I have received dozens of emails from members of the public, addressed to all Lords, about their opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill, currently before the Lords. Because the wording of the emails is almost identical, many of them get filtered into my junk mail by action of my computer. One or two I have fished out, and replied by asking what happened when the correspondent wrote to their MP at the time that the Bill was passed by the Commons. It seems, from the very few replies, that they did not write to their MPs, but only to the Lords. Whether this was because they despaired of independent action by their MPs, knowing that the government was committed to a course of action and could force the Bill through by relying on its parliamentary majority, or whether it was because the campaign against the Bill started too late, I do not know. But there is clearly a perception amongst some of the email writers that the Lords will be more responsive to public concern than the Commons was.
It was therefore rather amusing to read in one email the veiled threat: “remember that the public are watching the Lords very closely on this issue, especially with respect to proposed reforms of the unelected second chamber.” In other words, although the correspondent felt let down by the (elected) Commons in relation to the Health Bill, he was relying on the (unelected) Lords to get it right – or else he would be campaigning for the upper House to be elected as well! Does he seriously think that the concerns of the public would be more influential if both Houses were elected and therefore equally in the grip of the government of the day? It would actually amount to a double “elective dictatorship” (Lord Hailsham’s phrase), whereby the executive can get its way very simply because of its majority and the whips system.
I was therefore rather worried to read in the Times that Lord Pannick QC (my former pupil!) believes that the Parliament Acts can be used to force through the Lords a Bill to abolish or replace that chamber, even if the Lords reject the Commons proposals. Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Lords can only delay, not prevent, Bills that the Commons is repeatedly determined to pass. With all due respect, as we lawyers say, I beg to differ from Lord Pannick. There are some exceptions in the Parliament Acts to the Commons’ ability to pass Bills on their own.
Section 2 of the 1911 Act says that any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond 5 years must be passed by both Houses and cannot be law if passed by the Commons alone. This exception was inserted because it might be tempting for a single elected chamber to delay elections indefinitely in a time of alleged crisis (as occurred, legitimately enough, in 1940). But the Lords, as currently composed, have nothing to lose by elections and can therefore be counted on to prevent the Commons from postponing a general election inappropriately. An elected House of Lords (or Senate) however would in theory share the same interest as the Commons in postponing an election, at which their seats might be at risk. Therefore the Parliament Acts could not have contemplated application to force the creation of a second elected chamber by a Bill passed by the Commons alone. If this were to occur, the only brake in our unwritten constitution on failure to call a general election would be lost. A largely unelected upper House is in effect a guarantor of government accountability through regular general elections, as long as we have no written constitution. The Jackson case about the Hunting Act discussed but did not determine this issue. There will be protracted litigation about this if the Commons does try to abolish the Lords unilaterally.
So having an unelected House of Lords is not only a mechanism for people to try and get their views across, even if they have been ignored by the Commons, it is also a bulwark of democracy through elections.
Writing to your MP asking them to vote against their party line is largely a waste of time, as too many of them follow the party whip. More so when your MP is on the front bench.
If your MP is in opposition, then even if sympathetic and intending to vote the way you want, the effect is limited.
As such, I think more people have come to appreciate the Lords over the past few years as a place where the government of the day can be brought to account because of the existence of the cross-bench, and the fact that even peers of the governing party are prepared to vote conscience rather than party. There’s a lot to be said for not having your future career defined by your voting activities.
Tony Blair didn’t like this, which is why he screwed up the system and left it half-finished, and is why I think it important that the occupants of the Commons are the very last people who ought to be in charge of reforming the Lords because of vested interest.
As thousands of other-than-political experts, and a good few elected-politicians, and lesser ‘pleb’ others (such as JSDM alias milesjsd via http://www.75l25w.com , http://www.lifefresh.co.uk , and http://lordsoftheblog.net since May 2010)have been saying:
Britain is a ‘minimal’ democracy, much more honestly classed as a Directively-Top-Down Two-Party Oligarchic State than the ‘full’ one many seated Peers would have us believe.
Worse, through such majorly-inhibitive top-down Trad-Culture-Boundness, and Political strawmanning-pretence, Britain is insidiously falling behind in both Real-Health and Demo-cratic (governance by-and-for all people, NOT dominantly top-down ‘of’ most-people) Participativity.
