It's common today to have a pop at Mr Starmer's government for not achieving anything much but one thing it looks like it might actually achieve is ... something that should have happened 25 years ago.
And I think we should celebrate it.
For it is a thing the British Establishment has resisted as firmly as King Canute for over 25 years - indeed perhaps since 1911.... the shame and embarrassment of still having people in our upper chamber for no other reason than they were born with a nose made of toffee.
Yes, I refer to the final and very very very very very very very very very long overdue abolition of hereditary peers.
Who could defend such a thing in 2021?
Well, the people on this page...
So as the bill eats up more more Parliamentary time and moves in as sedentary a way as possible towards to eventually becoming law... let us take a moment this VE day to savor this great and long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long delayed piece of Constitutional history by reviewing the thought of the Lords themselves (as recorded in Hansard) about which of them are about to be gone for a burton and their ludicrous arguments for putting off the inevitable only slightly further into the future ... like 8,000,000,000 AD when the sun dies...
Lord True (Conservative Life Peer appointed by Cameron in 2010) bemoaned that sacking his besties wasn't as important as iniquity to the Landed Gentry having to pay the same inheritance tax as the townies: "
This is a strange day. Outside, there are desperate farmers, fearful of their future after a shock tax attack on their families; inside, here in this Chamber, the Government are focusing not on helping those hard-working people out there, but on purging Parliament of 88 of its most effective Members. Well, we can see this Government’s priorities." He went on to have a dig at Lord Sugar for not turning up : "
The noble Baroness opposite, the Leader of our House, spoke skillfully and courteously, as she always does, and tried to gild not so much as a lily as a gigantic stinging nettle for many Members here: the blunt message that the Bill sends out to 88 of our number is, as the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, puts it, “You’re fired —you and you and you!”. By the way, I wonder how often the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, comes here, but he counts for one of the Cross-Bench numbers, the same as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Indeed, one of the many regrettable features of the Bill as it goes forward will be seeing some of those who do not participate very often being whipped to vote out those who do."
Yes, in the woolly logic of Lord True's mind the reason people should have a right to vote in the upper chamber is because they use their vote more than those who abstain more often. Perhaps he should emigrate to Australia where voting is compulsory which resulted in "Donkey Voting" ...people selecting candidates simply based on the order they are listed in on the ballot paper ...giving those with names beginning with A a 2% advantage or some such nonsense.
As to why Lord Sugar doesn't turn up to vote... this question was asked of him recently by Amol Rajan in a BBC interview (
see here) and he responded along the lines that he felt uncomfortable trotting through the lobbies to vote on matters like Education that he didn't really understand. No such self doubt seems to afflict many of the hereditary peers or the likes of Lord True - perhaps this is the real difference between professional politicians and the plebs... well, that and Lord Sugar may be on "bigger tings"...
Lord True's other objections to the abolition of hereditary peers seem not to be philosophical or ideological as much as related to his own hurt feelings: "I was sad when the Bill’s arrival was met with a loud cheer. It was hurtful. I was sitting then alongside the noble Earl, Lord Howe. That is not who we are, as represented by the tone of the speech we have heard already, and it is not what we should ever become—although we have seemed a little scratchier and more partisan of late, if I may say so. I trust that, through the difficult passage of the Bill, we will not fall short of our traditional courtesy but, frankly, the Government cannot expect all of us on this side or on the Cross Benches to like the Bill or, indeed, what is threatened in the manifesto to those among us who were born in the 1940s. If it is pushed through with a flinty inflexibility, that flint cannot help but strike sparks of resentment and sour the atmosphere in this House, not just in this Session but for Sessions to come." What the 1940s have to do with anything your guess is as good as mine but I think we can all agree that Lord True shouldn't be made to feel at all uncomfortable as that's not what my grandfather fought in the second world war for. It is interesting that Lord True seems to view the House of Lords as a place of fun, friendliness and jollity. It reminds me of when Dennis Skinner said that what he couldn't get over about speaking in the Commons was the level of hatred in the eyes of other people or something ... the expression of anger and conflicting views in a safe environment is what Parliamentary Democracy should be all about?
Lord True of course knows that the continuation of hereditary peers is doomed and indefensible so he tries for the usual other strategy that has worked for the previous 25 years. Delay. "The noble Baroness says that there is unfinished business: there are some hereditary Peers still here and, despite what was agreed by Parliament in 1999, we must root them out. But I ask noble Lords: will driving out those hard-working Members improve our House? I do not think so. As I said in our recent debate, there is an easy way—a proven House of Lords way—to square the circle and to end for ever the arrival of hereditary Peers, yet keep our colleagues who serve us all well. It is what was done with the Irish peerage and the Law Lords: the House ended the inflow but kept its Members. That, effectively, as the noble Baroness said, was the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but now we hear that the time for that is past. Why? " If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done slowly.
who is staring down the barrel of the redundancy gun is an even less happy bunny and spat out the following along, probably, with some teeth :
"I know he [Lord Falconer appointed by Blair]
will not agree, but this is a thoroughly nasty little Bill, rushed through the House of Commons and brought to us with little thought about the future. It breaks a fundamental and solemn agreement made in 1998 by the then Labour Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that the remaining hereditary Peers would leave only when the Labour Government had introduced their plan for a fully reformed House. It did not seem like a very big statement of intent in 1998. After all, as was said at the time, the Labour Party was about to come forward with a fully reformed plan. We have been waiting 25 years for that and the Labour Party has demonstrated no thought, no thinking and no progress whatever."
