In March 1962 I organised a bus-load of somewhat shambolic students from Oxford to visit the hitherto unknown ‘commuter belt’ town of Orpington. A few of us returned again on Polling Day for what turned out to be a historic Byelection result.
The victor of that politically seismic event was a young engineer, only recently involved in politics, named Eric Lubbock. As MP he was enormously popular, not only throughout his constituency, but across party in the Commons. He is better known today – to friends in all parts of the House of Lords – as Lord Avebury. Amongst other roles he remains a tireless campaigner for persecuted minorities all over the world, and is a very assiduous contributor to our debates.
The Orpington victory proved that success in elections is not incompatible with expertise, as some like to claim it is. Eric emphasised his professional standing as an engineer to good effect in the campaign.
On Wednesday evening this week many of us will be at the celebratory dinner to recall that massive 22% swing, and the way it marked the end of the near-death experience of the old Liberal Party, 50 years ago. You can read more about it here.
I suspect that many colleagues on all the red benches will have some memories of the Orpington aftermath – some enthusiastic and some less so! It is instructive to note just how many of the regularly active Peers are political appointees who would have stood, or had some other direct interest, in elections before they arrived. The Library tell us that of the TOTAL membership 24% are former MPs and 18% are former Councillors, but this underestimates the proportion who are here day after day and night after night.
Every time I hear commentators venerate the non-partisan nature of our proceedings I look around at the ranks of former MPs, councillors and party officials who keep the place working.
Perhaps a careful check through the recent Division Lists could work out what proportion of the Peers who are actively involved here fall into these categories?
So when the electorate eventually decided he wasn’t the right person for the job of deciding on legislation for the UK what happens?
Yep, they stick two fingers up to the wishes of the electorate, and give him a job doing what the electorate didn’t want him doing.
So much for democracy.
Here is a little nostalgia, the Commons filled with articulate men and women, clean, washed, hair combed, as well as haved MP’s. I take it they can’t afford it now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BloOv3Gbhfk&feature=related
We don’t need memory lane, what we need is future planning where the people can be politically active in changes brought on us from the continuation of above example bad politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5W45Va0cPE&feature=pyv
Amongst other roles he remains a tireless campaigner for persecuted minorities all over the world, and is a very assiduous contributor to our debates.
I’m sorry I can’t add my name to the role of admirers, it being a party event on Wednesday and my not being LibeDem, but perhaps I may say how much I admire the extraordinary dedication as highlighted above
of Eric Lubbock, Lord Avebury.
The next generation up from me, and a great
inspiration to me for such work.
His work with travellers and gypsies has been fine indeed.
His analysis of world events is exponential.
It’s natural that the non-party political experts will attend less frequently. The whole point of them is that they have outside interests, and that they only participate in debates that concern their area of expertise. Perhaps the former MPs are using the Lords’ daily allowance as an extra pension.
Many people are of the opinion that there are too many former MPs in the House anyway, particularly following the 2010 appointments.
The presence of former MPs, party members, etc. doesn’t in itself make the House as partisan as the Commons. One hopes they will have grown up by the time they reach the Lords!
One further point I forgot to make yesterday is that the ex-MPs themselves can bring a great amount of experience and expertise to the Lords after a long career in the Commons. This would also be lost in an elected upper chamber as those standing would likely be people who failed to be selected for or elected to the Commons. I can’t see many of the retiring MPs choosing to go through yet another process of selection and campaigning – they may as well just have stayed in the Commons!
MP’s who fail selection should be prohibited from the Lords. As should those voted out by their constituents.
And what an insult to suggest those spent MP’s who hide in the corners of the red room are indespensible. No they are not. They are a block to movement. Stuck with the old beehive hairdo of yesteryear. They simply cannot drop what doesn’t work, failures and wrong moves.
Alernatively, they refuse to return to what did work and served us all well in the past, for fear of being seen as wrong footed. They allow suffering to continue when they know the answer is something they worked to remove whilst in office.
In the main, they are a waste of space. Except the ones who have a genuine vocation like Shirley Williams. A day or two ago, someone referred to her as a national treasure, and they were right. But treasures of that ilk are few and far between.
National Treasures belong in a museum gathering dust.
They shouldn’t be telling other people what to do.
Shirley Williams. A day or two ago, someone referred to her as a national treasure, and they were right. But treasures of that ilk are few and far between.
My late mother used to say things like that about her in the days when she was one of the few Women members.
Like Tony Benn, her basic and unchanging principle of NOT refering to personality at any time and sticking to CONTENT at all times, brings considerable authority to all her work.
I have mentioned that to Elwes before.
CONTENT not FORM.
The structure of the argument or debate does not matter a toss. The subject matter is crucial.
CONTENT is KING!!!
Never mention personality!
I find it difficult not to mention the personality of those in cabinet, but otherwise any such comment is superfluous,
and damaging to one’s own self.
If I’d been in cabinet,(either Thatcher’s or Blair’s) that easily perceived
non event, I might not say the same.
Okay, Howell, I follow your gist.
However, the fun goes with personality, whereas the substance often grinds.
In other words, I would have to be a Baroness Williams likeness to practice what you preach.