April 02, 2006
Buy a virtual peerage!
Using an idea pioneered by the Labour Party, Elect the Lords are selling virtual peerages. Starting from just GBP 10 for a virtual barony (your choice of title, latin motto, coat of arms, certificate of authenticity etc.) prices are competitive with the domains sold by Network Solutions, GoDaddy etc.
Sales are completely clean and above board. The small type says “The Elect the Lords campaign regrets that it cannot accept a loan as payment.”
electhelords.org.uk/pages/buypeerage.html
Posted by Simon Holledge at 09:34 AM | TrackBack
March 27, 2006
‘The primacy of the Commons’
With renewed interest in the reform of the House of Lords, the catch phrase of the week seems to be the ‘primacy of the Commons’. Blair, Brown, Kenneth Clarke and probably a number of others have referred to it in recent days.
Members of the House of Commons are determined to maintain the power of the Commons, i.e. their own power. They have the difficulty of trying to reform the Lords (in a seemingly democratic way) and at the same time making it subservient.
However for those of us who are not in the Commons, ‘primacy’ is not an issue. We just want effective democractic institutions. The relative power of an elected lower house vis-à-vis an elected upper house is not a problem. Indeed it seems entirely natural that an elected upper house should become more powerful than an unreformed, unelected, and basically corrupt assembly.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4848618.stm
Posted by Simon Holledge at 11:46 AM | TrackBack
August 19, 2005
Robin Cook as a closet atheist
Robin Cook emeerges as a closet atheist, who declined an invitation to become an honorary associate of the National Secular Society because of the atmosphere of ‘religious correctness’ in the government.
Maybe ‘Born-again Labour’ would be a better description than ‘New Labour’?
observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1549550,00.html
Posted by Simon Holledge at 04:35 PM | TrackBack
August 12, 2005
Democracy Vs meritocracy in the House of Lords
Among the 38 writers who agreed to blog about Lords Reform for the Elect the Lords campaign, Nosemonkey, with impressive chutzpah, has argued against electing the Lords! He writes:
“The Lords does not need democracy - it needs meritocracy.”
I thought that was where we started off. After all, the aristocracy were well educated, nicely spoken, had good family connections, international contacts, knew a lot about farming, were occasionally artistic etc. However Nosemonkey explains his ideas about the best way to select the Lords :
” … the 1917 Bryce report proposed a House three-quarters elected indirectly on a regional basis, one quarter chosen by a joint standing committee of both houses, with a proportion of hereditary peers and bishops. I’d obviously ignore the elected part. I’d scrap the hereditary peers. I’d scrap the majority of bishops …. So we’d be left with the joint standing committee of both houses to make appointments… .”
Selection by the joint standing committee of both houses sounds like a glorified system of horse trading, but he goes on:
“If we accept that the Lords’ prime purpose is to scrutinise legislation that will affect the country … If we accept that their prime purpose is to ensure that we end up with the very best laws possible, I do not think that this can be done within a party-political system. … And that is what - if we had an elected upper House - we would end up with, because elections cost time and money. Those standing for election would need the kind of support that only a party could provide.”
Why should the second chamber should be restricted to revising? Surely that is committee work. Second chambers in other countries are not used just to revise legislation. The purpose of reform should be to improve the performance of parliament as a whole, by making it more responsive, more democratic, and more efficient, while eliminating the corruption that is implicit in patronage. (I happen to believe that parliament is inefficient but that’s outside the scope of this piece.)
Political parties are there to enable ordinary individuals to become politicians. Without them only rich people could stand for election.
” … once you are beholden to an electorate, and rely on re-election to maintain your position, you are less able to act on your conscience, instead having to second-guess what the people who will be voting for you might want.”
True, but this problem can be addressed easily enough by restricting members to a lengthy single term. That way they would be able to act on their consciences without looking to re-election.
“The peers … are supposed to be the country’s best and brightest. They include experts in almost every field on which the government may legislate: economics, law, science, media - you name it, there are members of the House of Lords who are world-leaders on the subject at hand. Would we be able to ensure such a spread of expertise through election?”
I don’t know how best to describe Blair’s latest batch of appointments but ‘best and brightest’ and ‘world leaders’ don’t come immediately to mind. The present crew who turn up (or not) in their thespian-style robes and coronets are a mixture of ex lobby fodder MPs, civil servants, clerics, lawyers and aristocrats etc. with the odd genuine meritocrat, appointed to distract attention from big donor appointees, looking conspicuously like a fish out of water. Many of the lords would frankly be better employed doing shows for tourists, than attempting to contribute to politics.
