Lord Strabolgi
I was sad to read that Lord Strabolgi died on Christmas Eve. He had the distinction of being one of the longest serving members of the House – he entered in 1953 – and a Labour hereditary peer. He was an active member until the very end.
We variously chatted over lunch in the Bishop’s Bar. He was interested in Hull because his father had been an MP for Hull, first as a Liberal and then as a Labour Member (when he switched parties, he fought and won a by-election), before succeeding to the title, one of the oldest in Scotland.
Lord Strabolgi served as Deputy Chief Whip during the turbulent period of Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. He was widely respected in the House for his knowledge of its procedures and had served as one of the Deputy Speakers. You often find things out about people after they die that you had not previously known. I was unaware that, like Lord Lyell of Markygate, who also died recently, he was an artist – he went to Chelsea School of Art. He was an extremely engaging individual. Though somewhat frail physically, he retained an extremely sharp mind.
I was sorry to read of Lord Strabolgi’s death in the Telegraph last week. He appeared in one of the TV documentaries a couple of years ago (was it “Peers’ Progress”?) in which you also featured. It was interesting to hear his views on the Lords. Despite serving with distinction as a hereditary peer for more than 50 years, I seem to remember Lord Strabolgi was in favour not only of removing the hereditaries, but also of a elected house. In fact, he used what was to be his last speech in October to call for an elected senate.
Unfortunately, the programme’s not on iPlayer at the moment.
Jonathan: From my conversations with him, I think he felt election was in principle desirable but was coming round to recognising the case for the House as presently constituted.
The names Strathbogie and Strabolgi, as the barony was succesively known, must be Gaelic mutations for the name,
although it looks curiously Italian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Strabolgi
Interesting that the abeyances for mor than 300 years mean that there have only been 9 holders of the title.
David Montague de Burgh Kenworthy, 11th Baron Strabolgi.
The descent from 1318, but only 9 holders, stretches the imagination to the limit, but after studying my own Welsh genealogy
(and that of one of the Hansard mods of this board) back to the 1540s, with circumstantial evidence going much further,to Hywel dda, on account of the historiographic personalities in the line, the Royal approval was doubtless accurate on both occasions.
1318, would certainly suggest a good 20 holders ottherwise, however long lived the generations.
A handsome picture of an elegant Scotsman, but there are some available on the internet of the late noble lord in much earlier days,and even more handsome days. The Scots so often have very distinguished, broad faced, and generous features, and he was no exception.
I was regrettably not acquainted with him.
May Baron David Kenworth rest in peace.
Gareth Howell: Yes, I also read about the history of the title. I too found it fascinating and I took the same view as you; it does sound curiously Italian.
Thanks to the noble Lord Norton, for the courteous reply.
I have to add that there is no comparison between the Strathbogie descent, and Howell of our branch, since ours refers solely to the Welsh squirearchy,over the last 400 years, and not to peerage at all, other than one Lord Bishop in 1644.
Interesting though that even squirearchy is capable of producing such fine records of descent over so long a time. No wonder then that Strathbolgi’s royal approval was not slow in forthcoming after two such long spans, one of 348 years!
Again to the family of a man of great longevity, and humility of leadership to the Labour cause, my own condolences too. A privilege to read a little about his genealogy, life, and works.
Parliament 100 years On 1 of 2
What’s the difference between a hereditary peer and a life peer? One came to us from history whilst the other came to us from obscurity. In all other respects there is little to distinguish them as they sit side by side in the HoL.
I was thinking about MPs and their annexation of Parliament in 1911 courtesy of the Monarchy and wondering why the hereditary peers of the day were so upset by it all. Was Lloyd George and his ‘lets give us ourselves a salary’ anything to do with it?
Then I got to thinking why the people of the day never kicked off about it. Perhaps their problem was a lack of historical data to support any reservations.
Well I went to the ‘Measuring Worth’ website and it said that today’s MP salary of 65,738 pounds was worth 4,960,000 pounds in 1911 terms based upon the Retail Prices Index and 26,100,000 pounds based upon Average Earnings.
