Day 6154: Time to Tear Down This Institution Before It Falls Down

Monday:



Parliament is crumbling, and that isn’t just a metaphor.

We should all be concerned for the physical safety of the thousands of people who have to work in the enormous Westminster folly, built on a swamp, a firetrap with miles of wiring and gas pipes, which is absolutely falling to bits.

But we should worry much more about the safety of our democracy.

It’s the day after Bonfire Night and too many people are saying Guy Fawkes had the right idea. But it’s not the PEOPLE who want to be EXPLODED, it’s the building that traps them in a democracy time-warp.

Private Eye, even less subtle about the state of Parliament

The way we run Parliament is as gothic and arcane as the building itself.

Last week saw another attempt to bring the voting age down to 16 defeated by a process called “talking out”. The Deputy Speaker even refused a request to call a vote because the issue was so important but had only had an hour and twenty minutes debate. So important, then, that it will be shoved to the back of the queue and probably never talked about again, at least not for this backbench bill.

This makes Parliament look ridiculous, and impotent, and deliberately opposed to the issues of young people.

And it happens time and time again. This rule makes no sense to the public, and give a ridiculous amount of power to a certain group of Tory backbenchers who, because they have been gifted with safe seats and so do not need to bother going back to their constituencies on Fridays, can spend their time shooting down legislation basically on a whim. This isn’t democracy. It’s as bad and corrupt as the Rotten Boroughs.

Last week the House of Lords, Nick Clegg’s efforts to reform it having been sunk by the unholy alliance of Tory backbenchers and the Labour Party, proposed measures to voluntarily reduce the size of the World’s second-largest unelected chamber. If all Parties agree – and if the Prime Minister agrees to stop stuffing the place with more Tory peers, itself unlikely given that that power of patronage is one of the few levers remaining to her in her weakened condition – then the upper chamber will diminish from over 800 peers to merely around 600 by 2029.

Asked why not just introduce a mandatory retirement age, the response comes no that would be unfair because Labour Lords tend to be so very much older than Liberal Democrats and so would have an unfair outcome. Well okay, what about retiring people on the basis of attendance, or lack thereof? No, that would be unfair also, because it would seem, Liberal Democrats peers have a much better attendance record than other lords and ladies also.

And what if Lord Tarquin decides he doesn’t want to give up the ermine? Well, hope the reformers, we might not come to that.

Theresa May’s Government, hardly the most legitimate having lost her majority and bought a billion-pound lifeline from the DUP, has adopted a policy of ignoring Opposition Day motions, and not even turning up to vote.

Last week we saw the Opposition resorting to the manoeuvre of “An Humble Address to Her Majesty” in order to force the Government to disclose the assessments of the impact of Brexit on 58 sectors of the economy.

How can Parliament do its job without transparency?

But what good holding a government to account if that government just ignores you? And the government gets away with holding Parliament in contempt because the people hold Parliament in contempt.

What do people think when they think of Parliament? They think expenses scandal, they now think harassing younger women, and they think Prime Minister’s Questions.

Week in week out we see the grotesque spectacle that is the bear pit of Prime Minister’s Questions. Never Prime Minister’s Answers, of course. Deflect, obscure, quote irrelevant statistics, pass the buck, blame the opposition. And bonus points for titillating the sketch writers. MPs always assure us that this half hour of jeering and name-calling is not typical of the House. And yet it is the bit of the House’s week that is most seen by the public and the bit that is most attended by MPs.

And the chamber and building itself are physically designed, confrontational, oppositional, and too small to hold all the members, to drive PMQs – or any important debate – to be an angry shouting match.

PMQs is not an aberration. It’s merely the most obvious sign that the Houses of Parliament are toxic to democracy.

In a building that is by equal parts Public School, Gentleman’s (with emphasis on the “man’s”) Club and Retirement Home, where the people in charge of keeping order are called “whips”, merging the brutal with the downright kinky, is it really any surprise that bullying and harassment run rampant?

There is a solution. Just get out. Not for the duration of repair, get out forever. Move Parliament out of Westminster. Out of London.

And move the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and the Office of the Prime Minister with them. Probably the Foreign Office and the spending departments too, but at very least those.

Move them to the “Northern Powerhouse” and maybe they’ll take it seriously.

Make big changes to stop the new Parliament being an Old Boys’ Club.

Now’t wrong with being Old unless it’s ONLY for the Old, so make it better with votes at 16.

Now’t wrong with being Boys unless it’s ONLY for the Boys, so make it better with action on gender equality and harassment so it’s a place where people of all genders want to work.

And now’t wrong with being… actually there’s quite a LOT wrong with it being a Club. A Club is for the special members who know the secret handshakes. Westminster is a Palace for nobs; we need a Parliament for people.

Make every vote count. Elect MPs by a proportional system. Of course it should be PR. And British PR at that – multi-member seats and ranking candidates by preference, giving the power to the people.

Make every lawmaker accountable to the people. Replace the Lords with 200 elected senators. Maybe, if you really really must, with 50 appointed cross-benchers – they could speak but not vote. If clashing mandates really really worry you, adopt the Cap’n Clegg solution of electing senators by thirds for fifteen-year terms.

Make MPs subject to a right of recall. Fire them if they are guilty of crimes. It’s no good saying you cannot fire an MP. Right now, an MP will lose their seat if they go bankrupt. Parliament should have the power to suspend for a week, or a month or fire altogether.

Make every vote of the House matter. The government ignores Opposition motions, the Opposition uses them for stunts. Neither is good for democracy. Change the rules so that all Bills before the House are taken in order and debated until they are voted on. And if there aren’t enough members in the House on Friday, carry the debate over to Monday. Ditch the ritual. The Speaker doesn’t need to wear tights. And if people want to say prayers before legislating, let them go to church or mosque or temple*.

(*other places also available.)



But more than anything make it a modern building with proper sized offices and proper IT and proper air-conditioning and enough loos for everyone.

And don’t forget to make room for an HR department.

Day 5409: Fatal Attraction

Friday:


David Cameron is tearing down the British constitution before our eyes.

The Conservatories, apparently HIGH on the ARROGANCE of victory, have taken their WAFER-THIN majority to be a sign of DIVINE RIGHT and are rapidly moving to use any means, no matter how dubious or illegitimate, to extend their hegemony.

They've got the House of Lords in their sights.

But if they are so keen on the SUPREMACY of the House of Commons then they should remember that it was the House of Commons that voted to keep the Powers of the House of Lords EXACTLY AS THEY ARE.

Prime Monster Cameron clearly does not believe in of the British Constitution, written or unwritten. He tramples the traditions and conventions in much the same way Boris Johnson tramples small Japanese children.

Which makes him an anti-social Prime Monster and a pretty poor Conservatory to boot.

Instead of PRIMARY LEGISLATION (or even taking it to the actual PEOPLE in a referendum) he is sneaking around trying to nobble the noble opposition by the back door.

This week, we have already seen him and his incompetent henchling Chris Grayman manipulating the standing orders of the House of Commons to freeze out non-English members of the BRITISH Parliament (while further overburdening English MPs who do not have the support of devolved assembly members and thus actually WEAKENING the voice of the people of England).

And now they are threatening to flood the House of Lords with Tory Peers in order to create an UNEARNED majority (remember how they protest that the numbers in the Lords should be "proportional" to the election result – so they should actually lose Peers to match the 35% of the vote they scraped in May).

The alleged cause precipitating this crisis is the Tory plan to slash tax credits, taking up to £1200 away from people IN WORK on the LOWEST WAGES.

It totally makes a LIE of the Tory claim to be the "Party of Labour". And completely UNDERMINES the work of the Coalition in raising people OUT OF TAX to make being in work reward more the people who need it most.

The Liberal Democrats have therefore tabled a "fatal motion" in the Lords to kill the cuts.

(While Labour have tabled a WEAKER, delaying motion, which the Lib Dems WILL support if Labour are too cowardly to support the fatal amendment).

And this has given the Prime Monster the excuse he needed to throw his toys out of the pram.

We have seen a string of figures bullying the House of Lords from the Prime Monster down – and shamefully including the Speaker of the Commons, whose powers are so rightly protected within those doors precisely because they end at those doors (and that's why Black Rod has those doors slammed in his face every year), acting way ultra vires in telling the House of Lords what to do.

(It's worse because the Speaker is supposed to be neutral. He must of course act, within his powers, to defend the interests of the House of Commons. But he also has a duty to defend the people in whose Parliament it is his privilege to sit. If he goes over to the side of the Government – and it looks very like he has been persuaded to speak for the Government here – then frankly that's a resigning matter and he should step down.)

The Tory case for overriding the Lords hangs on two slender threads:

The first is the Salisbury Convention that the Lords do not overturn a Government's manifesto pledges.

