Last week the otherwise excellent Leader of the House, Lord (Jonathan) Hill, dismissed my complaint that he was claiming both democratic legitimacy, and effective assessment of, the merit of topics for debate because they were subject to a “ballot”.
This was his justification for resisting the election of a Backbench Debates Committee: the current “ballot” for “balloted debates” (he used the description several times) provided a better mechanism for choice.
Because we all wanted to move on to more serious discussions (especially the NHS) I didn’t take up more of the time of the House, but – in this case – the establishment have been playing fast and loose with semantics, a curious crime for a place which prides itself on getting the meaning of words precisely right.
The truth is that there is no “ballot”. I described the process as a “lottery”. Lord Butler said it was a “random process”. Lord Grenfell, echoing my complaint, called it a “lucky dip”. The Clerks put the variously suggested topics in a metaphorical hat and pull out the successful candidates.
I have looked up the definition of “ballot” in Wikipedia, and the description runs to four pages. At no stage is it suggested that this could encompass anything other than a vote, usually today with the voter marking a paper or making their choice by electronic means.
In 1038 the citizens of Florence use chestnuts (“ballotta”) to indicate their choice. The same Italian word was used to described the small balls employed by Venetians to cast their votes in the 16th Century. At no time, and in no place, has an indiscriminate lottery or lucky dip been given the legitimacy implied by the word “ballot”……… except in the House of Lords.
Many Peers have been previously MPs or Councillors (not, I think, Lord Hill). We have been both successful and unsuccessful as a result of election by ballot. As one of our number pointed out in the debate, if you believed in the ballot you should have supported the election of that Backbench Committee which could then choose the topics for debate by ballot. However, by 243 to 209 votes the House disagreed.
No doubt they (mostly anyway) were not fooled by the phoney ballot references. What do our LordsoftheBlog followers think that “ballot” means?
The Oxford Dictionary gives the definition, “A lottery held to decide the allocation of tickets, shares, or other things among a number of applicants.”
I have certainly seen this usage in other contexts, for example the allocation of tickets to the Last Night of the Proms; and to decide which students at an Oxford college must move out into private accommodation in their second year. In neither case does the process involve voting.
It seems the House’s use of the word ballot is perfectly valid.
“the establishment has been playing fast and loose with semantics,
a curious crime for a place which prides itself on getting the meaning of words precisely right”
Just a few instances of this being a blatantlydelusory-fantasy:
words ‘defining’
(i) bestial and genocidal persecution of neighbours as
“ethnic cleansing”
(ii) shot down by own troops as
“friendly fire”
(iii) terminating by sacking a worker as
“we have to let you go” (as if the employee is the one desperately needing to get out the door and never come back).
(iv) maintaining that Scrutiny Committees are
“Select”.
(v) covering up greed, embezzlement, and malfeasance as being
“earned”
“private matters”
“professional perks” and
“parliamentary privilege”.
In 1038 the citizens of Florence use chestnuts (“ballotta”) to indicate their choice.
===========
Oh dear. Wait until you see the latest Borgias when broadcast to see what a ‘ballotta’ really is.
I have images now….
You mean they did it by plebiscite?
definition of “ballot” in Wikipedia
Is it like a plebiscite?
Borgias when broadcast to see what a ‘ballotta’ really is.
Quite vulgar in fact?
I enjoy the noble lord Tyler’s humour(humor?)
in his post; quite irate!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banquet_of_Chestnuts
On the evening of the last day of October, 1501, Cesare Borgia arranged a banquet in his chambers in the Vatican with “fifty honest prostitutes”,[2] called courtesans, who danced after dinner with the attendants and others who were present, at first in their garments, then naked.[3] After dinner the candelabra with the burning candles were taken from the tables and placed on the floor, and chestnuts were strewn around, which the naked courtesans picked up, creeping on hands and knees between the chandeliers, while the Pope, Cesare, and his sister Lucretia looked on. Finally, prizes were announced for those who could perform the act most often with the courtesans, such as tunics of silk, shoes, barrets, and other things.
=============
Now cast the roles.
To add to what Jonathan said, those former MPs in the Lords are probably familiar with the ballot for Private Members’ bills held at the beginning of each session.
I apologise, but I shall not politely nor diplomaticly “suggest” the following,
because I think it to be a glaring Mind-Functional and General-Environment-Managerial
Need and Neglect:
Each of your legislative terms and words needs to begin its life from skilled observational reports, film-clips, photographs and sometimes actual samples, of the Ground-Fact it represents or is applicable-to.
In short, but pragmatically beginning with the corest-key terms, you need (“we The People need you -“) to open an Archive of such “Sense & Meaning boxes”, inside each of which will be securely but secondarily-accessibly (e.g. via Wikipedia) kept the said Pictorial and Exoert evidence of the fact-on-the-ground together with all definiens and encyclopaedic -descriptors of the said core term.
(Wittgenstein I believe started the supra-limbic strategic-intellectual-mind-function’s need, task and duty,
to match (‘mere’) verbal meanings to their raison d’etre facts-on-the-ground and “real -life-ness”;
but no-one, or rather no Establishment, has yet shouldered this Duty
any further than publishing-for-profit various Encyclopaedias and pictorially-supported Professional Prescriptive Glossaries and Bibliographies (the latter most endlessly and usually most non-pictorially).
———–
A burning and crying instance of where the noble-lord-aforesaid’s “establishment” is NOT
“getting the meaning of words precisely right”,
is in the whole domain of Lifesupports,
qua
“Costs of Living”,
“Incomes vs Expenses”,
“Earnings vs Bonuses vs Handouts”,
“Entitlements”,
“Findees-Keepies Opportunisms and Larcenies”
which we
Need (capitalised)
to be legislated as Comparative and Contrastive Percentages.
Does Milesjsd just copy and paste random information into the Comment box and submit it? Are his comments some sort of avante-garde performance art?
Each of your legislative terms and words needs to begin its life from skilled observational reports, film-clips, photographs and sometimes actual samples, of the Ground-Fact it represents or is applicable-to.
There are so many words that have a multiplicity of, and totally different, meanings, that it would be surprising if there were no such thing as professional etymologists. however the Scrabble freaks who believe that the sound of a letter of a sound is a word (yes!) are nimbies! Miles is a nimby!Ha!Ha! What is a nimby?!
Dear Lord Tyler,
well said lord Tyler. I totally agree to your point of views and feel upset that your well framed complaint has been dismissed because they were proned to be rated as ballot proceedings. According to wikipedia, a ballot is a device used to cast votes in an election.The election of a back bencher committee is a proper legislative proceedure which is designed to choose members to serve the parliament and cannot be reduced to ballot proceedings.
God bless the United Kingdom. God saves the Queen and the beloved Lords.
Nazma FOURRE