I’ve spent some batty days in the House of Lords but yesterday’s debate on modernising the House’s procedure in the Chamber has to be the battiest so far. The Leader’s Group on Working Practices of the House (called the Goodlad Report) has made a series of minor recommendations (and some more substantive recommendations that we haven’t debated yet). There were eight proposals, ranging from the first allowing the Lord Speaker to adjudicate between unseemly wrangles as to whose side should speak next at Question Time, rather than the political figure of the Leader or Chief Whip, and the eighth proposal, which was to phase out silly titles like ‘Noble and Gallant’ for ex Generals, ‘Noble and Learned’ for high court judges and the ‘Right Reverend Prelate’ and the ‘Most Reverend Primate for Archbishops. It was all too difficult for noble Lords to contemplate. Even the simplest change to make parliament more comprehensible to external viewers and visitors by reading the question being debated at the outset of the Debate rather than announcing “I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper” was rejected as ‘unnecessary’. There were the usual protestations of the House being self-regulating. It is frequently about as well regulated as a henhouse full of headless chickens. Read the debate here at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/111108-0001.htm#11110870000889.
“No change in the House (of Lords)”
that’s because our groslly-misproportioned Taxes, that the House’s Peers both join-in mis-budgeting, and personally over-consume, leave no room for them to give us “change” !
“Health and Social-Care ?”
huh, that’s a sick-joke !
(Reminds me of the Australian Minister for Health, lecturing imprisoned criminals on ‘how to be healthy’:
during his speech he fell dead from a junky-living heart-attack !
And the American world-leading Jogging “expert”, who also collapsed dead from heart-attack whilst out jogging one day).
But more insidiously, our ‘beloved’ super-seniors are lapsing long-past ‘due-dates’ for increasing their mind-body flexibilities and creativities, and taking up and leading with other vision and human-movement opportunities*
* (plenty of such sources already submitted to LordsoftheBlog, even by yours faithfully alone)
Think you’ll find that “silly” appellations formed the ninth proposal….
I was in favour of giving the Lords Speaker the power to call sides to speak at Question Time. I agreed with the speeches made by L Rooker, B Boothroyd and L Grocott. I do not know why the house did not support this proposal.
I do not know why the house did not support this proposal.
…and by an overwhelming majority, too! I agree that the uncontrolled Me! Me! Me! is particularly demeaning.
Good thing we’ve got a common sense psychiatrist to deal with it then.
Batty is the word.
Miles observations of irony about the way people are afflicted in the long run by their
own presentation of themselves, surely applies in all walks of life; doctors getting sick, financiers going bust, solicitors breaking the law.
I have two medical acquaintances in this vicinity, by way of anecdote, one called Pain and the other called Boyle. Pain specialised in putting people out of it, for many years, as a terminal surgeon. Boyle merely gets a lot of pus out.(“exudate”)
Lord Alderdice:In conclusion-
Noble Lords: At last!
🙂
In general I strongly support the changes proposed for “I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper”. The other changes really don’t bother me greatly.
Seven out of the nine proposals passed, if I recall correctly. Hardly no change.
I do wish they’d read the questions out. I’ve read the debate, but I suspect none of the contributors has actually watched a session online. While I’m fully aware that I can find the order papers on the Lords website, looking up the one for the right day is a real hassle. Having the question as an on-screen caption would help, though.
The division on appellations couldn’t have been closer-run! I have already noticed some members not sticking to this, though, and referring to just “Lord X”.
The best line in the debate has to be:
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, although I agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I will feel sad that the loss of the term “most reverend Primates” will allow us to forget our true origins.
Classic!
The problem with rank title is that they are also used outside the house, particularly with the royal family, although even they are much inclined to enjoy being refered to as Brenda or Maude or Phil when the occasion allows it.
What would the noble baroness (!) use in place of the terms of address, like the other place?
The Honoured member, not just the honorable one?
The viscount earls and above of these islands
also have their admirers without
House of lords, the tenantry and so on, who still like to defer to the local elite/aristocracy, and still like to use their titles in doing so.
There are several ancients who constantly disclaim their titles whilst they are in the house of commons, and they are there now.
I must say that the exclusivity of the second chamber is added to considerably in a very negative way by the requirement to address everybody as your Grace, or my noble lord, and it is certainly the most ancient who insist on it.
