Parliament seems to be missing the point on the issue of the reform of the House of Lords or, at the very least, failing miserably to see the huge elephant in the room.
On the face of it, Dave is being forced to do something before the end of this parliament in order to retain the perception (at least) that there is a real coalition government, otherwise the weasly Lib Dems will start getting all uppity. Nick and his pals have enjoyed some minor concessions but it seems that this is the 'big one'; make or break for them. So Dave must be a pissed off that there is more than just a whiff of revolt within his own party and this week, some seventy or so ancient politicos have weighed in with...wait for it...a letter! Not an entry on facebook, or a tweet or an email, but an old-fashioned letter; probably on vellum and signed in blood with fountain pens.
The letter, from disaffected, old Tory peers (and backed by the 1922 Committee probably), is advising Dave that any proposal for reform of the Lords will not make them very happy (on the ludicrous assumption that Dave might actually give a shit about that, of course). Signatories include such heavyweights as Lamont - arguably the country's worst post-war Chancellor - and Howe, the back-stabbing assassin of Thatcher (so not all bad, then). In a thinly-veiled threat, these senile old gits from the red benches have opined that the Lords represent "...a vast reservoir of talent and experience, which complements the more youthful and vigorous House of Commons without ever being able to threaten it...". How risible. The 'experience' may resonate but the 'talent'? Why do you think half of these old farts ended up in the Lords anyway? And has anyone ever had a look around the commons, lately? There may be some youth, vigorous or otherwise, in evidence, but it's mostly a sea of wrinkly faces that meets the cameras on BBC Parliament. But the killing phrase from the extract is that the objectors acknowledge that the House of Lords is unable to 'threaten' the Commons (largely due to the revision of the Parliament Act under Blair) so for a few Tory Lords to send a threatening letter - with such an acknowledgement within it - is thus self-defeating and, therefore, surely a demonstration of their (lack of) 'talent'.
| Lord Howe comes face-to-face with some "youthful vigour", and doesn't understand... |
But what of the elephant, or, it might be argued, the massive herd of seven hundred and seventy-five lumbering, ancient pachyderms that occupy the 'upper' house? In amongst the arguments for and against Lords' reform and the suggestions for such reform, the questions that consistently remain unanswered are...what is it for and why not just get rid?
Arguments against total abolition are, generally, based upon the need to have checks and balances in place around the actions of the government of the day. This might have been a legitimate argument several decades ago but as government is so unremittingly transparent these days through the immediacy of media and as a result of FoI legislation, the requirement to have a body that reviews what happens in the Commons is now redundant. The Parliament Act allows the Commons to railroad legislation without their Lordships' assent anyway and even though our constitution requires an old woman in a big house to sign parliamentary acts, the likelihood of her not doing so is about as likely as Ed Balls and George Osborne sharing a spliff, live on telly.
The rhetoric around how important the Lords are is bonkers. It is frequently pointed out that during Blair's time as PM, he was defeated only four times in the Commons, compared with over four hundred defeats in the Lords. The simple fact that he had a huge, working majority in the Commons for ten years and the Lords was full of old Tory buffers and privileged, hereditary peers had nothing to do with that, of course. And he changed the law in order that he could ignore old windbags anyway.
The rhetoric around how important the Lords are is bonkers. It is frequently pointed out that during Blair's time as PM, he was defeated only four times in the Commons, compared with over four hundred defeats in the Lords. The simple fact that he had a huge, working majority in the Commons for ten years and the Lords was full of old Tory buffers and privileged, hereditary peers had nothing to do with that, of course. And he changed the law in order that he could ignore old windbags anyway.
It seems that there is not one person in parliament today - and certainly not in Government - that is prepared to put his or her head above the castellated parapets of the Palace of Westminster and come out as an abolitionist. Well, shame on them. It also seems that a key objection, unbelievably, is that electing people to a second house would damage our constitution. Democracy; bad, then?
Even the alternate schemes for a second chamber are a fudge. The favourite at the moment is to have a "largely elected" House where there will be three hundred plus members to sit and snooze for a "non-renewable" period of fifteen years each. The "largely elected" concession means that there will also be around sixty appointed "independents" and and, of course, twelve 'ex-officio' Lords Spiritual (the Bishops of the Church of England) who, presumably, have been elected by god so that our moral compasses can be correctly aligned. How democratic.
For some reason, there appear to be no polls around on this subject (abolition). Neither is there even the slightest hint that anyone in parliament is interested in learning of the mob's view on Lords reform. I wonder why. Could it be that I've misread this and in fact the Lords are indeed all-powerful and feudalism isn't as dead as I thought? Or is it that the self-serving Civil Servants in Whitehall are so scared shitless that their committees will disappear up their collective arses (and that they won't get knighthoods and later elevations to the Lords as they believe to be their right) that they have been able to block all attempts at abolition in a manner of which even Sir Humphrey Appleby would have been proud?
And now the whole thing has been reduced to a political spat between the people that are supposed to be in Government together, "for the good of the country", I think they said in the rose garden back in 2010. Liars. Of course, Dave & Co will realise today (9 July) that the reform debate will result in a defeat in the Commons and will can the whole thing beforehand. What a waste of fucking time.
Apart from anything else, the abolition of the House of Lords (and the monarchy, while we're on) would save a large number of stoats. Anne Widdicombe is campaigning for hedgehogs this week and we're about to hear the outcome of the judicial review on badger slaughter. Maybe that's the new direction for government...all legislation should be based on how species of British flora and fauna (wild or domestic) will be affected. And elephants.
Even the alternate schemes for a second chamber are a fudge. The favourite at the moment is to have a "largely elected" House where there will be three hundred plus members to sit and snooze for a "non-renewable" period of fifteen years each. The "largely elected" concession means that there will also be around sixty appointed "independents" and and, of course, twelve 'ex-officio' Lords Spiritual (the Bishops of the Church of England) who, presumably, have been elected by god so that our moral compasses can be correctly aligned. How democratic.
| Q: How can we run parliament without these people? A: Much better... |
And now the whole thing has been reduced to a political spat between the people that are supposed to be in Government together, "for the good of the country", I think they said in the rose garden back in 2010. Liars. Of course, Dave & Co will realise today (9 July) that the reform debate will result in a defeat in the Commons and will can the whole thing beforehand. What a waste of fucking time.
Apart from anything else, the abolition of the House of Lords (and the monarchy, while we're on) would save a large number of stoats. Anne Widdicombe is campaigning for hedgehogs this week and we're about to hear the outcome of the judicial review on badger slaughter. Maybe that's the new direction for government...all legislation should be based on how species of British flora and fauna (wild or domestic) will be affected. And elephants.
| The price of doing nothing? |
No comments:
Post a Comment