Saturday 24 October 2009

Without Peer?

This time last year, I applied to be a People’s Peer. Of course, I didn’t expect to get it. But I submitted my case to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The top and bottom of it was that, God willing, I offered several decades of representation to a position and numerous consequent views which, despite having a considerable following in the country at large, are not currently represented within the parliamentary process.

The removal of the hereditaries has greatly upped the age profile: the idea that peers have always at least ordinarily been old is historically illiterate, and that history goes all the way up into the last decade; it used to be quite common to inherit in childhood, or even at birth as a posthumous son, and then take one’s seat at 21, which, if not 18, is still the minimum age for election as an elected hereditary.

That removal has also massively reduced the representation of everywhere outside London, including the North, with the North East particularly hard done by. That Londonisation was greatly exacerbated by Blair’s creation of huge numbers of what were almost exclusively very metropolitan peers indeed. Add in that there is no mixed-race person in either House, that there is no one born in a remaining British Overseas Territory in either House, that no one born in Saint Helena has ever sat in either House, and that there is still (indeed, increasingly) the age-old under-representation of those of us who attended either or both of state schools and non-Oxbridge universities.

Anyway, it took them until April to write back saying “Don’t call us”. I mean, how heavy is the workload at the House of Lords Appointments Commission? No surprise there, of course. But the letter basically said, even if not in these words, that they have had a lot of applications from people like me, and that the other applicants have been more distinguished. That is perfectly possible.

So I am asking readers to join me in monitoring appointments from April of this year onwards. I can only assume that they have been and will be replete with people from the North East. People who went to state schools. People with non-Oxbridge degrees. People born in the remaining British Overseas Territories generally and Saint Helena in particular. Self-identifying mixed-race people. And people who represent a return to the days when young men inherited their fathers’ seats in childhood or at birth and then took those seats at 21, not an age for which I am in any danger of being mistaken in the flesh. Oh, and replete with pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker, anti-war, economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots. Of course. There certainly are people more distinguished than I in each of those categories. I will be looking out for them. So should you.

And so should you be looking out for, if not yourselves being, applicants such as the Constitutional Reform Bill will, with the full support of the Tories, remove from the House of Lords by removing the last hereditary peers. Socially conscientious and historically conscious. Rural and provincial. Classically educated and the church-based. Agrarian, and thus broadly or strongly anti-capitalist, aware of the importance of State economic action in protecting social and cultural goods, and rooted in the most militant living tradition of direct action in such causes. With the Union and the Commonwealth literally bred into them. And sceptical of American hegemony, and even more so of the Israel First lobby. Imperfect though my classical education may have been, I would have been like that, too. Who will be now?

Will you?

No comments:

Post a Comment