For those from Generation Y and Generation Alpha who are too young to remember because they weren't born then when actually happened was late Earl of Onslow
(daddy to the one whose house burnt down and can now only be seen in old episodes of Jeeves & Wooster) blackmailed the Blair government threatening to force them to use the Parliament Act 1911 and grind legislation to a halt unless some peers were saved from the chop the last time chopping them was attempted. He
openly said, "
I'm happy to force a division on each and every clause of the Scotland Bill. Each division takes 20 minutes and there are more than 270 clauses." And so a fudge was agreed allowing some peers to remain brokered by the then Speaker of the House of Commons know as the
Weatherill Amendment.... which allowed hereditary peers to cling on using a bizarre byelection process in which only the toffee nosed could participate...
Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "Why are the Government bringing forward this measure now? Is it because it is in the manifesto?"
Yes, that's democracy, mate.
Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "I do not think that is really good enough. It does not stop it going through but there needs to be a more serious justification for why this Bill is being brought forward. What is worse, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained a moment ago, this creates a wholly appointed House where—and this is what he did not say—the appointments are almost entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the by-elections were still continuing but, of course, they were suspended in July. There is therefore no hereditary Peer in this House, because there is nobody able to pass on their place to sit and vote in the House of Lords on to their heirs."
Of course the house is fully appointed - the only difference between hereditary peers and life peers is whether they were appointed by the living or the dead.
Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "This is not a reform."
Yes, it is.
Lord Strathclyde (Conservative hereditary peer) : "It tells us nothing about the Government’s thinking. We will wait many years before a future Bill is published. Also, the Bill offers no continuity. Rumours abound of life peerages being offered to those due to be purged—if they behave. If the Government are planning life peerages, why do they not tell us who is going to receive one or how many life Peers are going to be created, and then those affected can make plans for the future? Is it really conceivable that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has been picked by the Cross Benches to be their convenor, is to be expelled in the purge? If he has not been offered a life peerage yet, why not? Why are these matters secret? The Government must have a view. They must have discussed these issues." Actually a good question - have carrots been offered? He then raises the question of who is hereditary. "Peers in the House sometimes who have no idea who is a life Peer or who is a hereditary Peer; it is quite an issue. I have lost count of the number of Peers who have said to me, “Ah, well, you’ll be all right, you’re a life Peer after all”. Do many Peers know if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is a life Peer or a hereditary Peer, with his distinguished record as a Minister in the House of Commons, or the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, who is an expert on Africa and business? Is the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, a life Peer or a hereditary Peer? Perhaps we ought to have a list." Well, we know you're a hereditary, mate..."
Baroness Goldie (Conservative Life Peer appointed by Lord Cameron) gave us the following stats on how deeply the hereditary peers have embedded themselves in the apparatus of Parliament:
"Of the 88 hereditary Peers, this is what I discovered. There may be minor errors... Six are Deputy Speakers, one of whom is the Convenor of the Cross Benches.
An additional three discharge advisory panel duties for the Lord Speaker.
Eleven are opposition Front-Bench spokespersons.
Thirty-six serve on committees, of whom 20 serve on a single committee, 12 serve on two committees,
two serve on three committees,
one serves on five committees
and, deserving of an award for valour, one serves on six committees.
These 56 regularly contribute to the proceedings of the House.
As for the remaining 32 not holding roles, I am here every week and my impression is that a considerable number of them also contribute.
That is all part of scrutiny, so the question is: will removing the hereditary Peers impact on the efficacy of this House?"
A question to which John Rentoul might say the answer is No ... but it shows how important and wise these parasites think they are ... They all work very hard and so that automatically means their wisdom will make up for their total lack of democratic legitimacy.
Lord Grocott (Labour Life Peer appointed by Blair) gave a little history on how hard this really very minor reform had been fought for in the past:
"My Lords, I think I can be forgiven for reflecting that, in five Sessions of Parliament over a period of eight years, I introduced successive Bills to deal with the outstanding problem of the remaining hereditary Peers. Each time, my Bill was filibustered by half a dozen Peers, some of whom are speaking today, and blocked by successive Conservative Governments. No one so far has explained why they thought that was a good idea. I shall concentrate my remarks on the principal arguments used against this Bill so far and in previous debates. First, we have been told or reminded already that we cannot legislate to remove the hereditaries because of a deal reached by Conservative and Labour leaders in the Lords a quarter of a century ago. The deal, it is said, guaranteed that 92 hereditaries should remain until some unspecified date in the future. Anyone who uses this argument clearly does not understand the most fundamental principle of the British constitution, namely that no Parliament can bind its successor. It would be ludicrous if it were otherwise. Are the defenders of the 1999 deal really saying that today’s Parliament can legislate on war and peace, can join the EU or leave it and nationalise the railways or privatise them, but the one thing it must never do under any circumstances whatever is to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords? There is a far more damning indictment of the 1999 deal. We now know from no less a source than Lord Cranborne, the Conservative Leader in the Lords at the time, that the Labour Government were forced into retaining the 92 hereditaries because their whole legislative programme was under threat. Viscount Cranborne himself said:
“My whole tactic was
to make their flesh creep
… I threatened them with
the Somme and Passchendaele”.