In any case, the place for experts is in the government ministries, helping to research the issues and draft legislation. Politicians, by definition, have to be generalists, seeing broad trends and inter-connections in public policy. They have to understand the issues but also anticipate the consequences of actions addressing them.
There is a long history to experiments in government that give power to wise men, hereditary leaders, oligarchs, meritocrats, technocrats, party elites etc. rather than the representatives of the people. All kinds of justifications have been made for these arrangements, and continue to be made, all over the world. However ultimately we have to choose; do we uphold democracy or not? Do we side with Churchill and agree that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried”?
“I’m tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn’t work. Of course it doesn’t work. We are supposed to work it.” Alexander Woollcott of the New Yorker.
europhobia.blogspot.com/2005/08/94-years-of-equivocation-and.html
Posted by Simon Holledge at 10:36 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
Lords Reform Day
Today is the 94th anniversary of the 1911 Parliament Act, which looked forward (with unjustified optimism) to “a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”. Led by James Graham of the New Politics Network, 38 bloggers have agreed to write in support in reform.
The facts: Britain is the only so-called established democracy to appoint the members of its second chamber for life. The Kingdom of Lesotho in Africa is the only country in the world with a comparable system.
A total of 65 countries have two-chamber parliaments; 46 of these elect their second chambers, of which 29 are established democracies. Of the 19 countries that appoint their second chambers, only 5 are established democracies.
Unfortunately, according to plans presented to Labour’s national policy forum in July, the Labour Party are again putting forward schemes to minimize reform, weaken the Lords, retain the sleaziest forms of government patronage, and maintain in parliament what the Indonesian generals under Soeharto used to call ‘functional groups’.
From a Scottish perspective, I hope the Lords will one day be part of an English Parliament, but I believe their reform is an essential stage in a series of constitutional reforms that may eventually bring real democracy to every part of the British Isles. (I am delighted to see that the SNP - and Plaid Cymru - are supporting the campaign.)
The Elect the Lords Campaign are asking for your support - and it doesn’t cost anything! All you have to do is click on the link below!
www.new-politics.com/blog/index.php?p=132
Other blog links are available via the Technorati tag electthelords
Posted by Simon Holledge at 08:07 PM | TrackBack
August 06, 2005
Robin Cook dies
Robin Cook died today after collapsing while walking on Ben Stack in Sutherland. A great loss. We have few politicians with integrity. He was one of them.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4127654.stm
UPDATE 9 August 2005
Fraser Nelson has an impressive ‘analysis’ of the political side of Robin Cook’s funeral at St Giles’ Cathedral on Friday.
Mentioning Blair’s presumed absence, he remembers the fatal non-appearance of Trotsky at Lenin’s funeral, which reminds reminds me that in Chinese politics trouble always starts after a prominent reformer has ‘gone to meet Marx’.
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1749382005
Posted by Simon Holledge at 11:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 25, 2005
New Labour shuffle towards Lords reform
Labour’s National Policy Forum are considering new reform measures for the House of Lords - ones that combine direct and indirect elections (with places for churches, professions, trade unions etc.) and appointments.
David Heath for the Liberal Democrat said that “the suggestions published appear muddled, inconsistent and unlikely to command a majority in both Houses.” That’s an understatement.
www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1699330,00.html
news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1654032005
Posted by Simon Holledge at 10:40 AM | TrackBack
July 14, 2005
Reform of the House of Lords EDM 571
Here is the text of Early Day Motion (EDM) 571 by David Curry the MP for Skipton and Ripon dated 12 July:
“That this House welcomes the Government’s commitment to a free vote on the composition of Parliament’s revising chamber; believes that the House of Lords should be replaced by a chamber which is predominately elected; and believes that the Second Chamber of Parliament Bill, presented in February by the then honourable Member for North Cornwall, endorsed by the Right honourable Member for Livingston, the Right honourable Member for North West Hampshire, the Right honourable Member for Rushcliffe and the honourable Member for Cannock Chase, and supported by other leading Members of both Houses, provides a valuable basis for further discussion and decision.”
The 10th of August will be the 94th anniversary of the Parliament Act of 1911, which declared:
“It is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis … ”
edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28820
Posted by Simon Holledge at 06:57 PM | TrackBack
July 12, 2005
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill passes 3rd reading
The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill passed its third reading in the Commons by 301 votes to 229. It now passes to the Lords, no doubt for some scrutiny.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general said:
“If the government really wants to tackle this issue, it is going to have to get away from the promises made to various people of some equal playing field, accept that religion and race are different, start to look at the real nature of the problem and try to come up with some constructive solutions.”
