross’ benches !!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303215/MI5-vetoed-Security-Minister-Baroness-Pauline-Neville-Jones-links-Ukrainian-oligarchs.html
Couldn’t happen to a nicer person..
Of course this also depends on how many Cross Benchers actually vote; their record is poor
=================
So why the hell are we paying them so much money? 2,000 a day it costs per lord to attend.
If they don’t attend, they don’t receive any money at all. The crossbenchers were appointed as experts in particular fields, so many of them won’t feel comfortable voting on issues they don’t understand. If they aren’t claiming money on those days I don’t see a problem.
However 400 plus are turning up each day, at a cost of over 2,000 pounds each.
Now look at the ‘expertise’. It’s pretty hard to find them unless they are donors to parties, or ex political hacks, unions included)
When you look at the expertise, whole areas are missing. No car mechanics. No hairdressers. No taxi drivers. All large areas of the UK, with no representation in the lords, and yet the Lords legistlates from a position of ignorance. You don’t get them abstaining if its outside their area of expertise.
So, they are claiming, an exercising a job about which they no nothing.
Lord Blagger: Oh dear, and I thought the snow was dense. Your figures, as various readers have previously pointed out, don’t stack up. We do have people in the House who have an expertise in cars, and in transport generally, and I suspect people who are well versed in the licensing of taxis, among other things. We even have a peer who builds his own planes. I am not sure how often the expertise of a hairdresser may be helpful to debates, but we do have a peer who is married to one.
Dense? Me?
Don’t forget Phillip that you were the one who thinks its acceptable for Truscott and co to take cash to change legistalation on the grounds that ‘they wouldn’t have got away with it’.
So, name the Lord who’s a barber or a hairdresser.
Just going back through the archives.
Not a reference for any of your numbers.
If you can’t provide the cost per day to counter the real figures, one has to believe that you are making it up.
References and calculations are the order of the day.
I don’t think we politicos get quite as annoyed as you think but we are always ready to make a point! Inevitably you are caught in the cross fire – perhaps you should change your unofficial title to cross making benches!
16%- 18% of 183 peers appears to be the norm
The only cross bencher I know well, without mentioning any names, is far right. It is certainly so in local government.
Most members of the Labour party are only in the independent group for a short while, and then see the light.
It can be difficult to enter the Lords on the left; not least because of the dimensions of the seats for hon gentlemen on that side, minute compared with the number for those entering on the right; almost like a witness box!