Given the data (Part 2 of this post) what does it all mean? I am somewhat baffled, where have I gone wrong I ask myself. Have I become as self-deluded as the Commons?
I enter the year 1911 and state the target year as 2009 and the web site gives two values: one RPI and the other Average Earnings. The difficulty I have is that the ratio of (MP Salary now) / (1911 Equivalent Salary) as a percentage consistently comes to 1.33% over the last 100 years. Given that Average Earnings are most certainly not 26, 100,000 pa have we become poorer over that time and have MPs become richer?
Parliament 100 years On 2 of 2
MP Salary Raw Data
Year,Salary,RPI,AVE,RPI Ratio,AVE Ratio
Aug 1911,400,”30,200″,”159,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Oct 1931,360,”27,200″,”143,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jul 1934,380,”28,700″,”151,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jul 1935,400,”30,200″,”159,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jun 1937,600,”45,300″,”238,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 1946,”1,000″,”75,500″,”396,000″,1.32%,0.25%
May 1954,”1,250″,”94,400″,”496,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jul 1957,”1,750″,”132,000″,”694,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Oct 1964,”3,250″,”245,000″,”1,290,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jan 1972,”4,500″,”340,000″,”1,780,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jun 1975,”5,750″,”434,000″,”2,280,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jun 1976,”6,062″,”458,000″,”2,400,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jun 1977,”6,270″,”473,000″,”2,490,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jun 1978,”6,897″,”521,000″,”2,730,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jun 1979,”9,450″,”713,000″,”3,750,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jun 1980,”11,750″,”887,000″,”4,660,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jun 1981,”13,950″,”1,050,000″,”5,530,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jun 1982,”14,510″,”1,100,000″,”5,750,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jun 1983,”15,308″,”1,160,000″,”6,070,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1984,”16,106″,”1,220,000″,”6,380,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1985,”16,904″,”1,280,000″,”6,700,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1986,”17,702″,”1,340,000″,”7,020,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1987,”18,500″,”1,400,000″,”7,330,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1988,”22,548″,”1,700,000″,”8,940,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jan 1989,”24,107″,”1,820,000″,”9,560,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1990,”26,701″,”2,020,000″,”10,600,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1991,”28,970″,”2,190,000″,”11,500,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1992,”30,854″,”2,330,000″,”12,200,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1993,”30,854″,”2,330,000″,”12,200,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1994,”31,687″,”2,390,000″,”12,600,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jan 1995,”33,189″,”2,510,000″,”13,200,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Jan 1996,”34,085″,”2,570,000″,”13,500,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jul 1996,”43,000″,”3,250,000″,”17,000,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 1997,”43,860″,”3,310,000″,”17,400,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Apr 1998,”45,066″,”3,400,000″,”17,900,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Apr 1999,”47,008″,”3,550,000″,”18,600,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 2000,”48,371″,”3,650,000″,”19,200,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Apr 2001,”49,822″,”3,760,000″,”19,800,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Jun 2001,”51,822″,”3,910,000″,”20,500,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Apr 2002,”55,118″,”4,170,000″,”21,900,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 2003,”56,358″,”4,260,000″,”22,300,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 2004,”57,485″,”4,340,000″,”22,800,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 2005,”59,095″,”4,460,000″,”23,400,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Apr 2009,”64,766″,”4,890,000″,”25,700,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Nov 2006,”60,277″,”4,550,000″,”23,900,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 2007,”61,181″,”4,620,000″,”24,300,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Nov 2007,”61,820″,”4,670,000″,”24,500,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 2008,”63,291″,”4,780,000″,”25,100,000″,1.32%,0.25%
Apr 2009,”65,738″,”4,960,000″,”26,100,000″,1.33%,0.25%
Ref: House of Commons Information Office
Members’ pay, pensions and allowances
Appendix A: Member’s Pay since 1911 (a)
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/fymp/m05.pdf
Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Present
http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/
Senex: Many thanks for some valuable data. Drawing it together like this is extremely useful.
Busy start to the year so I’m late coming back to this; thank you for the endorsement but the data is flawed and I did not achieve what I want to say and that is to compare the value of money over the last 100 years. I thought I would get a blasting by posting raw data but you have surprised me when I have come back to the post today. I will repost shortly.