Mr Cameron refers to the fact that the Tory manifesto contained a pledge to cut £12 billion from the Welfare Budget. Fair enough. But it did not specify from where within the Welfare Budget. However, the Prime Monster himself said that Tax Credits would not be cut. So how else can we interpret this but that that Prime Monstering promise was part of their manifesto pledge?

So to block the Tax Credits Cut, the Lords would actually be enforcing not overturning the Tories' manifesto, and it's hardly their fault that the Prime Monster is caught in the act of breaking his promise to the British People.

The other is the 1911 Parliament Act which says that the Upper Chamber will not block the will of the commons on Money Bills.

A "Money Bill" (it goes on to say) is a Public Bill which the Speaker says is a money bill.

(Or rather, in his opinion contains provisions dealing with a longish list of understandably tax and borrowing related subjects – in fact contains only such provisions, so you cannot just stick a small tax change in the "Invasion of Mars and Slaughter of the First Born" Bill and ram it through the Lords as a "Money Bill").

Importantly, it then adds that to be such a Bill the Speaker needs to endorse it with a certificate saying it is such before they send it up to the Lords.

So there are two rather glaring problems with what the Prime Monster and his government and his tame Speaker are saying here.

The Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 is NOT a Public Bill. It's what is called a Statutory Instrument (secondary legislation, using powers granted by an earlier bill to adjust the details – or another example of the Prime Monster dodging the full scrutiny of a proper bill, what a shame THAT came back to bite him on his Eton Mess).

And secondly, it would need to have a certificate of "do not touch" tied to the front.

So unless Speaker Bercow has done so, his threat to the Lords is based on a lie.

The Prime Minister, likewise, if he is saying that the Lords cannot block this is telling lies to the House of Commons.


The regulation was originally laid before Parliament in September and the government won by a majority of 325 to 290.

This week, Labour tabled an Opposition Day motion: "That this House calls on the Government to reverse its decision to cut tax credits, which is due to come into effect in April 2016", which was defeated by the government 317 to 295.

It would not have been binding on the Government, but losing it would have been… "embarrassing".

In the course of the debate, though, a number of Conservatories were reported to make "powerful" speeches against the policy… only to then troop meekly through the Government lobby at the end of the day.

I do worry that another sign of the Tories' fast march towards Chinese Democracy is to generate a SYNTHETIC opposition that is then shown to be entirely compliant with their wishes, doing away with the need for a Labour Party altogether.


Meanwhile senior, even normally entirely sensible Tories, continue to protest that the Lords will "provoke" a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

Be under no doubt. The Prime Monster was LOOKING for this CRISIS. He would have FOUND a PRETEXT.

And frankly, either we Liberal Democrats use what powers we have left to try to protect people from the cruelty of full-blooded Tory cuts or we might as well all go home.

So we should NEVER back down from this fight.

And the Prime Monster should remember too that Governments govern only with CONSENT.

Cite the 1911 Parliament Act all you like, if THAT is the precedent the Tories think they should follow, if they think it covers the Prime Monster for breaking his election promise, but REMEMBER your HISTORY – before forcing the People's Budget through the Lords the Liberal Government sought and received the endorsement of the people on the promise they were actually voting on in a GENERAL ELECTION.

Day 5326: My Fair Ladies (and Lords)

Monday:


The Conservatories seem to have discovered a previously-buried passion for democratic "fairness". They say something like this:

"The Lib Dems only got 8 MPs, but they have 101 Lords, that's so unfair."

And of course they are RIGHT.

We believe in Proportional Representation. There are 1432 Westminster Parliamentarians, and so to represent the 7.9% of the electorate who voted for us on May 7, we should have 113. So we are owed 4 Peers.

I look forward to Mr Balloon firing 29 of his more egregiously stupid followers so they can achieve the "fairness" that they say they want.

Lords Reform aka Night of the Living Clegg

*I've heard this line several times now. See also: Lib Dem Voice. So clearly our erstwhile Conservatory "friends" are being heavily briefed to repeat it. They are trying to set the agenda, make the story before they gerrymander even further and clearly want to hammer the legitimacy of the revising chamber before anyone notices that the practically-in-name-only-elected chamber is far more WILDLY lacking in legitimacy.

**No, I'm not calling for the creation of 176 UKIP Peers; or even 54 Green Peers – the Liberal Democrats pushed very hard to REFORM the Lords during the Coalition; reform that was blocked by the usual unholy reactionary alliance of Conservatory and Hard Labour. But it's a bit rich of them complaining now that the unfair system they insisted on produced an unfair outcome!

***yes, I did just call the Conservatories "a bit rich". I'm experimenting with UNDERSTATEMENT!

Day 4236: Lords, Losers, Liars and Louise

Monday:



So, Great Britain's constitutional reforms lose the Olympic Gold for "Not Crashing and Burning", narrowly surprisingly clearly pipped by the American Mars Lander "Curiosity".

Curiosity, equipped with LASERS to kill any SPIDER-CAT-MONSTERS-FROM-MARS it encounters, succeeded in making the tricky descent through the Martian atmosphere.

Lords Reform, equipped with KNIVES for stabbing Captain Clegg in the back... didn't. Instead it descended into chaos and recrimination.

Wooden Spoon goes to Ms Louise Mendacious, for "spending more time with her family" (surely the Murdochs don't have something on her after all!). Did she get wind of a non-promotion in Mr Balloon's reshuffle?

NO ONE comes out looking good.

Mr Balloon has lost control of his Party. Mr Milipede would rather score tactical points than stand for anything. And we look like we've thrown our toys out of the pram.

There are two fundamental failures here:

First, the failure to deliver on ANY constitutional reform beyond fixed term parliaments. We are the party of change, the Conservatives the party of the status quo – the clue is in the name, really – and no change is a WIN for them. Not good.

This should leave us seriously questioning our place in the Coalition. We may well end up deciding that we can still do more good IN government than out, but we NEED to have that debate.

Second, there is the failure to COMMUNICATE just how important it is to lift the dead hand of the establishment, and to give real power to people to make a difference. Our opponents in Tory and Labour Parties have been able to play the “why now” card and cash in on public apathy because we have failed to make the link between the establishment and the economic disaster clear. Power in the hands of the few is what allowed the bankers to gamble away our money and allowed Gordon Brown to double-mortgage the farm without anyone to stop or even question him.

We should have been saying "fix government or the crash will happen again". We need to spell out that the real price the Tories have exacted is another round of boom and bust.

I tried to express this to a senior MP last night, and I'm sorry to say that they just weren't buying it. "Doesn't make the direct connection to people's lives" and "we look like constitutional obsessives" were the grumbling excuses.

WELL THAT JUST WON'T DO.

It is the JOB of our MPS to communicate WHY our policies DO have a direct relevance to people's lives. WE are NOT in the business of asking what people want like some kind of Parliamentary SANTA CLAUS; we are in the business of PROPOSING SOLUTIONS and EXPLAINING why they are needed and will work.

START with this justifiably FAMOUS post by Mr Mark Reckons – showing that there is a LINK between SAFE SEATS and EXPENSES SCANDALS.

And STOP with being EMBARRASSED to be a LIBERAL!

It is in the INTEREST of the ESTABLISHMENT that we be "embarrassed" to be "constitutional obsessives" – and for FAR TOO LONG we have allowed GREEDY PIGGIES, squealingly-eager for the rewards of PATRONAGE, to dictate the LANGUAGE of the debate – we really need to TAKE IT BACK:

Why do we bang on about changing the constitution?

Because our government IS A JOKE, a BAD JOKE.

Ask ANYONE – ANYONE AT ALL! – do they think that this country has a good system that serves its people well, and they will TELL YOU it is a JOKE!

If an interviewer sneers at reforms, turn it back on them – ask THEM why THEY are defending the system? Do THEY say we have the finest government that delivers the goods? Tell them they would be LAUGHED at for suggesting such a thing and THEN ask them why THEY are shilling for the establishment.

"The economy is more important" people will cry – tell them: "How can Parliament fix the economy until Parliament itself is mended?"

The debacle has exposed that the Conservatory Party ITSELF is a COALITION, and one that Mr Balloon cannot hold together. Ninety-one GREEDY PIGGIES – too LAZY to stand up for their principles, they'd rather coast into the Commons on Mr Balloon's Etonian coat tails than tell their constituents the TRUTH about their REAL manifesto; too eager to get their SNOUTS in the TROUGH of ERMINE to support their own Leader, putting SELFISHNESS ahead of Conservatory VIRTUES like LOYALTY and HONOUR.

The behaviour of Mr Milipede, Leader of the Opportunists, is as much a SYMPTOM of this as it is a CAUSE. He claims to support reform... but he won't back it. In fact, he COLLUDES with the greedy piggies to score some kind of political "point" as though embarrassing the government in today's papers – tomorrows chip wrappings – is in the long term good of the country.

