I detect some cynicism in the Lords about the value of our work at the moment. There is a fatalist tendency, assuming that the General Election campaign – which has started so early that many people seem bored with it already – will sweep away any useful legislative scrutiny. And our House seems just as prone to politicking at this stage as the Commons.
I can give you three solid examples. Last Thursday Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked the Leader of the House what steps were being taken to secure a thorough review of our procedures to make sure we were as effective as possible in holding the Government of the day to account.
Enter the Leader of the Conservative Peers, Lord Strathcylde. When almost all around him were facing up to the self-evident truth that the Lords needs to re-examine its role, just as much as the Commons has, in the light of the collapse of confidence in Parliament as a whole, he was complacency itself. We are wonderful and nothing needs to be changed. In fact, his hidden message must be that he hopes to be on the Government bench in a matter of months so the last thing he wants is a more effective House of Lords.
Secondly, on Monday evening we had a short debate about electoral reform. It is suddenly in fashion, even with the Prime Minister, who has been dropping hints of a deathbed repentance on the issue. We were given to understand that the 13-year-old promise to put the choice of voting system to a referendum was to be included, in some no doubt watered-down form, in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, currently crawling slowly through the Commons. I challenged the Minister on Monday to tell us where this promise had got to, would it be included and when we could expect the Bill to reach us. Answer came there none. The Government seems keener to posture in advance of the dissolution of this Parliament than to achieve any meaningful reform in its remaining days.
Thirdly, last night the Government puts its whips on to vote down acceptance of an expert Committee Report from Lord Jopling (Conservative) and Lord Roper (Liberal Democrat) on the role our Parliament should play in deciding common policies on asylum in Europe. It became increasingly evident during the debate – not least from the Conservative front bench – that the eminently sensible arrangements proposed might be seen as dangerously cooperative by the Euro-haters of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. Despite its impeccable authorship and argument the report was therefore felt to be too risky in election year. So most Conservative Peers abstained, such Labour Peers who were present obeyed their whip and the Liberal Democrats’ insistence on taking a rational decision rather than a rabid one was defeated by 79 to 41.
We may not have elections to the House of Lords but observers who venerate our current composition fool themselves if they think we are immune to crass electioneering.
Cynicism perhaps; correctly judged? With the present government dead on its feet and many, perhaps >1/3, of MPs unlikely to return parliament has precious little moral authority to do anything this side of an election and so we witness everyone going thought the motions.
I’ve just managed to find Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe’s question. Depressing really.
Ministers are clearly delighted with the ‘scrutiny’ they get. If that doesn’t worry you nothing will. Lord McNally’s comment made me smile!
As to your other comments, for someone who seems passionate about ‘democracy’ you seem to make some interesting value judgements. I have no knowledge of any particular polling about common European asylum policy but on the basis of both asylum and European issues polling I rather suspect that public opinion doesn’t reflect your view and elected politicians have every right to consider that. Simply dismissing it as all the fault of particular papers ignores that reality.
For clairty the quote above was Lady Royall of Blaisdon’s reply to Lord Strathclyde.
People like myself who never actually knew a lot about the Lords until recently are beginning to scrutinise it thoroughly in terms of both it`s work and value. It is apparent even in the 79 to 41 vote that it isn`t as expected. The Lords themselves are bemoaning working hours and finances, a change in system would seem the obvious. A senate style house being the prominent contender.
A Lords system that outnumbers those in the Commons, added to all too often seems ridiculous and not value especially when Lords themselves state average attendence figures at 400 from 735.
What should be of prime importance to the HoL is not the possible forthcoming change in Government but Bills that are currently undergoing scrutiny by the House. The concept being the Lords are there to oversee and judge any such Bills coming from the Commons no matter who actually put it forward.
The lack of Party independence will alway`s be a worry for me and the use of whips no more than bullying. Those that concede to whips are shown that they are merely out for themselves if they go against their own logic and intellect, which is what the public think anyway.
Both Houses ultimately have to answer to me, the public, and those that cannot or will not turn up, make a mockery of expenses or do not take seriously our law will answer for it.
A new House with salaries and set hours will come and will be better those who partake of it and better for the public, having better value. You will however be expected to work for your position.
It`s time for change all around, no longer can Parliament keep putting itself above the people and their law. The apathy at present will quickly turn to contempt and anger when disaster, fiscal or otherwise occurs.
People are generally unhappy with Government and with the system, a fiscal downturn could put us in terms of Germany circa 1933. We know what happened there. The seemingly right (no pun intended) man with strong words that seem right for this Country and people could put everyone in danger. This is no time for complacency.
Change is wanted, is needed, it is entirely upto you who does the changing. Or you can sit back, as with expenses, and think you can get away with it.
