Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
String
Random
Interact
Feedback
Links
Debate
Home
How to Beat Speed Cameras
Does God Bless America?
The Big Problem
Military Salute
The House of Lords is an abomination. It represents an echo of the rule of warlords and robber-barons. Giving such people titles does nothing to make them noble. They were armed thieves who stole not only goods but lands and the lives of the people on those lands. The aristocracy deserve no more respect than the children of the Mafia or crack dealers.
The institution is fundamentally flawed and should be wiped away. Replacing the House of Lords with a house made up of appointees is worse. It creates the power of patronage which can lead to corruption. The scandal over donations and loans to the Labour Party being seen to buy a peerage is an illustration of the tendency of power to corrupt. It cannot help but stink of corruption that every single person who gave over £1 million to the Labour Party during the last election campaign received a peerage or a knighthood. Naturally anybody with £1 million to spare is by definition going to be out of the ordinary and some of them may indeed have been genuine no-strings-attached donations and the peerages genuine recognition for other good works or qualities, but the stench of corruption cannot ever be removed. It has to be a bad system that allows this erosion of public trust to happen.
Another news story this week has given me an excellent idea. Producers of the children's television programme Blue Peter have this week decided to remove the special privileges that holders of a Blue Peter badge enjoy. These badges were sent to any child who is featured on the programme or makes a special contribution, even as small as having a letter read out. To give extra kudos to the badge the programme had negotiated free entrance to many museums, galleries and the like (no doubt the combination of good PR and a paying accompanying adult made the scheme work for all concerned, rather in the same way circuses give out free tickets to children too young to go on their own). Recently these badges began being sold on Ebay, noting the privileged access that a child could get by owning one. The idea of Veruca Salt types buying one was too much. The special privileges were withdrawn, presumably on the basis that deserving children didn't need the special access and would be happy just to own the badge, but those people who paid for the badges wanted the free admission. Can't we learn a great lesson from that? Those people who deserve honours don't require them.
As nobody who does good work does it to get an honour (or they wouldn't want to admit that they did) it isn't necessary to honour them. The good work will be done regardless or we are simply giving baubles to silly buggers who deserve mockery for their vanity.
There is no point in honours and titles. It simply justifies the existence of monarchy, aristocracy and privilege, things which should have no part in a modern state. Do you really think that Andrew Flintoff wouldn't have wanted to play the best cricket he could play and win matches for England unless he got his MBE? Likewise do you think Audie Murphy fought for medals and honours rather than for his comrades-in-arms and his own sense of duty?
The only reason to honour true heroes is to justify the existence of unjust honours. Bob Geldof got a knighthood because Sir Humphrey wants to see that Bernard gets one too when he's shown his mettle as a public servant who supports the status quo. Sir Francis Rossi? I'll pass the suggestion on to the minister, quite amusing Bernard, I like your thinking, your k's in the post.
If the people want to honour people they can, directly. Isn't that what daytime TV is for?
The House of Lords does have a function that should be continued. The Lords acts as a revising chamber, giving a second chance to avoid passing hastily drafted laws. There is a place in the parliamentary system for a second chamber, but not an upper house. The House of Commons is the heart of the British representative democracy. There can be no prospect of there ever being a power struggle between the Commons and a second chamber.
The only way to avoid the possibility of a power struggle is to ensure that the second chamber does not have a superior claim to legitimacy. I believe this can be achieved even with a fully democratically elected second chamber. I have a cunning plan. I suggest a combination of measures to ensure that the second chamber is kept in its place. Firstly a longer period between elections, to foster stability and to ensure there are elections out of synch with the elections for the Commons. I suggest electing Senators for a seven year term, with elections (in different parts of the country) every two years using county council boundaries as multi-member constituencies. Naturally single transferable vote is the best method to use to be fair to everybody: parties, people and maverick politicians. Britain does not seem to want regional government or representation.
Another simple way to reduce the legitimacy of the senate while increasing its distinctiveness is to impose a minimum age limit of 40 years. This is not to disenfranchise younger people but to ensure that senators will have had a life outside of politics. Under the current system it is possible to leave university and volunteer to help out a local MP and before you know it be seen as his heir apparent while in your early twenties. This is exactly what happened to Matthew Taylor, a man who has "never had a proper job" as most people would see it. While there is room for a few such people it surely cannot be healthy for any democracy to have its entire political elite made up of ex-presidents of university students unions. By having a career path that requires people to be at least 40 before they put themselves up for office the door is held open for people who have a real life and experience of the world outside.
I would also like to see a tiny residual rump of the old system by having the equivalent of life peerages for elder statesmen. As to who decides who are elder statesmen I can think of no better solution than to allow the House of Commons to nominate up to ten Senators for Life at the end of each annual parliamentary session, using a mechanism of their own devising. These senators would be experienced politicians who could be an asset to good governance and at the same time act as a poison-pill to ensure that the second chamber has its democratic legitimacy compromised ever so slightly, like painting a daisy on a Ferrari.
With those mechanisms to limit the legitimacy of the senate in place it would be reasonable then to make everything else the senate does conform to the highest standards. I would also suggest that the senate runs itself, with a budget voted for by the Commons. I think the senate could act as a catalyst for modernization, sweeping away outdated nonsense such as ermine trimmed robes, the woolsack, self-important men in tights and idiotically quaint language and voting methods. With luck it might shame the conservatism of the Commons, which in many respects seems reluctant to enter even the nineteenth century.