So yuour closing paragraph should more honestly be re-worded:
“So having an unelected House of Lords, Senate, or Upper- or Second- House, remains only a mechanism through which People have to compete to have their Needs lodged upon a Parliamentary Table (in a previous submission I had to say “Nailed to the Table”, in order to prevent any need from being ‘lost-to-view-and-to-verbatim-public-honesty’ down-through cracks in tables and gaps in underlying floorboards) since the House of Commons has neither the will nor the ability to even recognise the serious submission from the lone-citizen much less to publish constructive response; and the House of Lords remains also an obstacle to progressively-participatory democracy through limiting the “voice” of the individual-needy to a single pencil-cross on a p[iece of paper once every five-years – namely “through the ballot box i.e. for a Party-Politicised-Person, but never for the individual-citizen’s real and verbatimly-registered Need, and indeed never for any greater urgent and important Need such as reducing our consumption of two-Earths’-worth of resources and lifesupports to the factual only-one-Earth we should be living within the means of. We need strongly-protected two-way democratic channels rather than ‘a bulwark where ‘views’ can stand or fall un-published.
You right on the delaying tactics.
Still no progress after years on criminals sitting in the Lords.
Still no progress on Trustcot et al selling changes to legislation for cash. They are still turning up claiming attendance allowances dictating, unelected, as to what the plebs can and can’t do.
Then it would appear from this take on the Lords, that our best bet is to remain with a second chamber that relies on individuals appointed by, in the main, those from the lower House. And by the way, who does select those who enters the Lords? And why are they chosen in the first place? And why can they never be slung out?
It won’t be long before we see another trench of unelectable MP’s thrown out by the electorate, having to fight for a seat on those red benches, will it?
And if, as you write in this opening thread, what I believe you are trying to convey is, the Lords have more power to thwart the government on issues, as it is, an unelected chamber, all I can say is, why are you not using that power the people are begging you so to do?
And more than that, why are you not making a bigger issue of getting more power to the Lords, in order to hold back what is not wanted by the people in their fear of betrayal by those they have elected as their voice in the Commons.
You are a very intelligent lady and you must realise that what many are clearly asking for, is a powerful chamber which can prevent those in the Commons going against what they promised the electorate when asking for their vote.
Further than that, is the responsibility of the Lords and Parliament as a whole, to educate the people on how our government works. If they don’t understand it is the fault of all of you who do not require it be taught in schools as a separate subject.
Do something about it. And at the same time, explain in short easy to understand pieces in TV programmes, or, articles in papers exactly how they can go about letting their MP or the Lord of their choice know what is worrying them. At the same time, explaining what the Lords can do and what thy cannot do on their behalf.
Rather than crow about how idiotic they are, feel for their plight, and give them the information they require.
Otherwise, you will all see far more tent cities growing in areas you don’t feel is a good advertisement for the UK. As they have no other way of letting you know. Do they?
Listen to the people and get rid of the lobbyists.
And by the way, who does select those who enters the Lords? And why are they chosen in the first place? And why can they never be slung out?
“Going up” from the house of commons, for political peers is merely a question of going up the corridor, which MPs very rarely do, until they see the writing on the wall.
Non political peers have to submit themselves
to the Lords appointment board/commission, as the several noble ladies here would have done;for them merely a matter of course, in view of their academic or sporting achievements!(but not both!!)
Lord Taylor of Warwick and Pentonville for example was marginally a “political” peer, since he claimed racial discrimination at a
by election, and then chose to attend the lords as a consolation prize. I did notice him wandering “in” or “up” at the time of
being, as some people, especially the “Times” describe it as being “elevated” to the Peerage.
For a member of the house of commons it is distinctly a turn for the worse in terms of pay, which is why so many cling to their parliamentary constituencies!
a “down turn” to the peerage rather than “elevation” would not look good to all those civil servants, who read the times, but actually that is what it is. Non political peers are taken in by that talk of improvement!
It’s not what you get directly from either the Commons or the Lords. It’s the indirect perks of association with.
Which is why those who are not affiliated pretend they are. Example, Werrity.
Being a Lord can be a big draw to those who want to use their pretence at connection.
I went to a riverboat party that used the technique of MC which was used to inspire their prospective clients. So, even those with no connection at all, see it as a way to open doors.
Change your moniker to give yourself a peerage. It cheapens the tag and removes the premium for that little scam.
Baroness or Countess?
What MC by the way?
@LB:
I don’t know his name. I don’t fraternize with the help! LOL But, he was wearing a short red jacket if that gives you a clue. Very becoming.
even those with no connection at all, see it as a way to open doors.
The white gloved Society of Doorkeepers do an excellent job of conveying messages and opening doors in the Palace of Westminster. Their services are always immaculate.