Oh come come now Lord Tyler…
http://order-order.com/2010/01/11/totty-watch-hot-under-the-cchq-collar/
Lord Strathclyde has his finger on the pulse and there is not much which escapes his attention…
And I’m afraid anyone who is naive or foolish enough to believe the assurances of the Labour Party after reading Servants Of the People and its account of how Ashdown was treated on the PR issue is deluding themselves.
“It became increasingly evident during the debate – not least from the Conservative front bench – that the eminently sensible arrangements proposed might be seen as dangerously cooperative by the Euro-haters of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. Despite its impeccable authorship and argument the report was therefore felt to be too risky in election year.”
Ah, yes that ‘blatant electioneering’ which results in that terrifying habit of allowing voters’ views to contaminate the political process. Heavens to betsy, if we carried on like that we might end up with a democracy and then where would we be ?
We might even end up having a say over Euro legislation, and then the entire gravy train would jump the track and be off the rails.
Dangerous thinking, Lord Tyler – such free thinking independence must be crushed at once so that we can continue to be governed by the unelected elite in Brussels.
“the self-evident truth that the Lords needs to re-examine its role, just as much as the Commons has, in the light of the collapse of confidence in Parliament as a whole, he was complacency itself.”
I’m a uni-cameralist myself like all those who disappear from sight once they have departed from the other place and do not want to go on yakking. There are plenty of them, honorable men and true.
At the state opening of parliament by Her Majesty, the commons should be able to take the red benches for themselves, rather than being ushered in like recalictrant school boys(and girls).
The House of Lords is a Bill Committee of the HofC , nth reading thereof.
Uni-cameralism would be the best idea of all.
An excellent post for further debate by Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/01/lord-mackay-of-clashfern-religion-and-sexual-orientation-are-characteristics-which-should-be-afforde.html
It covers the issue of the Catholic adoption agencies and discrimination law, which I feel goes to the heart of the superficial box-ticking approach which characterises the New Labour mindset.
I’m intrigued by this post, and it leaves me with a couple of questions.
On Lord Tyler’s first “solid example”, could he direct us to which of Lord Strathclyde’s 51 words spoken in that debate on Thursday are the basis of his (much longer) criticism of him?
I find myself agreeing with Lord Tyler regarding parties reneging on their promise to hold referendums. Could he pass the message on to his LibDem colleagues who didn’t vote to give us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
I think the Parliament’s real affliction goes deeper than Lord Tyler suggests. The fundamental fact is that Parliament is becoming increasingly irrelevant to people as more and more decisions are being taken at “European” level.
Decisions that people reasonably expect to rest at national level (agriculture, trade, immigration, working hours, minimum VAT rates…) no longer do. When Parliament is little more than a rubber stamp for most of our new domestic laws (and where EU legislation even takes precedence over our own existing legislation!) it’s hardly surprising, is it?
The Lords and the electoral system are nothing more than distractions.
Still, I will sleep easy at night knowing that the Lib Dems are above blantant politicking!
“The fundamental fact is that Parliament is becoming increasingly irrelevant to people as more and more decisions are being taken at “European” level.”
You might say that local authority is becoming increasingly irrelevant to people, but when you can’t find a place to park, or you get an ‘unfair’ parking fine, it AIN’T!
Parliament makes Law; it is how they are made and by what class of person, that is in question, not their relevancy.
Referenda are very blunt instruments indeed, purveyed by people who do not want a positive result, but don’t mind discussing it.
Twm O’r Nant: As you will doubtless see when the Constitution Committee publishes its report on referendums, it is more appropriate to refer to referendums rather than referenda. Referendum in a gerund for which there is no plural in Latin.
As opposed to general elections where party X normally beats party Y because of ‘time for a change’, ‘perceived corruption’, ‘perceived disunity’ or the ‘failure/success of the economy’. Party X then proceeds to implement 101 policies; some, many or all of which don’t enjoy public support. Indeed you can see this quite easily when you blind test policies with and without a party label being given and see starkly different results.
Of course politicians are very happy with the present (no referendum) system as they can win (and generally parties do win) elections on quite a narrow issue yet then claim this as a mandate to do things they couldn’t get support as a single issue. They have no interest in this changing.
I wonder whether ,despite all the list provided by Croft, the acid test is really plain downright, honest to goodness, LEADERSHIP!
Thatcher had it; Blair had it. Right or wrong.
At the moment the only one with real talent, on the front benches, is Vincent Cable and he is too old to take anything but the thinking reins, and Foreign Secretary Milliband, and looking at a video of M yesterday his cosmetic effect is not brilliant, and these things help! His philosophy is excellent too even with his skull cap on, to which I am not partial.
We’re getting in to party politics!
Thank you for the note noble Lord Norton.
