The House of Lords has recently lost some distinguished members. I was especially sad to hear of the death, last Friday, of Lord St John of Fawsley – Norman St John-Stevas. His greatest contribution to Parliament was, as Leader of the House of Commons in 1979, introducing the motions to establish Departmental Select Committees. He did so despite opposition from the Prime Minister – she put a note in to Cabinet opposing them and only two other Cabinet ministers backed him in the discussion – but the Cabinet was not prepared to stand up to an assertive House.
His career in Cabinet was short-lived. He suffered, in the Prime Minister’s eyes, from the twin defects of being a wet and a wit. He would often utter witty comments at his end of the Cabinet table. He was also something of a gossip and would variously reveal what had taken place in Cabinet – which is how I know what happened with the discussion on the select committees.
He was a bon vivant and a name dropper and he loved to nob-nob with royalty. However, behind an apparently flippant facade lay a sharp mind. He had a great grasp of constitutional history and was also highly principled, supporting causes which – especially in his early days as an MP – were not that popular, not least in the Conservative Party. He was also one of the MPs who in 1969 joined with Enoch Powell and Michael Foot to see off the Government’s plans for Lords reform. It was the issue on which we spoke on the last occasion I saw him, which was only a few weeks ago. Though he was physically frail, he remained intellectually sharp. He also retained a habit, carried over from his life in the Commons, of turning up for a debate, interrupting an early speaker, so he was on the record, and shortly after pushing off. He was certainly a character.
He lived in Hampstead village at that time in the 70s, in a pleasant house, but on a very busy road through it.
It would be hard to add to the remarks made by Lord Norton except to say that he was an extraordinarily pompous man, in the same way that Edward Heath was pompous. There was nothing disagreeable about the pomposity, except that always wondered quite why he(they) was so. It irked some people immensely! It may have been elitism of such extraordinary magnitude, that it was laughable, and very easy to caricature.
Considering the age of some peers 82 is no great age. However I do remember watching him speak on Lords Reform and he was v funny. Stating how he loved dressing up as do all Lord Chancellors! He disliked Lords reform and fixed parliaments, he did speak slowly and looked frail. It seems sad to loose such a witty & funny peer.
Lord Norton,
Additional to all else I think you might concede that anyone who is properly addressed as “Lord Saint …” anything has already gotten a bit into the brighter and more “bon” side of la vie…
Frank W. Summers III: Except that the pronunciation is not ‘Saint John’ but ‘sin-john’!
Lord Norton,
I am aware of the family name some believe holds the line of the Ancient Royal House of David that came with the Thorn to Glastonbury. I was not sure it was his name and have not Googled anything. But even to be Lord Saint on paper is something…
He was smitten by the late Yvonne, in reference to LN’s comment about royalty, although I doubt whether she was any too keen on him, somewhat before Roddy Llewellyn came on the scene.
The curious thing was that he was a devout Catholic, but keen on the Family of the head of the CofE church which seemed a contradiction at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight(mine)merely meant that he thought he had a better system of Gods, somewhere abroad.
I enjoyed the dressing up story too, which made him seem less inhuman, and more prepared not to take himself as seriously as he did in his HofC days! There is no reason for any man not to think of himself as God, but taking oneself so seriously is surely a nasty sin!
I was slightly surprised that you didn’t mention that St John Stevas was the leading scholar of Walter Bagehot, having produced his ‘collected works’ and written biographies of the great Victorian constitutional writer.
Many of the obituaries over the last 24 hours have mentioned this important aspect of his life and work. AS the perceptive Times obituary noted, the two men had much in common.
Lord St John’s labours have ensured that Bagehot (perhaps more famous currently, in these credit crunch days, for his writings on banking and finance) remains a frontline authority on the British constitution and government – not least on the House of Lords!
Oliver N Dunwith: I decided to cut out the reference for reasons of space and, indeed, his somewhat unusual pronunciation of Bagehot’s name.
Objectively,
the day can not be far off when
any and every one’s lifetime-performance
is measured against
what they have been-over-given or have over-drawn
from the Common Purse and the Environment,
and also what they could have co-constructed but did not;
and lastly (because it is not-a-problem)
what construction they did initiate/achieve.
he day can not be far off when
any and every one’s lifetime-performance
is measured against what they have been-over-given or have over-drawn from the Common Purse and the Environment,
and also what they could have co-constructed but did not;
Very interesting thought from Miles, certainly true in a state as OVER developed as the UK, and apparently getting bigger and bigger, population wise, more and more of whom are dependent on the rest of the world from which they came.
Social security= they are all prepared to keep quiet because none of them are sure whether they have the right to as much as they get.
Jobs for the boys in parliament is another question, but the “closeness to the counting house principle” is critical, both in the City of London and in Westminster.
The further away from it you get, the poorer
you become, and the less the benefits it’s the Lib Dems in Cornwall and West Wales I’m sorry for!
I believe when Chris Patten told him Mrs Thatcher was irritated by his name dropping, he said, “she is quite right, the Queen Mother was saying the same to me.”
As he was said to be the champion backslapper of all time, he certainly had found his vocation in life in the Lords.
Fortunate man.
If he had name dropped interesting names it would have been something, but he didn’t.
Gareth Howell: This rather implies that you are privy to all the names he dropped!
LN,
Yes and no! He did not drop any names that I used to drop,and sometimes still do, so they could not have been interesting!
He was not just a politician, but a socialite as well, Opera/ballet and theatre too, which was where we used to cross paths.
He would never have mentioned Sylvie Guillen
(prima) whereas she was one of the first on my agenda of droppings.
The only droppings I get these days are from rabbits.