Mr Milipede MAY or MAY NOT be a progressive, but he is TRAPPED in the body of an ESTABLISHMENT MAN doing the ESTABLISHMENT'S dirty work.

He has ACTIVELY HARMED the good of the majority and supported the corrupt establishment for chip wrappings.

That is CONTEMPTIBLE. Not to mention DEEPLY STUPID.

Cap'n Clegg may have been defeated, may have tried and failed, but Mr Milipede WENT OVER TO THE DARK SIDE!

To paraphrase the Grauniad: "For the sake of the NATION, Ed Milipede Must Go! "

(I really DO NOT recommend reading the CiF comments – shrill, self-satisfied and smugly revelling in the fact the Coalition hasn't yet solved the economic chaos wrought under their new best friends in Hard Labour, the sort of people who call the Lib Dems "spineless" and then vote to support an electoral system that means ONLY conservatives can ever win power just to SPITE the progressives for being weak when that very system makes them weak... that's when they aren't calling for the overthrow of democracy itself... it's not a place to seek wisdom – but if you want a FRANKLY UNEDIFYING look into the minds of so-called Lefties who are SO STUPID that they support the Establishment merely because it lets them be snide about Cap'n Clegg, then you know where to look. Clue: it's above the line.)

GENUINE progressives – and, who knows, there may even be some inside Hard Labour, there may EVEN be some at the Grauniad – must, must, MUST break with the past, the old push-me-pull-you game of Labservative BUGGINS' TURN.

Because when our system rewards OPPORTUNISM, how can people be even remotely SURPRISED when BANKERS behave OPPORTUNISTICALLY to make their bonuses?

And when our system rewards SHORT-TERMISM, why is it not OBVIOUS that companies will SUFFER from SHORT-TERMISM because no one want to invest for strong, stable growth, only a quick profit, a fast buck?

And when our system rewards WEASEL-WORDS (or what I would call DOWNRIGHT LIES by those Conservatories who stood on a manifesto promising their constituents they were in favour of reform when in fact they were in favour of making sure their comfortable retirement club was kept exactly as it is), when our system REWARDS these things, then you cannot express SHOCK that corporate lawyers use weasel words to avoid their obligations; that litigation replaces taking real ACTION; that compensation culture flourishes; and all the "jobsworths" and "health and safety gone mad" consequences of people being rewarded for covering their FLUFFY ARSES rather than offering a helping fluffy-foot!

The Government and Opposition benches in the House of Commons are separated by TWO SWORD LENGTHS PLUS A FOOT.

When you build your government on a PLAYGROUND BRAWL not a HANDSHAKE then you really can't expect it to be anything other than CHILDISH.

The problem with Britain at the moment, and it's what is underlying the failure of recovery, is a LOSS OF TRUST. Credit, as in "credo", "I believe", is LITERALLY and METAPHORICALLY in SHORT SUPPLY. George Osborne's political, tactical, omnishambles Budget; two years of Hard Labour shrieking TRAITOR whenever they draw breath; Liberal Democrat compromises – yes, that damn Tuition Fee pledge again – ALL driven by our stupid constitutional arrangements and ALL contributing to the breakdown of TRUST.

Great Britain is NOT Broken. But it IS POISONED. And we won't get better until we address the SOURCE of the poison.

Day 4212: But if it DOES come to a Referendum...

Friday:

Hard Labour CLAIM that they're FOR the PRINCIPLE of Lords Reform, but AGAINST the SPECIFICS of this Bill. So if we DO cut a DEAL that involves a REFERENDUM, let's make it one UP FRONT on the PRINCIPLES of reform.

This means it HAS to be WIDER than just a "YES/NO" to the current proposals.

The many different CONTENTIOUS CLAUSES in Cap'n Clegg's Bill give the reactionaries many different directions to attack from. So what say we make sure the PUBLIC get to decide on ALL the main issues, settling each question one way or the other. Like this:

The House of Lords is the second chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. It reviews and revises legislation and can amend but not block legislation sent to it by the House of Commons. At present, the members of the House of Lords (peers) are appointed for life, mainly (80%) by the leaders of Political Parties, with some, known as Cross Benchers, selected by the Appointments Panel, and some Church of England Bishops.

The main question in this referendum is to decide in principle whether we should elect peers rather than appoint them.

Supplementary questions are asked about what an elected chamber might look like and how it might be elected IF it is decided to change to an elected House of Lords. Please answer all the questions, whatever your preference for an elected or appointed chamber.

MAIN QUESTION: Should the House of Lords be appointed or elected?

• Appointed
• Elected

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS:

QUESTION ONE: If it is decided that the Lords should be elected, should peers be mainly or entirely elected?

• Mainly elected peers (80%, per the Government's proposals)
• Wholly elected (100%)

QUESTION TWO: If it is decided that the Lords should be elected, a proportional voting system is proposed. Should the voting system for the Lords be:

• Party list system (as used in European Parliament elections)
• Ranked preference system (as used in Scottish local elections or Northern Ireland)

QUESTION THREE: There are currently around nine hundred unelected peers. The Government proposes to reduce this number to four hundred and fifty. There will be six hundred member members of the House of Commons. How many peers should there be:

• 300
• 450
• 600
• 900

(vote for first and second preference)

QUESTION FOUR: The Government's proposals are for peers to sit for a single term of office of fifteen years, electing one third of the House at the same time as a General Election. If the House of Lords is elected, how long should their terms be:

• Fifteen years (electing one third of members at each General Election every five years)
• Ten years (electing one half of members at each General Election every five years)
• Five years (electing all the members at each General Election every five years)

(vote for first and second preference)

QUESTION FIVE: The Government's proposals for fifteen-year terms include a provision that peers should not be allowed to stand for re-election. Do you agree?

• Yes, peers should only be elected for one term
• No, peers should be allowed to stand more than once

QUESTION SIX: Presently there are twenty-six Church of England Bishops with seats in the House of Lords. The Government proposes to reduce this to fifteen in line with the proposed smaller House of Lords. If it is decided that there should continue to be some appointed members, do you think that the Bishops should have seats in the House of Lords?

• Yes, there should be seats for religious leaders
• No, only members appointed by the Appointments Commission should have Cross Bencher seats

QUESTION SIX-A: Should the seats continue to be reserved for the Church of England or should other religions be represented as well?

• Yes, the seats should remain exclusively for the Church of England
• No, there should be representatives for people of all religions (and people with no religion)

QUESTION SEVEN: Under the Parliament Act, the House of Lords is only a revising chamber and cannot block legislation passed by the House of Commons. The Government's proposals will keep this provision. Do you agree?

• Yes, the House of Commons should always be able to overrule the House of Lords
• Yes, the House of Commons should be able to overrule the House of Lords, but only on the Budget
• No, the House of Commons should not be able to overrule the House of Lords at all

A quick bill (haha), with all-Party support (hahaha), passed through the Commons this Autumn would pave the way for a poll next year. If the public reject an elected Lords then we drop the issue; if they approve, then we have a ready-made Bill that can be also be passed quickly, because only a bunch of BLINKERED SELF-INTERESTED IDIOTS would tell the Public that THEY know better... Oh.

Day 4211: The Price for Dropping Lords Reform – VINCE FOR CHANCELLOR

Thursday:

...and Mr David Outlaws for Business Secretary.

(Let's spell that out clearly: the Liberal Democrats to get a WHOLE EXTRA CABINET MINISTER, and one of the Great Offices of State.)

It seems quite plain that a cabal of bitter Conservatories are determined to derail ANY of the Liberal Democrats parliamentary legislation.

But it's ALSO very evident that where we have Cabinet Ministers we have made a REAL difference.

And, most obvious of all, Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable is the only person COMPETENT, CAPABLE and most important TRUSTED to take charge of the British Economy.

So it's WIN-WIN-WIN.

WIN #1: Mr Dr Vince gets the job he was born to do.

(And Master Gideon might even thank us for putting him out of his misery. And, er, promoting him sideways to Conservatory Chairperson would give him licence to sink his teeth into Mr Bully Balls' ankles any time he wanted.)

WIN #2: The Prime Monster gets to STAMP some much need AUTHORITY on his Premiership AND look MAGNANIMOUS to BOTH SIDES (his backbenchers get a victory and we get a Ministry), while actually we get him out of a HOLE without losing (big red) face.

(If, as looks increasingly likely, Mr Balloon has lost any vestiges of control over the Conservatory Party, it may not even be within his gift to deliver on his promise of Tory votes to back Lords Reform. Yes, like all of his other promises it's not worth the cast-iron guarantee it's not printed on. But, as Prime Monster, the appointment of Ministers remains within his gift and Mendacious Mensch and Humpty Soames can't stop him no matter how many lies they tell.)

WIN #3: The Liberal Democrats' SHARE of influence in the Coalition is RESTATED and CONFIRMED.

