Thank goodness that there is still some part of our parliamentary system from which it remains possible to speak from outside the nasty but inevitable union between, on the one hand, what has always been the anti-parliamentary New Left and, on the other hand, the sociologically indistinguishable New Right’s arrival at hatred of Parliament as the natural conclusion of its hatred of the State. From that union, together with the SDP’s misguided Alliance with the Liberals around their practically Bennite constitutional agenda, derives the Political Class’s desire to abolish the House of Lords.
For those who keep such scores, the House of Lords has a higher proportion of women, a higher proportion of people from ethnic minorities, a broader range of ethnic minorities, and far more people from working-class backgrounds generally and the trade union movement in particular, than can be found down the corridor. More significantly, and despite the very hard efforts of successive governments, it also retains a broader range of political opinion, more reflective of the country at large. But that is under grave threat, both from the party machines and from the way of all flesh.
The future composition of the House would be secured, at least in part, by providing for each current Life Peer, at least who attends very or fairly regularly, to name an heir, by no means necessarily or even ordinarily a relative, but rather a political and a wider intellectual soul mate. That heir would become a Peer upon his or her nominator’s death, and would thus acquire the same right of nomination.
Arise, Lord Lindsay of Lanchester.
ReplyDeleteBut whose heir could I be, and why?
ReplyDeleteTo put it mercilessly, Lord Stoddart is likely to die before Lord Glasman. But he would also be more likely to have someone else lined up, seeing as he has been around so much longer.
ReplyDeleteBut who would be your heir?
ReplyDeleteCan I be your heir, David?
ReplyDeleteElections have never been your strong point. You are one of nature's appointees.
ReplyDeleteHe has done pretty well at elections when he has been allowed to contest them.
ReplyDeleteLabour would rather have lost two district seats than give a shot at one of them to the man who had netted them an overall majority of the vote in a four way contest at the 1997 general election. In Lanchester! They spent the rest of his time in the party punishing him for it. No wonder he still won't go back even in these Blue Labour days.
It is ridiculous that something like this is the only way to get a diversity of views into Parliament. It is ridiculous, but it is true.