In my own time I have been on terms with everybody from you know who, to the bin man, the latter only enjoying the Order of the Mateship, but the former requiring highnesses and even majesties at very formal occasions.
I would say that at ALL times when they are required the individual concerned is making capital out of it, at our own expense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalric_order
Again the problem is with the Chivalric and dynastic orders and there are so many of them particularly associated with the two largest
Christian denominations, CofE and RC, that it really is not worth bothering the minutiae.
I don’t know what the general feeling on the matter is with Labour members of the HofL. I think they just do their best to control their enthusiasm for Orders and are merely
Lords of the house and not lords of any particular Order.
Some if not all are masonic orders too, which is another complication!
It is a big subject for those who enjoy ritual and ceremony, which the baroness in her wisdom, of the psychological,and medical needs of men and women, may have dispensed with.
I would say that for the Earl of the landed estate, it is all ritual and ceremony and for the bin man/traveller it is none of either.
A need for good balance suggests a modicum of both is best.
Tactics of not moving anything along is an old, well used way of political machination.
It leaves the question in the air. It is then only addressed as having been heard. But then, we took action, however, the action needed was unable to find consensus. So, the all round resolution was to let it sit for further deliberations. The date to be addressed at the next convenient sitting on the matter.
Surely, Baroness, you are well enough acquainted with that game after all this time.
No one wants change. Change is dangerous. It may result in ‘us’ losing benefits. Now, should that happen after we have passed on, well and good, but now is not the time for that, is it?
Revolution is what is needed here.
And to add a little snippet I picked up over the weekend that really took me by surprise, was, here we are believing we live in a democracy and the the Monarch and her family are simply figure heads.
Think again folks. It turns out the Prince of Wales, in his right of that position has the expectation that he, since, wait for it, ‘2005,’ (the socialist Blair) to veto certain aspects of government edict.
Read all about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation
Dwell on that again, the extraordinary happening was taken to allow him this right, in this century, 2005.
The quicker we remove the monarchy the better. You may believe Charles is a sensible bloke. But, would you trust any of the rest of them in this position. They have never been noted as the brightest sparks in the bunch for a very long time. And those who follow are even lower on that totem pole.
What it means in effect is, advisers, whoever they may be, will be telling this group what to do and which way to go to suit their own best interests. And of course the best interests of those so called advisers. Who will be unelected people who find their way into favour of royalty without first being passed by the ballot box.
Unelected creeps being asked to give sanction over our government decisions.
This brought to mind Sir Thomas More. Don’t know why.
Sir Thomas in the film, A Man for All Seasons says,
‘I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.’
And when you trust in Kings, you take your life in your hands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0aLrrnyDhg
Rant over?
Quite right. One rule for them, another for the plebs.
However, there is an upside. Given you’ve not been asked. You’ve never been allowed a vote on the matters. That means you’re not responsible. You don’t have to play their game. Morally and ethically you can stick two fingers up.
After all, if they allow convicted fraudsters back on the Lords gravy train, why should you fund Lord Taylor? It’s immoral, and I don’t intend making it easy for them to extract money out of me.
@LBlagger:
Here is a rule for the plebs that the ‘them’ never experience. And in the main, do not want to hear about it either, as it is too difficult to hide.
The Tory’s have, as I wrote previously, already jumped on the US bandwagon with ‘soup kitchens’ and deprivations of the British people to the point of driving them to their death. And no I am not exaggerating.
This newspaper article is so grotesque and so unjust I simply cannot be more upset by such blatant hypocrisy as this coalition government when it continues to play Mr Nice guy and the caring cuddly we are only looking out for you line.
The two of them, Cameron and Clegg are without heart. And Duncan Smith, the rich man who wants more cheap labour to man his estate, is largely at the back of it.
This story covers an Army veteran and his mentally afflicted wife who were starving to death as a result of government policy. They had been trying to survive on £57 pound a week for both of them, and trying to walk the six miles a day to a soup kitchen to eat, finished them off.
Don’t come back with the old USA fob off of ‘they must have slipped through the cracks.’ They didn’t slip through any cracks. There were no cracks for them to slip through. That line is the government line to cover their rumps when something as horrendous as this exposes their brutality toward the people who pay their wages.
And this is only one couple we know about. How many more are out there? How long before it is all of us?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059238/Army-veteran-Mark-Mullins-wife-Helen-driven-suicide-poverty.html
I almost wept for these people. And those at the top get away with paying no tax whilst our people starve.