Suggesting a FAIR DEAL quid pro quo is much more GROWN-UP and ROSE GARDEN than throwing about sulky threats to derail the Boundary Commission. It's a trade-off, not a tit-for-tat.

Remember, we want to show that Coalition WORKS. But also remember, Mr Balloon needs to show that Coalition works EVEN MORE. Because he's out of a job (and buried in a motorway flyover pillar) the very second that it fails.


Why Mr David Outlaws? I know in the past I have pushed for a FEMALE Liberal Cabinet Minister (and in a minute I will again) but to sugar this pill a little, I suggest reinstating "the Conservatories' favourite Liberal Democrat" would be the best way forwards. (Particularly as they can and will take it as a hint that the exile of their current darling, the swivel-eyed "Fantastic" Dr Fox, need not be forever.)

On the other fluffy foot, if we ARE going to do a full reshuffle, it might (FINALLY!) be time to promote Ms Lynne Featherweight to, er, Lynne Heavyweight! The Conservatories would probably want one of their own to take over from Mr Danny as Treasury Number Two (Mr Michael Borogrove probably – which would make an appropriate opening for Lady Lynne as Education Secretary). Alternatively, Lovely Sarah Teather to be promoted within the Education Department. Or even fabulous Ms Jo Winsome to do, well, just about anything!

I realise this leaves Mr Danny out in the cold. I like Danny very much but just now I think he would benefit from some time reconnecting to the Party (or decontaminating his reputation from accusations of having gone native at the Treasury), so I'd suggest a "senior Party position" – our "Minister for Newsnight" – perhaps also taking in charge of policy development for the 2015 manifesto.

I remain COMPLETELY CONVINCED that Parliament CANNOT heal the problems of Great Britain until first we heal the problems with Parliament itself, the gaping poisonous wound that is the shortfall in our democracy in BOTH Houses. But so long as the Labour Party are going to be TOTALLY TWO-FACED on this – first voting for reform with their right fluffy feet, then promising support to the reactionary rebels with their FAR-right fluffy feet – then we need to move the Coalition forward with short-term measures instead. Breaking the Coalition rewards Hard Labour Opportunists AND their deceitful partners on the Conservatory reactionary right.

We CAN still walk away. That definitely has to still be on the table, and Mr Balloon needs to have that made PRETTY DARN CLEAR to him. He can't expect to give in to his rebels and give us nothing – that is NOT being a Prime Monster and he'd very soon find that he WASN'T a Prime Monster any more.

But neither do we need to be so set in stone over the Coalition Agreement that we cannot continuously look at what we have to offer in exchange for changing those terms.

Everyone KNOWS that Vince is the best man for the job of Chancellor. So let's give him the job and move on.


.

Day 4209: Lording It

Tuesday:

The House of Lords is a CANCER of PRIVILEGE at the heart of our Establishment. It needs to go.

How can we complain about UNACCOUNTABLE bankers manipulating interest rates for their own advantage or UNACCOUNTABLE media barons (haha very ironic) hacking the phones of innocent victims for a story to sell when we allow the very laws that govern us (and bankers! and newspapers!) to be made by an UNACCOUNTABLE bunch of self-interested, unrepresentative, largely-geriatric, probably-deluded, has-beens hand-picked by the Prime Monster and the Leader of the Opportunists?

WHO BENEFITS?

Not the PEOPLE of Great Britain, that's for sure.

There are the seventy-some Conservatories who SHOULD be RESIGNING their seats and facing by-election for LYING to their constituents in their 2010 manifesto. But there's no punishment for twisting words to mean anything you want them to mean (and if Mr Bunter Soames isn't a candidate for Humpty Dumpty then I'll eat a Conservatory manifesto). But there's no punishment for these people – quite the reverse, they are rewarded with publicity to make their safe seats safer (and the dinners to make their fat seats fatter) and, in the fullness of time, a safe seat for life in, yes, the Lords on their retirement (at least, so long as they can talk out the bill and ensure there's a plush taxpayer-funded retirement home still there for them).

There is the Labour Party, who OUGHT to be in danger of proving themselves UTTERLY UNFIT TO GOVERN, because they'd rather ARSE ABOUT in the House of Commons than act PROGRESSIVELY, in accordance with what they CLAIM to believe and in the interest of the COUNTRY. But there's no punishment for treating politics as a BIG OLD GAME and just adding to the CONTEMPT in which real people hold the whole process of government.

And that SERVES the Establishment too, encouraging people to DISENFRANCHISE THEMSELVES when they don't care about politics. People care about OUTCOMES – the Health Service, welfare, pensions, schools, whether the trains run on time. Or at all. But when politicians play stupid games – and our media have utterly failed us here by encouraging them to do this – it disconnects those outcomes from the process that is supposed to DELIVER. The mega-rich media owners prosper because they get good value entertainment but people suffer but they get entertainment instead of government.

(More - and BETTER - on "processes v outcomes" from Mr Andrew. Do read!)

Then there're the Lords themselves. Let's take Betty Boothroyd, since she's been mouthing off this week. She SHAMES herself and her record. She was Speaker of the House of Commons from 1992 to 2000 and therefore was Speaker during the debates over the Maastricht Treaty creating the European Union and the Scotland Act creating the devolved Scottish Parliament, either or both of which could be said to be a more substantial a constitutional change as the Lords Reform Bill. Did she denounce those changes as an "outrage"? Did she rebel against the use of programme motions then? No, she calmly wafted them through. She passed the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty on her own casting vote (unnecessarily as it turned out, but no qualms about needing a referendum there). No, it's only now – by an EXTRAORDINARY COINCIDENCE just when her OWN cushy seat is up for a touch of accountability – that she's up in arms.

This is what the House of Lords Club DOES – it turns decent people into HYPOCRITES and veneers our WORST politicians with ermine-edged nobility. As though that makes them RESPECTABLE. It makes them part of the ESTABLISHMENT, defenders of the STATUS QUO, and rewards them with a warm place to snooze and a decent London restaurant at country prices.

These people are given power and money – YOUR power and YOUR money – without asking your permission. Their hands are DIRTY. Yes, even the best of them. (Shirley, Ros, Paddy the many others who, I know, all work very hard and do good, but it's all built on SAND, and worse, it's built on LIES.)

So when they talk about "wisdom" and "tradition" ("tradition" here meaning "we've got away with it for so long, how dare you question us now") ask them "What gives you the RIGHT to pass laws over me?" And remember that their position is UTTERLY UNJUSTIFIABLE.

Because they have NO RIGHT to take your money or your power without your say so.

And for as long as we build our government on a system of doing favours for rewards, that hands out position without accountability, that lets people take POWER OVER YOU without legitimacy, then we will continue to live in a society that has darkness and corruption at its heart and we can expect to reap more Barclays and more Murdochs because they're just doing what the Establishment do.

Only smaller and cruder and THEY got found out.




Those TOP TEN anti-reform arguments in full:

1. "There's not been enough time for debate!"

Translation: there's just been nine months of open consultation that they couldn't be bothered to participate in and a cross-party committee on top of over a hundred years of discussion, but one more really good kick and they'll see it into the really long grass...

2. "They might challenge the legitimacy of the House of Commons"

Translation: if you make them more democratic it shows up the deficiencies in OUR legitimacy.

(aka: I can't bear to be challenged!)

What exactly is WRONG with the House of Lords CHALLENGING the House of Commons? Aren't they kind of SUPPOSED to do that? The legislation specifically states that the Commons will always get its way in the end.

3. "They won't be able to perform their role as a revising chamber"

Translation: I'm not singing from the same hymn sheet as "2".


4."I'm in favour of a proper democracy where the Lords is 100% elected!"

(also known as the "no one wanted THIS" argument.)

The Liberal Democrats want a 100% elected second chamber too but we also know that DEMOCRACY means COMPROMISE and the proposals in the bill aim to take into account the best ideas (and the red lines) of all parties to the consultation. This is supposed to be SYNTHESIS though there's an element of LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR too. If you're so SPECIAL and PRECIOUS that you won't accept ANYTHING except your own personally hand-crafted form of government then... you're probably going to have to buy your own island.

5. "We don't want to pay for more politicians!"

Good, because under these proposals you'd pay for FEWER politicians. About FOUR HUNDRED fewer. AND you'd get to elect them. A bit.

6. "It'll be a Parliament of Placemen!"

Well I'M pretty FURIOUS about losing STV for the Lords, but seriously, how are lists of names chosen by the Parties DIFFERENT from the present system of, er, a list of names chosen by the Parties? Plus appointed cross-benchers and totally unelected Bishops. Just like now!

At least the voters will get to choose the parties!

7. "You'll lose the wisdom of expert contributions"

Name five members of the House of Lords who have contributed EXPERT TESTIMONY to more than a couple of bills. Name TWO! Robert Winston may be great but, seriously, just how many Human Embryology bills do you NEED?