He pointed out a failure to define religion in the bill meant that cults such as Satanists, Scientologists and believers in female genital mutilation would be protected.
For the government, Paul Goggins said it would be up to the courts to define religion.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4673301.stm
Posted by Simon Holledge at 02:50 PM | TrackBack
June 15, 2005
Polly Toynbee on Religious Hatred Bill
Polly Toynbee explains why the Religious Hatred bill would be a bad law:
Laws change cultural climates: it’s what they are for. Religion will become out of bounds in many spheres. Schools, universities, the arts, broadcasting, will feel social pressures that induce self-censorship. A small example: if you wonder why there have been no penetrating exposes of cults like Scientology in recent years, it is because they have sued so often that the media caved in - fear of litigation outweighs the story. That is how the law cast its shadow.
She points out:
Lib Dem MP Evan Harris, proposes a neat solution. His amendment would ban “reference to a religion as a pretext for stirring up racial hatred”. Why was that solution rejected by Labour, since it stops the BNP using “Muslim” as a proxy for race, without trespassing on free speech?
www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1503473,00.html
Posted by Simon Holledge at 10:16 PM | TrackBack
June 01, 2005
Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill
Stuart Dickson on the Independence blog has caught up with the anomalous status of the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill, omitted from Scottish Labour’s manifesto yet within the competence of Holyrood rather than Westminster, which Labour reportedly intend to force through by use of the Parliament Act.
If it is eventually passed it would be a bad piece of law acting against freedom of speech. It is one thing to protect people in terms of their race, age or sex, quite another to put certain kinds of belief beyond criticism.
Punishment for this new offence could be as severe as seven years imprisonment, so it is not a minor issue. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about it.
scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/05/scottish-labour-versus-parliament-act.html
UPDATE 9 June 2005
More information about the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill has been released by the government.
David Davis noted that the legislation would be “massively counter-productive” pointing out that “this new law would technically prevent what many people may regard as reasonable criticism of devil worshippers and religious cults.”
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/011/06011.i-i.html
Posted by Simon Holledge at 01:46 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
May 20, 2005
The Independent Campaign for Democracy
The Independent Campaign for Democracy is addressing this letter to Tony Blair:
“Dear Mr Blair,
I believe that the result of this month’s election, in which your government was elected with a 67-seat majority on 36% of the popular vote and with the support of 22% of the electorate, is a subversion of our democracy.
I call on you, in your final term as Prime Minister, to institute urgent reform of our voting system so that the British people are encouraged to believe that their votes count and that the result of a general election is more representative of their wishes.”
You can sign the letter at:
www.independent.co.uk/cfd/democracy.jsp
[Thanks to Murky.org for the link.]
Posted by Simon Holledge at 12:31 AM | TrackBack
March 24, 2005
Impeachment to be re-presented
The petition to impeach Tony Blair will be re-presented after the election (see also 24 November 04, 17 September, 28 August).
“There can be few greater charges than taking a country to war based on a lie. The Prime Minister misled Parliament and the people of the UK. His case for war has crumbled and he deserves to be made answerable for what he has done.” Alex Salmond
www.snp.org/snpnews/snppressrelease.2005-03-24.2378717713
Posted by Simon Holledge at 03:02 PM | TrackBack
February 28, 2005
West Lothian 'card'
Michael Howard is playing the ‘West Lothian’ card according to an article in the Scotsman by Fraser Nelson. The idea is to stop Scottish MPs voting on England-only legislation.
The Tories propose that the Speaker should decide which legislation does not concern Scottish MPs and bar them from debating or voting on it. However Tam Dalyell MP (Linlithgow Labour) who invented the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’, pointed out “I imagine the Speaker would be very reluctant to take on such a burden in such a grey area”. Quite so.
Surely a major reform of The British Parliament would be needed to deal with this problem? But is Westminster capable of reform? They have already failed to reform the House of Lords!
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=221952005
Posted by Simon Holledge at 12:14 PM | TrackBack
January 21, 2005
Anne McGuire
I have just been looking at the parliamentary record of Anne McGuire, the Stirling MP whose constituency includes Callander, where I am now living. The information is available on TheyWorkForYou.com
McGuire is a pro-War, New Labour, minor government minister (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland Office), different in style from my last MP, Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith/Labour), a hard working, if not particularly courageous, anti-war backbencher.