I am not in the least bit fussy about the spelling of a word, as long as it is used in a way that everybody understands. I am actually not too fussy about grammar either for the same reason! If it works and has an effect on the emotion, or reason, of the listener then use it, even descending to grunts if necessary!
For the purposes of the Constitution committee and its deliberations, the use of the word is singular/plural Referendum/ Referendums.
No problem.
Looking at the definition of ‘Gerund’ alone, in the Latin vernacular languages of today,
which are extensively used in the EP, every language has a different use of ‘gerund’ in its grammar, so you may find that
in parliaments in general, the word is not used in the way that the HofL Committee hopes that it will be, and that saying it is a gerund may not be an adequate explanation!
The definition of ‘Referendum’ is given that
the plural is variously given as ‘Referendums’ or ‘referenda’.
My own hobby horse is a handal cranked trike, which is a Class two marathon wheelchair, self propelled with the hands.
No dictionary, unless they have taken my solicitous advice in the last few months, has a word “handal” for self propulsion with the hands.
They call them pedals, and yet the hands are exclusively used!(I have considered the Latin prefix Man-ual but that is not adequate)
They can not be called Handles because there are two sets of handles on the wheelchair/trike, and the first set are “handles”!
Please will you ask the Constitution committee to make a deliberation on that one for me, although I do not plan to use the wheel chair in the corridors!
Twm O’r Nant: I recommend you read footnote 1 in the introduction to David Butler and Austin Ranney, ‘Referendums Around the World’, where you will find a fairly authoritative explanation as to why it is more appropriate to use referendums (plural of referendum) rather than referenda (meaning things to be referred).
Well Noble Lord!
In that case according to the OED, (viz footnote 1) which is only one of dozens of dictionaries in the English language today, if a Referendum is one one issue the plural is referendums, but if it is on a plurality of issues the plural Referenda!
I presume that the OED is referring to Classical Latin and not Medieval Latin or Vernacular Latin, which might well spring some considerable surprises!
There is one thing that obliges me to agree with the noble lord, and that is the regrettable dominance of the “English” language over other European and Vernacular Latin languages, in the recent era, which has compelled those other languages, including German, to adopt the definitions provided by humanities specialists such as Butler/Ranney of the English language.
I am not convinced by the footnote 1, but I am convinced they are using it, in the way that they say they are!
It has certainly been discussed in great detail on the Radio4 pedantry message board, which is far from learnéd.
“Handals”, for my money, is necessary when something, held with the hands is used for self propulsion, but try telling the OED that! A Peddlar was someone who pushed a hand cart on foot, and that is the early origin of the word pedals in the English language, but does a cyclist do that?!!!
PLEBISCITE! not referendum or referendums or referenda, or does that exclude Noble Lord Norton!!!!!?
Gordon Brown always describes himself as a “servant”, which is a peculiarly CofE/Presbyterian way of looking at Leadership,
and which most people do not understand.
It suits him, but it may not suit the crass electorate.
Lord Tyler: Have you ever given any thought to how European Liberalism gave the world its present day democracies? Recognition of this fact is enshrined in the German tricolour flag of black, red and gold.
What you may not know is that the colours came from an event that took place in Frankfurt on March 21, 1848. The link below (work in progress it seems) explains what happened. The colours are associated with the all-German National Assembly.
The composition of the appointed assembly is of interest:
“The assembly was composed of 122 deputies who were government officials, 95 were judges, 81 were lawyers, 103 were teachers, 17 were manufacturers and wholesale dealers, 15 were physicians and 40 were landowners. A majority of the Assembly were liberals.”
“…However, the Assembly proved to be unable to make any resolute decisions and degenerated into a mere debating club.”
Is all of this a latter day HoL? The revolution was defeated and the German intellectuals disappeared to many countries of the world where they no doubt practised what they preached as the Forty- Eighters.
What is missing from the link is any mention of Karl Heinrich Marx. Marx could not publish in Prussia owing to censorship and left Germany in 1843 for Paris. In 1845 after the attempted assassination of Frederick William IV he was expelled from France and left for Belgium. In 1848 Marx was arrested and expelled from Belgium to arrive in London in early 1849. Marx most certainly had a hand in fomenting unrest in an 1848 Germany but it is not well discovered.
Given the emphasis on anti-terrorism today what would we have done with the Forty-Eighters and Karl Marx? Would they have suffered rendition and ended up in Guantanamo Bay?
General Election; No sweat!
Ref: …Prussia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848_in_the_German_states
…Forty-Eighters in England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-Eighters
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/
Senex,
I regret I can not find the thread, but
to whom could the Privy council report, if it did not report to the Queen?
If regional government, superseded County councils the question would be more than academic, or arcane.