And what makes him an "expert" when it comes to the European Fisheries Act? Or the High Speed Rail Bill? Or the Business Regulations? Or tax loopholes? Or armed forces procurement? Or... continues ad infinitum.

8. "The quality of debate is so much better in the Lords than in the Commons"

So fluffy what? The House of Commons being broken is NO REASON not to fix the House of Lords. Oh, I was going to get the cooker fixed but the telly's on the blink so I guess I'll just keep eating cold cat-monster food from tins(!)

You don't get the jeers and juvenile behaviour in the Lords, it is true. But that's not because they're UNELECTED. It's because they're all ASLEEP! They manage to behave perfectly reasonably in the Scottish Parliament. Or the European Parliament. Or the American Senate. Mostly. And they're all ELECTED bodies.

The atmosphere in the House of Commons is like that because we ALLOW them to be like that. (It doesn't help that the ROOM is physically designed to be UNCOMFORTABLE and TOO SMALL and so PROVOKE conflict.)

9. "Er...."

10. "That's enough objections, Ed."

(No, not THAT Ed, obviously; Mr Milipede hasn't got enough objections but HE's going to vote against ANYWAY. Git.)


.

Day 4131: When is a Referendum NOT a Referendum?

Monday:



Surprisingly, the answer is NOT "when it's AJAR" because it's actually the OPPOSITE of ajar, it's a DELAYING TACTIC designed to hold the door to democracy CLOSED just that little bit longer.

The people who are AGAINST a democratically elected House of Lords KNOW that no one in their right minds would vote "NO" to Lords reform. So it is CLEAR that they are angling to SHIFT the debate OFF the simple, central fact: "if you're going to make laws over me I have a RIGHT to a say in whether your fluffy bottom gets a shiny red seat!"

We can ALREADY get a FLAVOUR of the sort of "NO" campaign that the anti-democrats want to run from the murmurings on the WEIRDER wings of the Conservatory Party. They want to portray it as PR by the "backdoor", a "sneaky" rerun of the AV choice that they claim was "already rejected". It was NOT. Mr Mark Reckons punctures these LIES.

NO ONE voted to reject a proportional system, 'cos AV ain't proportional, and the "No" campaign SAID SO last year.

You can bet your last bean that having FORCED a public vote, they will then play the "this is an EXPENSIVE WASTE of time when there are more important things to do" card that worked so well for them in their vicious and deceitful anti-AV propaganda.

The TRUTH is that there is NOTHING more important than sorting out HOW we make the decisions about running the county. It doesn't matter whether you think that the most important thing is HEALTH or EDUCATION or TAX or FOREIGN POLICY or POLICE or PUBLIC NUDITY – the decisions about how to deal with ALL of those are made by the people we elect. Or in the case of the House of Lords Club, the people we DON'T elect! Which means getting how we elect them right has to be sorted FIRST.

The UNGODLY alliance between the WACKY-WING of the Tories and the closet-conservative REACTIONARIES in the Hard Labour party is based on their old fashioned sense of ENTITLEMENT.

They just cannot get over the idea that PEOPLE have a RIGHT to say how they are governed. That the "social contract" between people and government has OBLIGATIONS on THEIR side too.

They don't like the COALITION because it's an example of how Governments ought to work: messy, certainly, but with policies being argued out IN PUBLIC and with the public able to see what's being decided.

And they don't like the idea of an ELECTED House of Lords because it's the last bastion of "we know better than you" against actually having to do what their BOSSES, you me and everyone else in Great Britain, actually tell them to do!



Mr Milipede – presumably as part of an ongoing bid to plagiarise EVERY television comedy going – calls this sort of government an "OMNI-SHAMBLES" because policies are being found wanting and rejected.

I guess Mr Milipede preferred the "good old days" of New Labour when policies would go wrong, but the Government would use their massive, gerrymandered majority to RAM THEM THROUGH ANYWAY.

Oh yes, how well we remember those TRIUMPHS of STRONG government: the 10p Tax debacle; the NHS database bully-balls-up; the almost entirely circular education policy that abolished one sort of academy before creating another; the classic I.D.iot card exercise in burning money; or everybody's favourite, the murderous and illegal invasion of a country that was no threat to us at all based on a LIE by the Prime Monster.

The word "OMNI-SHAMBLES" – lest Mr Milipede forget – is uttered by a character widely believed to be NOT-IN-ANY-WAY based on Mr Alistair Henchman of Dodgy Dossier infamy.

If THAT's "strong government" I'm all in FAVOUR of a House of Lords with a bit more MANDATE to say "not in our name!"



The case for an ELECTED House of Lords, and for a PROPORTIONALLY ELECTED elected House of Lords, is pretty much UNANSWERABLE. So much so that ALL the Parties elected to the House of Commons said that's what they would do at the last election.

An appointed chamber means PATRONAGE. It means CRONYISM. There is NO SUCH THING as an "independent" appointments commission – shame on you, Lord Steel – someone is ALWAYS going to "know someone". Being a "close personal friend" of the Prime Monster – or the "independent" head of the commission – is not a better reason for getting a free pass into the legislature than your great-great granny being a "close personal friend" of the monarch.

We're told we will lose an "expert" house. Well expertise can be highly overrated. You may be a brilliant neurosurgeon, but how many days of the week is the House of Lords legislating on neurosurgery, eh? We want brilliant GENERALISTS, not brilliant SPECIALISTS. Saying you're a great expert in ONE field is as good as saying you're as IGNORANT as the rest of us ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE!

But fine, if you believe that your expertise makes you better qualified to make laws, go right ahead and use it as one of your selling point when you STAND FOR ELECTION. If you're right, it will help you win.



We didn't need a referendum to enact the Parliament Act in 1911. We didn't need a referendum to enact the Parliament Act in 1949. We don't need one now.

It seems ASTONISHING that people who CLAIM to be defending "the way that these things work" seem so anxious to RIDE ROUGHSHOD over, well, the way these things work. Surely it's difficult to defend the status quo of an unwritten constitution when you keep MAKING IT UP as you go along! And that they now want to waste MILLIONS of POUNDS of YOUR money, charging you for the PRIVILEGE of having a say over whether you should have a say... it beggars belief as well as the exchequer.

Let's just accept that it's the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY now and probably time to move on from an EIGHTEENTH CENTAURY Parliament. You were ALL elected on a manifesto pledge to do this, so pass the bill and let's get on and elect ALL* the people who make our laws.



*To a certain value of "all"! 80% for fluff's sake...!
.

Day 3828: The Deadly Sin of Sloth

Saturday:


We wake at the tellingly-lazy hour of half-past-eleven to hear the Weak (sic) In Westminster debating the House of Lords Club and NEVER have we heard such a smug, selfish, self-interested, inward-looking, ignorant proof that the place needs totally abolishing down to the ground!

Last weekend, we were with our families for Daddies Day, and – as can happen – one of our relatives went off on a bit of a "right-wing rant". "The trouble with this country is lack of leadership!" was the thesis. This, of course, is total HONK; the REAL problem of this country is CONTENTMENT.

The "strong leadership" canard itself implies lack of fault in the PEOPLE. I mean even if we didn't all know that "strong leadership" is a shortcut to poor by which I mean insane policy choices – Iraq, Poll Tax, World War Part II and we're straight into Godwin's Law – the implication is that the fault is in the LEADERS not providing answers rather than the PEOPLE for not getting off their fluffy bottoms to CHANGE things!

And people DON'T want, can't be BOTHERED to want CHANGE.

And I don't even mean Great Britain; I mean England. Because if you look at Scotland, whether you agree with independence or oppose it, there is a real yearning for change and a seizing of their own destiny, while England is content just to sink into our own apathy.

With basically only TWO political arguments – "time for change!" and "don't rock the boat" – you can make a case that the recent LOSS of the AV referendum, and certainly the insultingly low turnout, are a sign that people are complacently content as they are. Enough people are pretty much enough satisfied that things are "okay enough as they are". There is no… OOMPH for getting behind something new.

That same lack of drive may even explain the poor recovery from recession. The case made is "oh, people are just struggling to carry on in the face of austerity". No, people are wrapping the blankets around them and trying to IGNORE it; they're not going out there and starting new enterprises FIGHTING it!

The terrible thought strikes me that the one success of Thatcherism was not its economic insight (which was non-existent) nor its populism (which mostly came about by accident) but that it made SO MANY people MISERABLE that it meant they had to DO something, to FIGHT FOR something. The misery lead to STRUGGLE and the struggle led to on the one fluffy foot an EXPLOSION of creative arts from the oppression and injustice and yet on the other fluffy foot an explosion of entrepreneurialism and invention from the wideboys and chancers who took their opportunity. They may have been "nouvs" and absolutely ghastly, but they created new wealth and dynamism in a way that the settled establishment didn't.