McGuire’s record is poor. She spoke in only 16 debates last year (428th performance out of 659 MPs) and FaxYourMP.com have recorded that she only replied to 58 percent of constituents’ messages within 14 days (349th out of 587 MPs). (I wrote to her about ID cards on 14 December and about international student visa charges on 1 January and she didn’t replied to either message!)
In contrast, Lazarowicz spoke in 42 debates (109th out of 659 MPs), and replied to 82 percent of constituents’ messages within 14 days (152nd out of 587 MPs). (In my experience he always responds to messages).
SNP performance is generally better. For example, Alex Salmond spoke in 72 debates (29th out of 659 MPs) and replied to 88 percent of constituents messages within 14 days (86th out of 587 MPs)
Posted by Simon Holledge at 01:49 AM | TrackBack
December 18, 2004
Answering Hoon
The Scottish regiments have been consigned to history. In the Commons, Annabelle Ewing MP called the Minister of Defence a “back-stabbing coward”. Moderate language in the circumstances but against the rules, so Ms Ewing accompanied by her fellow SNP MPs walked out.
Hoon, probably the luckiest government minister not to have lost his job in this parliament, later commented: ” … Members of that party (the Scottish Nationalists) do not believe in membership of NATO, nor in European defence. They have opposed every deployment of British troops in recent years. I wonder what the point of having an army in the UK would be if that party ever got into any kind of power anywhere.”
Hoon may not be able to grasp this, but the SNP would like to see the Scottish Regiments deployed for peace keeping, and not used in support of operations involving the the killing of large numbers of foreign civilians - as at Fallujah.
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1439652004
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-12-16.1195.0
Posted by Simon Holledge at 05:02 AM | TrackBack
December 15, 2004
Blunkett resigns
A personal tragedy, but Blunkett’s authoritarian policies were distasteful and it is a good thing that he has gone. He may be an unhappy man, having lost in both his political and his love life, but there are many people who have suffered as a result of bad, tabloid-oriented, Home Office policies and my sympathies are with them.
Will this lead to a gentler, kinder, more honest, more straightforward Home Office? I would like to hope so.
Posted by Simon Holledge at 08:23 PM | TrackBack
November 24, 2004
Impeach Blair Website restored
The hosting company of the Impeach Blair website closed the site down yesterday and deleted the database of petition signatories. It’s now up again on another server and they are asking us to sign the online petition again.
The original address was impeachblair.org, the new one is impeachblair.net.
Does anyone know what exactly has been going on?
Posted by Simon Holledge at 08:48 PM | TrackBack
Blair impeachment: a mass movement?
Twenty-three MPs have now initiated the Commons procedure for the Prime Minister to be impeached for misleading parliament over the reasons for invading Iraq.
Critics of the measure have said that it is a ‘publicity stunt’. It’s not. It’s a valid procedure when an individual minister is required to answer charges in person. Blair was at the heart of all the decision making relating to the war - in Washington, Westminster and Whitehall. Involvement of the cabinet and parliament was limited. Only Blair knows the time period and extent of British participation in war plans. For that reason impeachment is more appropriate than the limited enquiries into aspects of the background to the war, none of which were focused on the role of the Prime Minister.
Impeachment is not likely to succeed In the absence of Liberal Democrat support, and it may not even be debated in the commons, but I hope it will become the focus of a movement outside parliament to hold the Prime Minister to account for the war.
Perhaps at the next election we will be able to vote for ‘pro-impeachment’ candidates?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4037375.stm
Posted by Simon Holledge at 11:30 AM | TrackBack
October 27, 2004
Tracking your MP I
If you want to monitor your MP - surely a good idea! - ‘They Work For You’ offer an excellent service. Their website is at:
If you log in and give your postcode, you will see the name of your MP, his or her voting record and performance data (number of spoken and written questions, attendance at Westminster, responsiveness to constituents etc.)
For example my MP is Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith/Labour). From ‘They Work For You’ I learn that he has spoken 97 times in the last year (177th out of 658 MPs), asked 59 written questions (209th out of 658 MPs), attended 79% of votes (125th out of 658 MPs), replies to 79% of messages sent via FaxYourMP.com within 14 days (182nd out of 589 MPs) and significantly ‘occasionally rebels against his party’.
Most useful of all is the special newsfeed about the activities of your MP. If you subscribe to the feed with a news reader, you will be notified every time your MP is active in parliament. Not only that, you can also comment on what your MP has said or written - just as you can on this blog.
At the moment - as far as I know - no SNP actvists are using this splendid resource, but with a general election coming up it is essential reading!
Posted by Simon Holledge at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 22, 2004
Boris Johnson blogs . . .