Viscount Cranborne said he would call off the threat, but only if at least 92 hereditaries were retained. I happened to be working at No. 10 at the time and we did indeed believe that, if we did not concede on the hereditaries, we would be unable to get our manifesto commitments through the Lords, with its huge, huge Tory majority. It was the most flagrant breach by the Tory Opposition of the fundamental convention of this House: namely, that the Lords respects manifesto commitments. It was not a deal; it was blackmail."
Lord Birt (Crossbench Peer and former BBC potentate appointed by Mr Blair) pointed out the obvious failure of the bill to remove the Lords Temporal : "
..this Bill should be amended to remove another feudal overhang: namely, the right of Church of England Bishops to have a guaranteed place in this House. In the last census, 56 million people answered the question about their religion; 40% said that they had no religion at all; fewer than half declared themselves to be Christian. In other surveys, of those who do declare as Christian, more are Catholic than Anglican; and more people say that they do not believe in a God than do." The Cameron government did float the idea of having Lords Temporal from other religious groups than the Church of England but that idea went for a burton when someone pointed out RCC priests aren't allowed to take political office because it's against Canon Law 285.3 in case it all goes Cardinal Richelieu again for "My Kingdom is not of this world" - (John 18:36)
Lord Mancroft (Conservative hereditary peer who succeeded to his father's titles and became the 3rd Baron Mancroft in 1997) bemoaned accused the Labour Government of cherry picking from its manifesto
"It is difficult to see how removing a small number of the most experienced and hard-working Members will improve this House—and that assumes that the objective of reform is indeed to improve the House. I think it is probably simpler than that. The Bill is just the first step in gerrymandering the membership to ensure that the Government have a majority. Labour is simply putting its party interests before those of the country. The Government pray in aid their manifesto, but the removal of former hereditary Peers is a cherry-picking commitment. The primary commitment is to reduce the size of the House, and that can be achieved in a meaningful way only if the Government introduce an age limit. Unfortunately, this needs the turkeys to vote for Christmas. Having spoken to quite a lot of turkeys on all sides of the House, it is clear to me that this is not going to happen. That is why the Government have shelved their commitment to enact an age limit of 80 in favour of “further consultation”. They can consult as much as they like, but the over-80s are not going to vote for it." The Labour manifesto read "The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords."
But cherry picking is the logical fallacy of incomplete evidence, not the prioritisation of commitments. This is actually a modal the fallacy of necessity:
1) Labour promised in its manifesto to abolish hereditary peers and introduce a retirement age
2) Labour brought in legislation to abolish hereditary peers
3) Abolishing hereditary peers on its own is not a manifesto commitment
As to gerrymandering.... since the entire house is appointed it is arguably completely gerrymandered anyway as it is entirely appointed by Prime Ministers ...a constituency of 1 ...or dead potentates. Really, the second chamber should be fully elected or nothing... Interestingly Lord Mancroft also points out the other elephant in the chamber. Removing hereditary peers leaves the hereditary head of states further and further out on a limb ....
Lord Mancroft (Conservative hereditary peer who succeeded to his father's titles and became the 3rd Baron Mancroft in 1997) :
"The Bill also undermines the Crown in Parliament, in a sop to Labour’s republicans, by expelling the members of the Royal Household—the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Lord Great Chamberlain will remain in charge of the most important parts of this building while not even having a Member’s pass." They Royal's used to be atop a pyramid above the aristocracy. With the aristocracy gone what will keep them at the top?
I'll give the final words to ...
Lord Brady of Altrincham (former chairmen of the 1922 committee giving his maiden speech after standing down at the last election only to pop up again in the Lords as such is the game of electoral whac-a-mole we play in this country whereby after we boot a government out the Commons at the ballot box its ex-members pop back in the revolving doors of the Lords - see
Lord Barwell) : "
As others have noted, the excepted hereditary Peers who sit here add greatly to the effectiveness of the House and contribute more than many who are appointed to sit here. It seems likely that this measure will reduce the efficacy of the House as a revising Chamber rather than improving it, while narrowing the expertise, experience and independence available to the House. Certainly, whatever this Bill may be, it does not constitute an enhancement of democracy. For those who think that the exercise of patronage is one of the things that diminishes the elected House, the move to an entirely appointed second Chamber can make that only worse."
Tragic...
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
_2.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
%20(2).jpeg)
_(cropped_3-4).jpg)