It’s the indirect perks of association with.
Not many London clubs regularly pay their members to attend. the Garrick has discounted wines, if not almost nil cost to their members.
The RAC recently sold up and distributed capital to the members, but these are few and far between.
The lords is still the one club to which you are paid expenses to attend.
If they were abolished tomorrow, a proper number of peers would attend, and allow debate from time to time, to listen to paid
cabinet ministers do their work, and exchange opinions with them.
@28th HDD:
Is this the RAC club, with ‘Earl Howe’ as its patron? the one you mean? However, I think this was the previous Earl Howe, as I can’t see a nice looking man in this bunch! And we know the current Earl is fit.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=43072
Nevertheless, it confirms name dropping works. And that privilege, via a name, is passed down at birth along with that seat in the red chamber.
Similar to famous acting families. Redgrave, Mills, and so on. The offspring get the role even when they can’t perform. Makes for a bad movie, or, play. But somehow they hang on and people continue to swallow it.
Don’t they?
Defending the indefensible, in my view, would be a more appropriate title.
The 3 objectives of the Council of Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law.
Democracy in the UK would be a fine thing. That is, if we had universal suffrage. I refer to the large group in society, 75,000+ convicted prisoners denied the franchise in spite of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Hirst v UK (No2). Parliament has failed to remedy this human rights violation and failed to prevent future human rights violations. There are now 3,500 convicted prisoners cases lodged before the ECtHR as a result of these failures. Therefore, Parliament is guilty.
The problem appears to be that the UK sees the case as a challenge/threat to the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The Right Honourable the Earl Jowitt, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, stated: “Obviously the Government must continue to disclaim the jurisdiction of the proposed European Court of Human Rights, since this would seriously compromise the sovereignty of Parliament”(Meeting of the Cabinet held at 10 Downing Street, S.W. 1, on Thursday, 18th January, 1951, at 11 a.m., Council of Europe. Convention on Human Rights. (Previous Reference: CM . (50) 68th Conclusions, Minute 2 (4).) CAB 128/19/0/0004 p.30-31.). Recently, Kenneth Clarke and Dominic grieve have expressed the same view. The UK has not progressed in mentality in 60 years!
In effect, the ECtHR is a constitutional court for Europe. The Interlaken process requires Member States to have a written constitutioon. Moreover, that the Convention become part of national law. This would require that the HRA 1998 be amended. As the House of lords forms a part of Parliament, just 1 of the 3 arms of the State found guilty in Hirst No2, it has shown itself to be no guarantor of democracy.
Importantly, the Interlaken process requires human rights to be higher law throughout the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe. This makes redundant the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. It paves the way for a written constitution guaranteeing human rights. European law does not recognise the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, rather it recognises the principle of the sovereignty of the people.
Baroness Scotland in February 2010 reaffirmed the UK’s obligations to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. She signed the Interlaken Declaration. This is legally binding in international and European law. She agreed to sanctions being imposed upon rogue or pariah States which ignore human rights, democracy and rule of law. The UK is in danger of so being declared following its ignoring the Court’s judgment in Hirst No2. The sanction being muted is suspension or expulsion from the Council of Europe and European Union. This is a result of the Lisbon Treaty and Protocol 14 being ratified.
It beggars belief that Lord MacNally upon appointment by the Coalition was not aware of the Interlaken process. There appears to be Europe kicking sand in our face, whilst Dominic Raab tries to draw a line in the sand, and Clarke and Grieve stick their heads in the sand. The Interlaken process does involve reform of the ECtHR, but it also demands reform within Member States.
Either the UK must toe the line in Europe or withdraw from both the Council of Europe and European Union. I think it would be a sad day for our subjects if the UK decides to withdraw.
“There are supposed to be ‘no votes in prisons’ and no political prizes for doing something about them. Any politician brave enough either to tell the truth about them or grasp the nettle and try to change the way they are run is likely, so it is believed, to run into difficulties with public opinion” (Vivien Stern, Bricks of Shame – Britain’s Prisons, Pelican 1989, p.133).
It was Baroness Stern’s words which led me to embark upon my campaign which became a revolution in democracy.
The Commons and Lords appear to have conspired to prevent me getting my views across. Isn’t it time that this block to voting was removed to allow it to aid democracy in our failing State?
Democracy in the UK would be a fine thing. That is, if we had universal suffrage. I refer to the large group in society, 75,000+ convicted prisoners denied the franchise in spite of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Hirst v UK (No2).
===========
Very simple. Give them the vote, but say it has to be in person – no postal voting.