Boris Johnson has joined us . . . well, not exactly the SNP . . . the blogging community!
On Monday, he began his blog (‘Boris reporting for duty’), explaining that a “very persuasive man . . . told me that blogging is the future. He spoke of the online community, and its rapid expansion. He said that newspapers were outmoded. He spoke of a new kind of politics. He waved his hands and rolled his eyes. So I have acceded to his advice, and begun to blog . . . the idea is that I fall out of bed every morning, blazing with inspiration, and thunder out 3000 words on the issue of the hour, so generating a pandemic internet controversy”.
Good luck! We need all the pandemonium we can get!
Johnson (Conservative/?) is the 5th blogging MP following Richard Allan (Lib Dem/Wordpress), Clive Soley (Labour/Typepad), Tom Watson (Labour/Movable Type) and Shaun Woodward (Labour/Other Media?), all of whom have well-designed, active sites. Four Westminster candidates also have blogs.
Posted by Simon Holledge at 05:11 PM | Comments (2)
September 17, 2004
More on Blair impeachment
Impeachment now has the support of 21 MPs.
This is both a moral issue - a prime minister should not mislead parliament and the country with impunity - and also a practical political one. Any positive and progressive policies that Blair may support are harmed by the association. He is a liability and embarrassment to pro-Europeans and his support for the European Constitution referendum will lose votes if he remains in office.
www.snp.org/html/news/printerfriendly.php?newsID=2437
www.snp.org/html/news/printerfriendly.php?newsID=2433
Disappointingly Menzies Campbell describes impeachment as “a silly season stunt”, so presumably the Liberal Democrats will not officially back it, even if it attracts significant support from main party back benchers.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.homepage/section.home/article.7383
The ImpeachBlair website www.ImpeachBlair.org has been smartened up and it is now possible to register with them. Unfortunately the site is still not up to date with the list of supporting MPs.
Posted by Simon Holledge at 12:08 AM
August 28, 2004
Impeachment or censure?
Impeachment hasn't been used in Britain since 1848. (Bill Clinton was of course threatened with it in the States in 1999.) Nonetheless the procedure may be more appropriate to Blair and the misuse of intelligence about Iraq than a less formal, simple vote of censure.
There is a good article on the subject in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
Posted by Simon Holledge at 02:12 AM
August 27, 2004
Impeach Blair website / now up again
Richard Fellows of rafsolutions.com writes that the website www.ImpeachBlair.org is now up and working again.
"As I'm sure you can understand the website came under an intense load upon launch and unfortuately the database driving the site crashed. This has been rectified by the transfer of the site to a new host. This work was carried out during the early hours of Friday morning and, as far as I'm aware, the site is back to full functionality. An email will be going out shortly with in response to the confirmation of the mailinglist. I'd appreciate any further feedback you could provide as to what is currently at fault on the website and I assure you that it shall be resolved immediately."
Posted by Simon Holledge at 10:05 PM
Impeach Blair website / technical problems
At last we have a campaign to impeach Blair over the Iraq War, led by the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties, but unfortunately the website www.ImpeachBlair.org is apparently out of order. I was unable to access most of the pages or confirm my subscription to their mailing list. (It's not under SNP control.)
It is designed and hosted by rafsolutions.com, a company that doesn't seem to have its own website. An email address is given: richard@rafsolutions.com. I have written to 'Richard'.
I wonder if anyone thought of checking the website before it went online? If we are going to get rid of a Prime Minister as tenacious as Blair, we need to be professional about it!
Posted by Simon Holledge at 05:56 PM
August 21, 2004
Westminster: Debate on Iraq, 20 July
One of the best political websites in Britain is TheyWorkForYou at:
www.theyworkforyou.com
This site has detailed information about MPs, their speeches and past votes, as well as complete texts of Westminster debates. What is impressive is the ability to add your own comments right next to speeches made by MPs.
A debate on Iraq was on held on 20 July 2004. My own comments, juxtaposed with the words of the Prime Minister, are at:
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-07-20.195.0
Alex Salmond gave a fine, impassioned speech at that debate. I would quote it here, except for the question of copyright. (The speech is about three-quarters of the way down the page. He spoke at 5.37pm after Helen Liddell.)
It is worth noting Alex Salmond's record at Westminster, details at:
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?pid=10525
Salmond spoke in parliament 249 times in the last year: 29th out of 658 MPs. No mean achievement by a member of a minor party. He replied to 87% of messages sent via FaxYourMP.com within 14 days: 88th out of 585 MPs.
Posted by Simon Holledge at 09:22 PM