There is more to this story and it should be uncovered, all of it. They took their twelve year old daughter into care, so they could starve these people without the fear of being charged for child abuse. As had the household remained a family with children, they would have been held criminally responsible result.
Most of these issues are trivial compared to the more substantial one of the structure of the House of Lords and how those forming part of our legislature get there and can be made in some way accountable for their decisions. As I’ve said previously, I personally am not in favour of a wholly elected house whatever my political party may say, nor of the exclusion of the episcopal bench, notwithstanding not being a member of the Church of England, nor of eliminating nominated peers for which I see some virtue (though not of representing professions since if cast in legislation the selected professions will quickly become outdated and exclude new professional roles).
Personally I like the ‘noble and gallant’ etc. business, and am quite content with Lord Strathclyde or whoever saying ‘Perhaps we can hear from the noble lord, Lord X, before the noble lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch’ (or whomever). All this is quite quaint and creates a style of measured debate, and none of it impedes the House from being effective. The Lords should spend time on issues of greater moment.
Realise that the Perilous-Shortfall, between Humankind’s Demands and this only-one-real-Earth’s likely-ability to go on providing two (2) Earthsworth of resources and lifesupports and to meet human-governance’s further Demand for three (3) Earthsworths by 2050, is insidiously growing
even “as we speak”.
G then does succeed in ‘hitting a mark, ‘ by subconsciously ‘intuiting’ that the House of Lords is a case of ‘Bats-in-the-Belfry’ (“Batty”);
bats’ main interest in occupying a belfry being to secure warm, dry and safe shelter and a home wherein to propagate their own special species.
Of course, the Lords get more than that, they get good feeding, and much better indoor and uninvadable exercise opportunities, than do the more primary-lifeformed bats-in-our-belfries.
Realise, however, (G)
that “people” in the main-context of Life must be dichotomised between “People as workers in the Workplace” and “people as livers in the Lifeplace”: there is no such thing as ‘work’ being the dominant ‘walk of life’.
The purpose of the Workplace is to provide Lifeplaces that are sufficient and safe to be walked in,
to be walked in by non-workers* kept healthy, citizenlike and environmentally-supportive by workers in The Workplace.
(* = off-duty workers too).
—————
G thinks it a “Good thing that ‘we’ have got a ‘common-sense-psychiatrist’ to deal with ‘it’…” (the House’s “No change” ‘syndrome’ (‘sin-drone’ might be a better term)):
missing the fact that the only ‘common sense’ psychiatrist , or any other worker in any section of civilisation, is the one who lives off just one-human-living –
for clarity, let the legislated sufficient human-living be £100 per week, and the psychiatrist’s income be £1000 per week: already we have a conclusion that the psychiatrist is seriously deluded, thinking her-him- self to be ten (10) human-beings (in the Workplace = 10 human-workers) and therafter in the Lifeplace having-to-have 10 human-livings to maintain one-human-being alive, healthy, citizenlike, and environmentally-supportive). –
there is no way such stuck-in-the-mud-seesaws equations can be justified.
————-
My compound (but not complex) point, is that plentiful non-medical and non-workplace human-health building advances have been and are ongoingly being made, but are being denied and opposed by both Workplace Chiefs and Lifeplace Community ‘leaders’;
and that whilst needy people at the foot of the human-development-ladder, so to speak, are being denied, by Governance-Workers, enablement and empowerment to enter-into these non-medical human-educational advances; those self-same Governance-Workers do not enter-in themselves.
Luke 11.52 is apposite.
So are the three folklore scenarios in Baroness Murphy’s blog (a few below this one)
“Angels dancing on pins”
“Members dancing around totem poles”
and
“Toads blocking-up fountains”.
————
Do an unbiased read through any one of the advances I have been referencing to previous blogs and you will surely see both the seriousness and the real-life-sense that we urgently need to proactivate and commit ourselves to and, in so doing, to ‘carry along’ with us those who really need these advances first and foremost, namely our Governance-Workers high-up amongst whom must be those parliamentarians who waste words in our Name and in the name of Democracy.
I disagee about that titles such as Noble and Gallant for ex Generals are silly as suggested by Baroness Murphy. In contrary it brings substance to the herritage we have in the House of Lords. To modernize is not good regarding these things. The House of Lords should be protected as a World Herritage, and I think that we need a new thingking.