I remember he used to attend the lords regularly when watching oral question on the internet he would sit in a chair behind the lords speaker but in front of the steps to the throne. You used to see him on camera after oral questions when the house dealt with “house business”.
tory boy: He was indeed a regular attender, and when walking became something of a problem would, as you say, sit in a chair by the steps to the Throne. He used to attend regularly and would lunch in the Bishop’s Bar. Despite problems with mobility, he insisted on walking and remained very indepedent in spirit. He was a fount of fascinating stories.
I shall add my own COndolances.
Lord Norton, am I right in thinking that Lord Strabolgi was a Hereditary Peer “elected” by the whole House and there will now be an election for all Peers to elect a new Hereditary Peer?
Frank Young you are right there will be a by election to elect a new Hereditary Peer.
frank young: Yes, as tory boy says, there will be a by-election. Of the 92 hereditary peers not excluded by the 1999 Act, two sit ex officio, 75 are elected through the respective party (or cross-bench) grouping and 15 are elected by the House as a whole to be available to serve the House in official capacities (such as Deputy Speaker) should they be so required. Lord Strabolgi, as I recall, falls in the last category.
I’m stunned that the hereditary principle will carry on. I agree that some of the hereditary peers should have carried on after 1999 because they did good work and earned the right to stay on. Some of them gave more in service to the parliament than many of the glamorous life peers who tout their titles but barely attend.
However, the logic of keeping some of the hard working hereditary peers doesn’t apply to bringing in new hereditary peers.
The 1999 act was a compromise in a time of transition, the hereditary seats in the Lords should now be allowed to fade into history.
Parliament 100 years On #2 1 of 2
When I posted this first time around I felt a bit guilty by posting within an obituary of sorts. But the loss of Lord Strabolgi places him in the legacy category as do the events of the last one hundred years.
When I finally got my head around this I wanted to show the value of money from two bystanders in their own times; Nick in 2009 and Lloyd in 1911. Lloyd is quite lucky in that he can see the future. Such a lot has changed over the last 100 years but Parliament remains a fixture amid all of this change and MP remunerations are a reliable dataset to demonstrate value; I over inflated MP income in the first post.
There are two coincidences: Nick’s income is the same in 2009 and Lloyds is the same in 1911 regardless of measure. Based upon RPI values Nick’s salary is worth 30,200 in 1911 and Lloyd’s is worth 848 in 2009. Both it would seem have done well over the last 100 years.
However, the picture is quite different for ‘Average Earnings’ had this measure been used. Nick’s salary in 1911 would be worth 159,000 but poor old Lloyd sees a drop in income to 163. If we take Lloyd’s salary and keep it at 400 as we go back to 1889 its value actually increases.
Another interesting aspect is that after the events of 1929 and the great depression MPs take an across the board pay cut of 10% and this only rises back to 400 in 1935. This says a lot about the Commons today, the country is ‘bankrupt’ but only ministers see fit to reduce their incomes and only 5% at that. Disgraceful!
After the Great War average earnings never really recover and the reason for this is the subject of academic debate, that is, if I have actually got the dataset right this time around.