The contented establishment have used the decades since to SMOTHER that. THAT is why Alan Sugar is now a LORD, and comfortably PARASITISING the creative insanity of his "Apprentices".

It is all too telling that the only things that will get our UNIONS out on the streets nowadays are a threat to make their PILLOWS slightly less PLUMPTIOUS!

(At least the students were rioting for the right to DO something!)

And the House of Lords is TOTALLY symbolic of all of that: a warm and cosy retirement palace, you don't even have to turn up, where you can be coddled while you congratulate yourself on your own wisdom.

So we woke up hearing the voices of Mr Fraser Half-Nelson guests Dame Joan Bakewell Tart and Mr Michael "FU" Dobbs telling us how SILLY it was of Captain Clegg to consider replacing the House of Lords with something THAT WORKS.

"There are so many people who want to get in, even though there is no pay."

Oh, well have you considered the possibility of having some sort of DECISION about who gets in and who stays in? If people WANT it so badly then they can stand up and prove they deserve it. Oh no, they don't want to go to the trouble of obtaining a MANDATE. They want it handed to them on a plate. Together with a cat-trim bed-blanket to prove they're part of the CLUB.

Yes, you'll only end up with "elected politicians"… as opposed to the UNELECTED politicians that we've got there now!

What could be WORSE in your governing political class than this exceeding smug self-assurance that they're not "politicians" they're "wise people" just because they don't have to face an electorate?

The House of Lords is ENTIRELY composed of "the ESTABLISHMENT", talking to themselves and most ABOUT themselves. Frankly, the House of COMMONS is ALMOST AS BAD, but at least elections mean there is a REMOTE CHANCE that someone INTERESTING can CRASH THE PARTY.

"You couldn't have people of 20 in the House of Lords…" says Joan Bakewell, JOAN BAKEWELL!, "…or it would turn this place into a bear pit!"

Well of course how shocking, we'd best not threaten to interrupt the gentle snoring of our self-appointed gerontocracy with anything that might approach REPRESENTATION for people less than a quarter of your age. It might disturb the horses.

"There are more important things to deal with."

You know, there really ARE. But Parliament doesn't debate them.

The problems that our Parliament chooses to trouble itself with are TRIVIAL, quite literally they are reduced to arguing over how to manage our pensions. This country that once RULED the WORLD, our greatest aspiration now amounts to RETIREMENT.

THIS is why SLOTH is DEADLY. It is killing us.

PS:

This week Daddy Richard read a really DEPRESSING piece of analysis about the Space Race to the Moon. I'm not saying it was WRONG; it's well-argued and well-written (and I recommend the "TARDIS rude-room" blog as a whole!) but it was depressing.

Not depressing because it claims that the Moon landing was basically a WILLY-WAVING exercise by the military-industrial complex as a proxy for fighting a nuclear war. (And let's face it a Saturn V rocket is a pretty IN YOUR FACE statement of "my Freudian rocket is bigger than your Freudian rocket"!).

No, this piece was depressing because of the suggestion that space is OVER. We've done that and we're BORED now. Exploration is for geeks and weirdoes; there are "more important" things to deal with here on Earth.

NO.

There are only two possibilities: life exists in great abundance everywhere in the Universe; or life is vanishingly rare and may be unique to this Earth.

To the very best of our knowledge, from all we have leaned so far, there is NO evidence for the former.

That makes the life on Earth the most VITAL and PRECIOUS thing that there is anywhere. And our most pressing duty must be to take life to the stars.

Chinese philosophy tells us there are two competing impulses, two "directions": "inwards" and "outwards". "Outwards" is chaotic, aggressive, creative, exploratory, inventive. "Inwards" is peaceful, calm, settled, content.

The "West", and that basically meant the British Empire and later the Americans, used to be synonymous with "outward" and the "East", namely China, with "inward". And we PITIED China for it: for being so INDOLENT, so fat and lazy and OLD.

And look at us now.
.

Day 2753: Surely it can't be THAT difficult to elect the House of Lords Club?

Tuesday:


So, the Sinister Minister has laid out his plans for the Upper Chamber. It's going to be DEATHTRAPS isn't it…

Well, no, it is (once again!) a decision to put off making a decision.

The announcement that there WILL be an elected House of Lords Club… IF the Labour wins the next General Election is actually only to say that there MIGHT be, not to say that they are going to include some weird trigger clause in current legislation.

And why NOT leave it until 2011? After all, 100 years of waiting for reform is a good round number.


I hardly need to explain to Liberals what is OUGHT to be: elections by single transferable vote with large multi-member constituencies, perhaps approximating to counties, elected by thirds, once only for a single term equivalent to three (fixed term) Parliaments.

Why?

Single transferable vote: because it's the fairest way to put people not politicians in charge of who they choose to represent them. Anything involving lists (and that includes alternative votes and tops ups) is a recipe for Party Fixers.

Large multi-member constituencies: to ensure a spread of representation, so that the most possible people can feel that they have succeeded in getting THEIR representative elected.

Elected by thirds: ironically to weaken the mandate of the upper chamber – two thirds of the members will always be "out of date" compared to the House of Commons, but equally to slow the way that power is shifted from one party to another to improve the quality of reflection that the Upper Chamber is supposed to bring.

Once only: so that there is no question of their Lordships being beholden to vested interests and party machinery, no reason for them to pander to populism just to retain their seat, 'cos they know from the start that they ain't gonna.


Of course, this may be obvious to US, but the other Parties are too interested in maintaining their COSY CONSENSUS to do it.

Governments come in full of fire with a strong mandate, just when they COULD deliver real earn-your-place-in-history changes. And then MYSTERIOUSLY they DON'T! Of course they'll SAY that they have "more important" things to do like changing the headed notepaper or banning something, but the truth is that at the moment of being elected, that's when the STATUS QUO has just delivered them everything they want, so if it ain't broke why fix it? And so what if the House of Lords Club is a bit of a pain from time to time. They can always clobber them with a Parliament Act to get stuff through. By the time they reach the DYING DAYS of their administration, when they realise that BUGGINS TURN is inevitably going to be the other fella, they are too weak and dithering to do anything anyway.

One or other of them, the Tweedle-Tories, may talk about "the loss of community" or "a broken society" but the heart of our community is a BROKEN POLITICS, one that is built on foundations of patronage and unearned privilege.

That is why you need a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Government, because unlike the other Parties we TRUST PEOPLE, so we don't want a system fixed in favour of anyone EXCEPT you.

Day 2648: Harriet's Fool

Tuesday: Surely, surely THIS has got to be an April wind-up! Ms Harriet Harpic quizzed for ten minutes by Mr Humpy on the The Today Programme is a waste of everyone's life most days, but today it was almost beyond satire. She is wearing a policeperson's anti-stab jacket. So WHAT: it is a PHOTO OPPORTUNITY, you monkeys, not some kind of surrender to ANARCHY in the UK! On a day when there are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT things to be discussing it just seems a bit BONKERS. In other news: Committee of OAP's from the House of Lords Club says: "We don't like immigrants much!" Coming soon, House of Lords Club report on "Why aren't things as good as they used to be" blames "Kids Today!"

Day 2265: Elect the Elephant, part deux

Thursday:


Last week I told you all about how the MPs had voted to make the House of Lords Club be all elected.

I had a good old look at the numbers and it turned out that the Labour and the Conservatories are split down the middle, Lord Blairimort only bothered to vote once, Mr Balloon is all over the place and only the Liberal Democrats are united and have their act together.

Well, now their worthy lordships have voted too and they are NOT SO KEEN on having to stand for election and let people kick them out if they are rubbish.

So I shall have a look at how the parties divided in the UPPER HOUSE too!


The first thing to say is that EVEN THOUGH the Liberal Democrats were not so united in the House of Lords Club as we were in the House of Commons, we were the ONLY party with a MAJORITY against an all elected Upper House, AND a MAJORITY in favour of an 80% elected or a 100% elected Upper House. While 20 or so of our Lords and Ladies sat this one out, and up to another 15 voted THE WRONG WAY(!) there were at least three or four times as many Liberal Democrats in the lobbies for less PATRONAGE and more DEMOCRACY.

Getting it COMPLETELY the wrong way around, an absolute majority of Conservatory Peers voted FOR unelected and AGAINST every single option for elected lords. In fact this was over 60% of Conservatories in every case, except for the 80% elected option which managed to entice a whole 22 of their ermine-clad number… while two-and-a-half times as many abstained!

United the Conservatories may be, but unfortunately it is in OPPOSITION to their so-called Leader, Mr Balloon, who you may recall voted AGAINST an unelected chamber and FOR 80% and 100%. Perhaps someone got their WIRES CROSSED somewhere. Either that or Mr Balloon cannot control his own party!