Gareth Howell,
There is an American television personality named Hoda Kotb and perhaps it makes me untrue to my own cultures but I have always found her name and that of late former UN Secretary General U Thant to be among the most interesting names. O wonder which ones you like?
I do not wish to take any name in vain;
but focally it might be the “Sin-” name that should be comprehensively explained to the new ‘English-Entrapped World’
and might also be assured to our USA participant FWSIII that he would not be alone even amongst a majority of indiginous English people in being misled by the look of the name in print
both “Lord” and “Saint”
to the neglect of the accidental but very real-life-apposite vocal-pronunciation, that Lord Norton already quickly sniped, “Sin-”
(only Jesus has been free from Sin (-ning);
yet to call Him “Lord” is a good life or two away from calling Mr Fawlty “Lord”
(sorry, Fawsley)
(-lordee, I nearly went even worse by typing “Falsely” !)
but then to call Jesus “Lord Saint Jesus” would doubtless be blocked at least by the Lords Spiritual
especially if the customary pronunciation “Lord Sin Jesus” had to be followed.
Incidentally, I have heard it not only sung in church but spoken 0utside, from the reasoning that ‘He came down to Earth from Heaven’,
” I love Thee Lowered Jesus …
and I ask Thee to Stay…”
(and a murmur also sometimes followed to the effect of
“[Stay]the hands of those legislative executioners in Westminster”).
——–
Let us now let the dear departed Rest In Peace.
When is the Lords going to make an Humble Address to Her Majesty (Diamond Jubilee)
@Tory boy:
That’s all we’re short of in this time of austerity, isn’t it? How to spend on the trappings of Monarchy.
Dragging this country out of the dark ages is a debilitating business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mnLbhHR6-g&feature=relmfu
Aye,
yet unless this relatively petty British “time of austerity” quickly orients to the already much deeper and imminently ghastly Global Era of Earthlife-Survival,
“Life” will be ‘kissing-goodbye’ not only to the Unfit-for-Purpose
but to the already-sustainworthy-willing-and-able, too
(Maude, toryboy, GH, FWSIII, EB, OND, LN, jsdm, (et al)
& (ampersand) the Monarchic Establishment
should all be cooperatively following and proactivating an ‘Earthlife-Saving-Plan & Sustainworthy-Leadership’.
But where on Earth is It, or “The Almighty He” ?)
I don’t think it is objectionable to mention
a man’s charitable work, especially since he actually took the name St John, but of course living within a stone’s throw of the HQ of the noble Order of St John (of Amalfi not the priory, bearing the name, and also being a devout catholic makes it perfectly clear that his ceremonies were those of the Order of St John, now renamed as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM).
They run many hospitals worldwide and were deeply involved in the early save and rescue efforts after the earthquake in Haiti of recent year, since one of their hospitals was already located there.
He was doubtless deeply concerned for the safety of the people of Haiti in the last few years.
May he rest in peace.
@ maude elwes
If only you could realise how much revenue the Monarchy brings into the country look at The Royal Wedding(s) and look at the work done by the Duke of York as UK foreign envoy.
The Monarchy is also seen as a beacon of hope and support at home and overseas. So yes celebrating the dedicated work our Queen has done both at home and abroad should be celebrated.
@Tory boy:
The Duke of York? Are you serious? Do you mean the guy who is in cahoots with touts of underage girls for sex? That doyen of goodness we cannot do without bringing money ‘our’ way via Saudi Princes? Don’t you mean bringing money his way? Like overpayments of around £3M for the terrible place in Sunningdale that now lies to rot?
http://www.anorak.co.uk/274780/royals/teenage-prostitute-virginia-roberts-says-prince-andrew-is-a-creepy-letch-no-news-there.html/
I should cocoa.
The Queen may well be of a different breed. But are you trying to tell me, that with all our experience in raising interest in pagentry, pomp and circumstance, we could not continue to do that without those beneift reciprients in that big house at the bottom of the mall?
Be sensible man and think out of the box.
Don’t insult my intelligence.
maude elwes: The monarchy is run on increasingly efficient lines and much of the expenditure is money that would need spending anyway in terms of the up-keep of national buildings – and indeed would need spending if we had the misfortune to have a presidency. The monarchy has benefits that are difficult to measure in financial terms, not least in terms of how we see ourselves. And – sorry to mention public opinion again – but the majority of the population favour the retention of the monarchy.
revenue the Monarchy brings into the country look at The Royal Wedding(s)
I was in the West end and walked across to Victoria station once when there was a big royal event on, and all the people who were cheering, and lining the route, had been enlisted from hotels in and around London, as the thing to do that particular day.
They were here any way. the event meant nothing whatsoever to them, but they wanted to see it because it was archaic and decadent, a la UK.
I don’t call that revenue; in fact that particular claim is codswollop!
Is this Blog about sounding off against individuals and their way of life? I don’t think so.
If you don’t like monarchy join the Labour party and if you do you will proabbly realize how NON-independent this blog is, whatever the bold claims may be.
So I repeat what I wrote before, why bother with this blog if the opinions of the different peoples are not what is really wanted?
What a waste of time and money if all that is truly desired is a back slapping pretense.
why bother with this blog if the opinions of the different peoples are not what is really wanted?
What a waste of time and money if all that is truly desired is a back slapping pretense
Hansard society “independence” is subtle and not independent.
The same as a parish councillor’s independence is not independent; it is ALWAYS deference vote toryism, masquerading as everyone’s opinion.
Gareth Howell – I draw your attention to this previous response to your accussations http://lordsoftheblog.net/2012/01/09/stirring-up-apathy-2/#comment-128206