Parliament 100 years On #2 2 of 2
MP Salary Raw Data
“Year”,”Salary”,”2009 RPI”,”2009 AVE”,”1911 RPI”,”1911 AVE”
“Aug 1889”,400,32800,203000,434,513
“Aug 1890”,400,32600,196000,432,496
“Aug 1891”,400,32400,194000,429,489
“Aug 1892”,400,32200,193000,427,487
“Aug 1893”,400,32900,193000,436,488
“Aug 1894”,400,33800,192000,447,484
“Aug 1895”,400,34200,192000,454,484
“Aug 1896”,400,34300,189000,455,478
“Aug 1897”,400,33600,186000,446,469
“Aug 1898”,400,33000,182000,438,460
“Aug 1899”,400,33400,179000,442,453
“Aug 1900”,400,32100,174000,425,439
“Aug 1901”,400,32200,172000,426,434
“Aug 1902”,400,32200,172000,426,433
“Aug 1903”,400,31800,171000,422,431
“Aug 1904”,400,32000,171000,423,431
“Aug 1905”,400,31800,170000,422,428
“Aug 1906”,400,31900,168000,422,423
“Aug 1907”,400,31400,164000,415,414
“Aug 1908”,400,31000,163000,410,411
“Aug 1909”,400,30900,163000,409,410
“Aug 1910”,400,30300,161000,401,406
“Aug 1911”,400,30200,159000,400,400
“Oct 1931”,360,18100,70400,240,178
“Jul 1934”,380,20000,75300,265,190
“Jul 1935”,400,20600,78100,273,197
“Jun 1937”,600,28700,112000,380,282
“Apr 1946”,1000,30700,98600,407,249
“May 1954”,1250,25500,70400,338,178
“Jul 1957”,1750,31400,79800,416,201
“Oct 1964”,3250,49100,105000,650,264
“Jan 1972”,4500,44300,74800,586,189
“Jun 1975”,5750,35900,56500,476,142
“Jun 1976”,6062,32500,51500,431,130
“Jun 1977”,6270,29000,48900,385,123
“Jun 1978”,6897,29500,47600,391,120
“Jun 1979”,9450,35600,56500,472,143
“Jun 1980”,11750,37600,58200,497,147
“Jun 1981”,13950,39900,61200,528,154
“Jun 1982”,14510,38200,58200,506,147
“Jun 1983”,15308,38500,56600,510,143
“Jan 1984”,16106,38600,56200,511,142
“Jan 1985”,16904,38200,54300,506,137
“Jan 1986”,17702,38700,52700,512,133
“Jan 1987”,18500,38800,51100,514,129
“Jan 1988”,22548,45100,57300,597,145
“Jan 1989”,24107,44700,56200,592,142
“Jan 1990”,26701,45200,56700,599,143
“Jan 1991”,28970,46400,57200,614,144
“Jan 1992”,30854,47600,57400,630,145
“Jan 1993”,30854,46900,55700,621,141
“Jan 1994”,31687,47000,55100,622,139
“Jan 1995”,33189,47600,56000,630,141
“Jan 1996”,34085,47700,55500,632,140
“Jul 1996”,43000,60200,70100,797,177
“Apr 1997”,43860,59500,68600,788,173
“Apr 1998”,45066,59100,67000,783,169
“Apr 1999”,47008,60700,66700,804,168
“Apr 2000”,48371,60700,65700,804,166
“Apr 2001”,49822,61400,64800,814,163
“Jun 2001”,51822,63900,67400,846,170
“Apr 2002”,55118,66800,69200,885,174
“Apr 2003”,56358,66400,68400,880,172
“Apr 2004”,57485,65800,66800,871,169
“Apr 2005”,59095,65800,66000,871,167
“Apr 2006”,59686,64400,64100,853,162
“Nov 2006”,60277,65000,64700,861,163
“Apr 2007”,61181,63300,63300,838,160
“Nov 2007”,61820,63900,63900,847,161
“Apr 2008”,63291,63000,63100,834,159
“Apr 2009”,64766,64800,64800,858,163
Ref: House of Commons Information Office
Members’ pay, pensions and allowances
Appendix A: Member’s Pay since 1911 (a)
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/fymp/m05.pdf
Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Present
http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/
if they are that good they won’t have a problem being elected.
So that brings the Lords back to being representative of the population.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8312725/Tory-peer-bus-drivers-and-waitresses-unimportant.html
It seems we can add Bus drivers and waitresses to hair dressers as being not welcome in the Lords.
Lord Lang, the Conservative peer, said people in ordinary jobs were not sufficiently qualified to pass judgement on the employment of former ministers in the private sector.
The Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business appointments has come under pressure to dilute the “Establishment” make-up of his panel, which comprises four peers, two knights and a dame.
But he defended the composition of his committee, despite accusations the arrangement was too “cosy”.
Lord Lang told MPs he would be prepared to accept a “lay member”, but added that is should be someone “who had experience and proven success in a relatively important profession or trade – somebody who had achieved distinction – rather than a waitress or bus driver.”