(You would have to be FAR MORE CYNICAL than fluffy me to suggest that Mr Balloon merely POSED as pro-democracy, safe in the knowledge that his DINOSAUR TENDENCY would knock it into touch for him!)

The Conservatories – they say one thing in one Place and the opposite in the Other Place.


Not that GRINNING MANIAC Lord Blairimort – strangely not voting in person! – had much to SMILE about either, as his own Peers also declined to follow the script, instead singing their own tune and choosing to go off message. All at once!

With a hundred of the Labour Lords, almost half, voting to remain unelected and another sixty-three not voting, fewer than a quarter actually supported any election at all. In fact fewer than an EIGHTH of the Labour peers were willing to support the 50% or 60% elected options. And only 40 (that's fewer than a fifth) supported the 80% option. (Though in fairness, since Tony has filled the House with his cronies entirely fairly increased the representation of the Labour, that was more actual votes in favour than the Lib Dems.)

The vote for 100% elected seems to have been a bit of a special case for the Labour, though. (The Conservatories were OBVIOUSLY massively against!) The Labour, however, were split 60:83 – still a majority against the motion (unlike the Liberal Lords) but much narrower.

The issue is further muddled, though, by sixteen of the Labour – Lord Ahmed, Baroness Andrews, Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Cunningham of Felling, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lord Harris of Haringey, Baroness Howells of St. Davids, Lord Jones, Lord Maxton, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Lord Radice, Lord Rooker, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Lord Truscott, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Woolmer of Leeds – who managed to vote for a 100% UNELECTED chamber AND for a 100% ELECTED chamber.

Let us be FAIR – it must be very CONFUSING and it was a LONG NIGHT. And three of the Liberal Democrat peers managed to do the SAME: Lord Methuen, Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and Lord Watson of Richmond, I hang my fluffy head in SHAME!

(And while we are at it, FOUR of the ELEVEN Conservatories who voted for a completely democratic House of Lords Club had ALREADY voted for a completely undemocratic one. The Earl of Caithness, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lord Inglewood and Lord Lucas were the ones having it BOTH WAYS. Which kind of means only SEVEN Conservatories ACTUALLY MEANT IT!)

This is all a bit BIZARRE. People said that this happened in the Commons vote too, and that some MPs wanted to make the bill the most extreme in order to guarantee that the Lords would block it. Perhaps these Lords have the same idea: are they trying to provoke THE QUEEN into blocking the bill?!


Anyway, the great thing about the House of Lords Club – we are always being told – is that there are more voices to be heard than JUST the "traditional" parties.

Actually, only about half of the crossbenchers gave us the VALUABLE BENEFIT of their non-partisan wisdom by voting. Which is a good advert for how IMPORTANT they themselves think they are to the chamber. They were pretty much 9 to 1 in favour of all appointed and similarly against any percent of elected. The 202 crossbenchers representing an ENTIRELY APPOINTED 28% of the current chamber.

The Lord sitting for the Green-Welly Party and the two Conservatories who defected to the UKPNuts all voted for 100% appointed and then against 50:50. After that, his Green Lordship and one of their UKPNutty Lordships went to bed, though the other UKPNut kept up the votes against increased democracy by voting against 60% and 80% elected before he too called it a night. We might have already guessed that the anarcho-collectivist Green-Eyed-Monster Party would be pro-central control (no LEADERS but a central committee to tell us HOW WE MUST LIVE), but it is NICE to see that restoring powers to the British People from Europe does not go as far as actually restoring powers to the British People, then.


Disappointing as it may have been to have the House of Lords Club vote to remain an archaic institution, undermined by sleaze and overrun by patronage, there were still some refreshing moments.

For those who like the sound of the SCHADENFREUDE SONG, the biggest beating of the night went, once again, to Lord Blairimort and Mr Man O' Straw's preferred option of 50% elected: 50% cash in brown envelope.

Or, on a more POSITIVE note, even though it was defeated, the largest vote in the content lobby (and the smallest majority against) went to the 100% elected option. Yes, their Lordships may be three to one against the idea of elections, but those who are convinced are REALLY convinced. Good for them.

I'm rather afraid that the rest of you are going to have to get ready for the PARLIAMENT ACT.

Day 2257: Elect the Elephant!

Wednesday:


The campaign must start today!

A House of Lords Club for the New Millennium. And VICE VERSA!

Yes, I want to get my fluffy bottom on a nice red leather seat. I will BE that elephant in the room! I am the new Lord Woolsack!

There is a SNAG: Lord Blairimort is unlikely to bring in legislation that will allow the standing for parliament by (a) seven-year-olds [R: six-year-olds] (b) elephants (c) soft toys.

Therefore, I have a PLAN! I will HYPNOTISE Daddy Richard into standing for Lordliness and he can act as my PUPPET!

Who wants to help?



Parliament has decided to sweep aside the last remnant of the Old Republic and… hang on… that's backwards. The power to appoint cronies is actually being taken AWAY from the evil emperor and given back to the only people who can really be expected to decide who is best to govern: all of us.

Personally, I was very pleased to see the huge support received for the 100% elected choice. This will make it really rather difficult for Mr Jack Man O' Straw to come back to the Commons with plans for anything less – though I do not doubt he will try to wheedle it back to the 80% option.

Incidentally, that is NOT to do down people who have a GENUINE belief in a small number of appointed peers. It's just that Mr Man O' Straw does not believe in 80% for a moment.

Mr Rob, for example, makes a JOLLY GOOD case for the good work done by hard working appointed lords, particularly from the cross-benches, and suggests that this should be reason to retain them.

But I keep coming back to the idea that if you want to have a say in the laws that run people's lives then you ought to be willing to let those people have a say in whether they want you or not.

Yes, I know that that means that the people who very often succeed are the ones who know oratory or party hackery rather than quantum jacket-potato baking or how to hand rear a rare Guatemalan albino pigmy-lemur, but it is still the CHOICE of the people rather than some distant panel of at-best-vaguely-accountable "great and good".

Or as Mr Balloon's second favourite person after Ms Polly Toytown once put it:

"Democracy is the worst system of government apart from all the others."

Perhaps we could have these people form a PANEL of EXPERT WITNESSES: people who are able to contribute their expertise in the Upper House by speaking in debates or cross-examining on committees but not actually voting. Goodness, we have enough Lordly titles to go around: non-voting experts could be called BARONS (since there won't BE any more barons as they're the NOT HEREDITARY ones).

The VOTING members could just be called PEERS, because that is what they would be: OUR PEERS.

Or maybe that is SILLY and we should not be creating FIRST and SECOND class members of Parliament.

But if you want to HAVE a vote, you ought to let people to VOTE for you.


Mr Man O' Straw, of course, had very precise instructions from Lord Blairimort: give them enough democracy to look like we mean it and not enough to damage my ability to pay for the next election govern. Hence his heavily pushing his favoured 50:50 model.

Of course, the 50:50 model was the most HEAVILY DEFEATED vote of the night.

You can imagine the scene on the carpet in the Downing Street BUNKER late last night. Mr Man O' War stands there trembling while Lord Blairimort spells it out:

"Well… Jack… I was, y'know… going to kick you upstairs for your failure, but… gosh… looks like that's no longer an option! Furious eyes. Appointed haircut. Toe-on-the-pedal-that-works-the-piranha-pool twitch."

Ironically, this was also the one vote all night that Lord Blairimort deigned to turn up for in person. This just goes to show that the once ALL-CONQUERING Lord Blairimort is now so fatally out of touch that he can only carry just over a third of the Labour with him on a key policy.

Was his successor any better at judging the mood? Well, Mr Frown allowed himself to be seen in the lobbies voting against the wholly unelected upper chamber and then later to go though the aye lobby for 80%. Principled or canny? Or just a desire to stick one on Lord Blairimort by visibly saying "we should go further than you want, Tony"?

In fact the only potential Prime Minister to vote on each and every division was our own Sir Mr the Merciless.

(Mr Balloon clearly couldn't guess which way the wind was blowing on 60% and had to sit that one out!)

And it's very obvious that the whole Liberal Democratic party was united behind him on this – entirely as it should be since the LONG overdue reform of the British Constitution is a VERY important way to give more protection to people from over-mighty governments like Lord Blairimort's. And indeed, reform of the House of Lords Club is something we were kind of in the middle of when we were, er, asked to sit out the next NINETY YEARS of government. So it's about time we got stuck back in!

The Conservatories, on the other fluffy foot, were entirely ALL OVER THE PLACE and succeeded in being – on balance – AGAINST EVERY SINGLE ONE of the options given. Yes, even on the 80% elected option that Mr Balloon voted for, he only had the following of 80 of his fellows, while 98 were in the lobby against him, merrily cancelling him out.

They were just as split down the middle (80 to 103) on the all elected option, while other options were rejected rather more resoundingly.

So basically, the Conservatories would like either a super-quango or a nearly-properly democratic house but nothing in between and can't actually quite bring themselves to support either preference.