Now, how are they going to get out of jail to vote?
As for the government, when you have Vince Cable setting out to violate the human rights act still sitting in the cabinet, what do you expect?
They don’t need to get out of jail to vote, it is simply a matter of putting polling booths in prisons like some countries already do.
It’s not just Vince Cable, in this case it is almost the whole Coalition government.
I don’t want them voting.
Just as I don’t want thieves and fraudsters sitting in the Lords, collecting expenses, and dictating to us what to do.
There is no place for Trustcot, Archer, Uddin, Hanningfield, both Taylors, … in the Lords. Along with the others who have fiddled attendance allowances and expenses, or offered to sell legistlation for lucre.
Want you want does not come into it. It is what I wanted and what the highest court in Europe decided should happen.
I believe in rehabilitation even for ex-MPs and Lords convicted of fiddling their expenses. That said, I don’t believe that Parliament is doing enough to root out the rogues. More should have been prosecuted. Parliament lacks legitimacy until it regains the high moral ground.
Sorry John, you’ll get plenty of disagreement for your stance. If a vote is so important then people ought to think carefully about (a) committing crime at all or (b) doing so such that they’ll be released before the next election.
Sorry Dave, but you are missing the point. Hirst v UK (No2) is a case of the Individual v the State. It involves the conduct of the State, and not the conduct of prisoners. The State was found guilty of a human rights violation. Prisoners are punished for their conduct under the domestic criminal law. The State’s conduct dealt with under international and European law.
Obviously, the vote is important for democracy because it shows that everybody counts.
I am a human rights defender, the UK is a human rights abuser.
@John Hirst:
On the vote for prisoners, I agree with you. A prison vote doesn’t threaten government. Unless, of course, their plan is to imprison us all.
However, I dissagree on the idea of a rehabilitation of criminals in the Lords or any other office of trust.
Once respect is lost, it spreads throughout the organization they are affiliated to, like a cancer. Lords who commit crimes of theft, deceit, violence or any other act of immorality have no ‘human right’ to rule over us.
And Lord Norton’s point of, well one Lords crime is no longer a crime, is frankly a ludicrous response. And I really respect Lord Norton’s knowledge and position. If today it is wrong to beat your wife and you are convicted of it and in five years time, some despot, akin to Blair, gets into power under false pretences, and declares spouse beating is acceptable as we now have 60% of the population who has a history of cultural spouse beating, so therefore it’s okay, are we to also accept that?
You live with the law of the day. On the issue I believe Lord Norton was addressing of no longer an offense, it was not a law that had any right to be ordered by the state in the first place. The state should keep its nose out of the bedroom. Theft is not in the same bracket.
maude elwes: I think you misunderstood my point. I said that it depended on the nature of the crime. There are serious crimes for which one may wish to prevent anyone who committed it from holding public office again and there are those where such a consideration may not apply.
What a shame the Lords wasn’t able/prepared to defend democracy when it came to the Lisbon Treaty.
@Chris K:
This line of yours has had me wondering what you were really getting at about the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty is written two inches thick and covers a great deal of ground. Which one must assume was perused with a fine tooth comb by our lawyers before acceptance.
Not to mention many of our lawyers worked on the original document.
What part of the Treaty do you find offensive in particular? And give the reasons you feel it is detrimental to the country as a whole, Britain having agreed to it after ample time to negotiate offending areas?
Which leads me to another headache of policy I read about in our papers.
Two of our judges feel the objectives of ‘positive discrimination’ is good for the country and the people who live in it. I, as an ordinary citizen, on the other hand, feel this should be illegal. And why I raise it here is because the British public are repeatedly advised by our propaganda machines, that Europe is behind these disruptive policies and they are guiding our government toward this state of affairs.
Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger wants to use new legislation to favour female and minority candidates over ‘white’ men if they are equally qualified.
First of all, there is no such thing as ‘equally qualified.’ That is a cop out. One will always be ahead in an area of law or personality in some way or another.
http://ifls.osgoode.yorku.ca/2011/11/sr-uk-judge-women-should-be-given-priority-for-top-law-jobs/
And the second one that sent my mind in a spin, was, Sir Nicholas Bratza is apparently leaving his post as a British ‘human rights’ judge who works in Strasbourg. That hated place where all these dreadful laws emanate from. He, of course being one of them that sets the pace.
The one in Strasbourg earns £160,000 pa and Mr K. Clarke is advertising with the code of, the applicant does not have to be ‘British.’ A bit like a football club buying its front goal maker from Brazil and expecting them not to support their countries team in the World Cup finals. And maybe even, throwing a goal or two to help them along.