It's so nice to see that they're so FULLY committed to the representative democracy of the Twenty-first Twentieth Nineteenth Century… er… [R: insert famous "Spitting Image" Margaret Thatcher line here!]

Do PLEASE call us when you have made up your minds.

The Labour were no more united – except when it came to giving Mr Man O' War a decent kicking – but the voting did show something of a progression, starting with the Labour members two-to-one rejecting an all elected house and gradually moving into parity so that when it got to the 80% elected option they were 157 in favour to 162 against. A net vote of 5 against. Yes, on the 80% vote, the Labour cancelled themselves out even more effectively than the Conservatories.

This means, if you look at it, that that 38 majority on the call for an 80% elected House of Lords is pretty much ALL Liberal Democrats.

(Thank you also Plaid Cymru, Ms Claire "Independent Labour" Snort and Mr Gorgeous "Respect" Pussycat-Leotard for your various 5 votes in favour.)


Finally there is the HUGE swing around as the Labour turned on their heads and voted two-to-one in favour of a 100% elected chamber.

(This is, of course, quite consistent with the two-to-one vote against a 100% UNelected chamber.)

Mr Alex Salmon parades his troupe of six Scottish Nasties though the aye lobby to make some sort of point (they've been voting No, or possibly Nae, all evening); the Conservatories fall entirely to pieces, the Liberal Democrats remain united and we all go home laughing.

Whatever some people might say about it all being a trick by anti-reformers to wreck any possible House of Lords bill, you have to say it certainly LOOKS consistent with the will of the House being in favour of a fully elected democratic upper chamber.

PS

Actually, I say we all went home, but in fact there was one last vote on the order paper: the decision on whether to get rid of the remaining 90 (plus 2) Hereditary House of Lords Club members.

This seems a pretty obvious step to take if you are moving to a new and democratic second chamber.

So, rather to my fluffy surprise, the measure to abolish the remaining Hereditaries was HEAVILY DEFEATED: 241 in favour to 329 against. Or, more accurately: ALL the Liberals and Conservatories in favour and ALL the Labour against[*].

([*]okay, five Labour did vote for abolition and eight Conservatories did vote against but in context this is almost nothing!)

So, the Labour united to NUKE their OWN suggestion to finish off the my-great-granddad-knew-Nell-Gwynne vote.

Why would they DO that?

Well, with our support Mrs Theresa May-NOT for the Conservatories HAD amended Mr Man O' Straw's proposal slightly so that the last Hereditary Lords would lose their votes only when the newly elected House took their place. Which seems fair enough, doesn't it?

After all, if they all suddenly went TODAY, then – because 42 of them are Conservatories – it would change the balance of the House of Lords Club. In fact, it would give the Labour a majority in the upper House (for the first time ever) and put a stop to any INCONVENIENT checks on Lord Blairimort's ABSOLUTE POWER.

But, NO ONE cold want such an UNFAIR thing to happen, could they?

Day 2230: The House that Jack Built

Thursday:


House of Lords Club to be renamed: Nelson Mandela House!


In The Avengers, "The House that Jack Built"is a house designed by a DIABOLICAL MASTERMIND to trap Mrs Peel and drive her INSANE!

The Labour have come up with a VERY SIMILAR idea!


The 10th of August this year will, of course, see the NINETY-SIXTH anniversary of the first PARLIAMENT ACT and, give or take an interruption for two WORLD WARS a COLD WAR and the STAR WARS trilogy, people have been spending a awful lot of time since not bothering to finish what the Liberals started.

When Lord Blairimort and the Labour came to power, reform of the House of Lords Club was one of their seventy-two topmost top priorities. Since in reality he genuinely did not give two hoots, Lord B settled for booting out all but 92 of their hereditary lordships who had been dozing there since 1705, flogged off a whole lot more peerages on the sly and left it to muddle through with a severe warning that it better not mess with his desire to make a new thing illegal every single day.

(Obviously, they DID mess with him, and thank goodness, or we would be even more stuffed than we are. And I speak as a stuffed toy!)

So, every couple of years since then, someone has had another go at restarting the process. A Royal Commission under Lord Wakeham in 1999, a joint committee set up in 2001, the range of votes in 2003: seven choices, none selected, a cross-party group led by Sainted Robin Cook and rather-more-sinning Fatty Clarke in 2005.

Now, one of Lord Blairimort's less favoured cronies, Mr Jack Man O'Straw, has tried his hand.

Mr Man O'Straw ought to be good at houses, since he was once Home Secretary.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that Lord Blairimort's first three Home Secretaries were The Scarecrow (brain of straw); the Tin Man (no heart) and the Cowardly Lion (speaks for itself)? I suppose that makes poor Mr Dr Reid the Wizard of Odd – big bald head, hides behind the curtain, not actually as magical as his propaganda puts about. Watch out for the scene where Lord Blairimort puts him in a hot air balloon to drift away forever!


Anyway, I WAS going to try and explain all Mr Man O'Straw's ideas to you, but the Elect the Lords people have prepared this very helpful Pie Diagram that does it all much better instead:

Being a man of very little modesty, Mr Man O'Straw has hailed his own suggestions as the "best opportunity to reform the Lords for many decades". Which rather proves that Lord Blairimort has not really been TRYING very hard!

Needless to say, Mr Man O'Straw's ideas are NOT VERY GOOD.

The things wrong can be simply listed as:

• Too many Lords still appointed (patronage)

• Elected Lords come from a party list (more patronage)

• Anglican bishops get to keep free seats (nasty frocks… and even more patronage).

Not everyone was as full of praise for Mr Man O'Straw's efforts as he was himself, though.


We saw the Baroness Kennedy (Mr Charles in drag) debating with Lord Lippe, (the Labour peer and SPECTRE henchman), (and NOT Lord Livsey, (the Liberal Democrat!) as one correspondent of the Newsnight Show seemed to think).

Lord Lippe thought that the House of Lords Club should have lots of appointed members – like him – so that they would have appropriate expertise for a wide range of debates.

He then thought he had scored a coup when he accused Baroness Kennedy of only being in the House of Lords Club for 41% of votes. Lord Lippe himself has a very commendable 71% attendance record, where he almost always does exactly as Lord Blarimort tells him. (Unless it's a hunting bill.)

But Baroness Kennedy struck back, saying that it was more important to attend the votes that MATTERED, the ones where (to use his own argument back at him) her expertise was appropriate.

Baroness K said that ACCOUNTABILITY was key, and that only comes from getting ELECTED. I agree: to be legitimate legislators you have to give the people the option to get rid of you and choose someone else.

Lord Lippe said it was a JOLLY GOOD THING that the government's proposals meant that no one could get rid of HIM and that he would continue to give everyone the benefit of his expertise by always being there to vote for the government NO MATTER WHAT!

Thus concisely proving the urgent need for an all elected chamber.


Seriously, there is nothing but SNOBBERY involved in saying that we need a SPECIAL PANEL of IMPORTANT PEOPLE to pick other IMPORTANT PEOPLE who would be able to run the country better than anyone that we ORDINARY folks might choose. That is patronising NANNY-KNOWS-BEST talk! That is what the word 'patronage' means! So you can guess what Lord Blairimort's preferred option is, can't you!



Parliament is going to have the choice of how many of the new Lords should be elected. Their choices will be: all of them, 80%, 60%, half-and-half (Mr Man O'Straw's choice – see Pie above), 40%, 20% or none at all.

Mr Man O'Straw wants to avoid a repeat of the 2003 debacle when, in spite of the 80% elected option obviously being the House's preferred option (coming within 3 votes of actually passing), all options ended up being rejected, leaving us stuck with an all-appointed Lords even though this was much more defeated in the votes. He has therefore proposed that MP's should have a ballot where they list their preferences in order. There have been protests that this is FAR TOO COMPLICATED.

That is NONSENSE. It is just AV. A baby elephant of 5 could do it! That will not leave MANY MPs struggling.

And since the general public are generally a bit brighter than their MP's, I don't see why a voting by preference scheme should be okay for MP's but not for everyone else. Forget these daft lists – they are only a terrible method for the parties to keep tight control on the sort of people that we the people get to choose as our representatives. Let the Lords stand on their own merits and in their own names. Perhaps people would like the chance to vote for SOME Liberal Democrats and not others. I am CERTAIN that they would like to choose some of the Labour and not others! Maybe they would rather vote for someone of no party at all. Like Mr Balloon.


There is also the question of the new name for the House of Lords Club.

Mr Man O'Straw's suggestion was "The Reformed House" which makes it sound like a rehab centre run by the teetotal society.

So the BBC have asked people to write in with better suggestions. The WITANGEMOT sounds fun!

Personally, I think that the new name should be the ELEPHANT HOUSE! (And the House of Commons to be renamed the Monkey House, obviously.)