Here’s this one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063445/Wanted–160-000-human-rights-court-judge-Britain–applicant-doesnt-British.html
And all this hockey pokey about these laws being forced on us by the Europeans, and mainly the ‘Germans,’ were laws originating in the USA sixties to fight for Civil Rights reforms. And we simply followed after them. As did Europe.
So it was nothing to do with our being dominated by the ‘German’ and the ‘French’ it was all about being dominated by the ‘White House.’ You know, that place across the big pond. There is where all our new politically correct social laws really begin.
Recent concern about the Parliament act 1911, not least by Lord Norton, is as much about going over the bones of the constitution to avoid getting involved in the real and effective functioning of Parliament, in a different metaphor, to derail libdem reform enthusiasm effectively.
clearly a perception amongst some of the email writers that the Lords will be more responsive to public concern than the Commons
the trouble with discussing with members of the other place is that is often all too effective that correspondents who are not sure of their ground, don’t want to seem foolish in their own locality, or be called on by their constituency workers or get involved or anything like that..
In the fine language of the noble baroness’ former graduates, there ain’t any accountability; they want to write something; they know it is only a straw in the wind, and that it will be chaff off their chests in next to no time.
Easy peasy; “I made a point of writing to Baroness Deech yesterday to mention it to her, and you know how important that is!!!
In fact she is an old friend!”
End of story. With the other place you never hear the end of it.
Public: Oh! (as Hansard would put it)
Was Lord Norton being mischievous or putting down a marker in his recent post* with regards to SIs?
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2011/11/06/the-lords-and-enagement/
It’s ridiculous to suggest that the Government could ever “get its way very simply because of its majority” in a [roughly] proportionally elected House of Lords. Even using FPTP, which disincentivises voting for smaller parties, no party gets close to 50% of the vote! If we go for the 80% elected option, then not even a Lib-Con or Lib-Lab coalition could muster a majority. A 100% or 80% elected House of Lords will need to be just as consensual, if not moreso.
Your point about the duration of Parliament also deliberately (I hope) forgets that elected Lords wouldn’t be able to be re-elected and that only 1/3 would lose their seats at any election.
It’s also ironic that you suggest MPs might seek to avoid elections in order to protect their seats!
The repressive British constitutional practice of squeezing the People down and out-of-sight-out-of-mind, like Jacks-in-the-Boxes, between the few seconds of pencilling a First-Past-The-Racecourse-Post cross on a scrap of wastefully destroyed rainforest ballot paper once every five years, is neither honest and cooperatively-intelligent governance nor susainworthy lifeplace leadership.
What chance can there be of every-one’s real-needs even being discussed and evaluated, let alone being legislated to be met, when empowered-parliamentarians confine us to mere one-second timeslots to merely “express our views and opinions, or make very brief and procrusteanly-cut peaceful-protestations” ?
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/273137/two-fingers-to-you-my-lord.thtml
Is it two fingers to the Lords, or two fingers to the public?
Or is it time to axed the aged?
🙂
PS:
Baroness Trumpington is the lady who wants to legalise brothels. A real ladies man, or, is it man’s lady!
Or is it time to axe the aged?
Certainly no time to get knickers in a twist. Perish the thought.
The BBC gardening message board which is the last of the surviving message boards of which there were about thirty or even forty five years, sees fit to promote online “casing” of gardeners properties, by encouraging off topic talk, which is off the topic of anything what soever to do with gardening.
Hospitals, schools, holidays family, anything
but NOT gardening.
One honest John, who is a traveller with no fixed abode, chats up the ladies, and then strangely things go missing from their gardens for real.
Be that as it may, it really is time to close down the old style message boards on the BBC in favout of the simple and less communicative blog, which replaced them, for all but these last half dozen, including cookery, and history.
The moderator, a certain Ms Jenny Redmond is quite incompetent, has very poor judgement indeed, is not in the least bit interested in the notion of information, or education, and presumably the board for her is dedicated to
gardening as “entertainment”.
They should all be closed.
GH
Good article.
considering how the Parliamentary Acts of 1911 and 1949 have practically eliminated the Lords’ ability to veto bills passed by the Commons, the only possibility of vetoing a bill passed by Commons is (God forbid), a royal veto. Given that the last time a British monarch actually withheld royal assent was Queen Anne’s veto of the Scottish Militia Act in 1708, THAT would be truly momentous.