Honours Lists and Appointments to the Peerage – Two Wholly Different Issues

For many years the two annual honours lists (Queen’s birthday and New Year) have contained no new peers. Indeed, they are almost entirely apolitical. Yes, there are usually one or two long-serving MPs who are given knighthoods and the occasional party political hack may be given an OBE. But almost everyone else on the list is there because he or she has excelled in some field other than politics.

It is true that civil servants continue to be given gongs as a matter of course, even though they may have performed abysmally. That practice used to be defended on the grounds that they were very badly paid. The defence no longer works. Top civil servants are now some of the richest people in the country, and they all have extraordinarily lavish pension arrangements which cost them nothing. There would be something to be said for abandoning the practice of dishing out honours to civil servants just for doing their jobs.

But most other people (and there are more than a thousand of them) given honours in the two lists are thoroughly deserving of them. What is more, the awards give untold pleasure to those who get them. The visit to Buckingham Palace to collect the MBE, OBE or CBE is likely to be one of the best days in the life of the recipient. Those who call for the abolition of honours, just because they disapprove of the odd knighthood, are guilty of forgetting the ninety nine percent of men and women on the lists who have done nothing but good.

Peerages, though, are quite a different matter. In today’s Telegraph there is an article by Nigel Farage in which he attacks the whole honours system because successive Prime Ministers have refused to appoint Ukip members to the House of Lords. Mr Farage is keen to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The honours system must be abolished or radically reformed, he says, because Ukip doesn’t get its fair share of the goodies. Only one Ukip councillor, he tells us, got an MBE in the New Year’s list. That means that the system is corrupt. What he has apparently failed to notice is that very few other councillors are to be found in the list. He hasn’t grasped the fact that honours lists are not there to reward politicians.

Nevertheless, Mr Farage does have a point about peerages. We now have separate lists of new peers. They turn up at unexpected times. And they, unlike the New Year’s and Queen’s birthday lists, are entirely political. The modern convention is that the Prime Minister nominates most of the new peers, the leader of the opposition gets a few and the leader of the Liberal Democrats gets the rest. During the coalition the Liberal Democrats overtook Labour (hence the staggering 105 Lib Dem peers in the House now). But, on the whole, the spoils tend to be divided between the Tories and Labour with the Lib Dems coming in third.

None of this would matter a great deal if the House of Lords understood its position as a revising chamber, rather than as a competitor with the elected House of Commons. For most of the last hundred years, particularly when the House of Lords was largely made up of hereditary peers, it was very careful not to challenge the supremacy of the elected chamber. But that is no longer the case. The four hundred or so peers who were appointed by Blair, Cameron and Clegg can see nothing wrong with doing all in their power to overrule the representatives of the electorate if they happen to disagree with them. The House of Lords is now, first and foremost, a body made up of party politicians.

Obviously, there is a pressing need to reform the Lords. But, if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that reform of the upper chamber takes decades (centuries?) to achieve, and then goes horribly wrong. We are stuck with the present system for a long time to come. Since that is the case, how can the refusal of successive Prime Ministers to give any peerages at all to Ukip members be supported?

I am not, and never will be, an admirer of Ukip. But I know that it has massive support in the country. It frequently polls many more votes than the Liberal Democrats (in the last European Parliament elections it polled more votes than any other party). It is quite possible that it will, in the not too distant future, overtake Labour. And yet 105 Liberal Democrats have been ennobled and not one Ukip member has been. I know there are three Ukip peers, but they were all originally Tories. It really is true that no member of what has become the third party in the land has been appointed to the House of Lords. That, it seems to me, is a scandal.

I hope Mrs May will grit her teeth, hold her nose and recommend the appointment of at least half a dozen Ukip peers in the next batch of peerages. I fear, however, that she will follow in her predecessors’ footsteps and decide that only her own party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats should be represented in the Lords. Worse still, all the signs are that she will accede to those who say that no one should be appointed to the Lords unless he or she is passed by a committee charged with ensuring that nominees are politically correct (fully signed up to Blairite social policies).

Whatever became of fairness in public policy?

Charles

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Honours Lists and Appointments to the Peerage – Two Wholly Different Issues

  1. Entirely sensible thoughts Charles. Here here. I would like to know more about your antipathy to UKIP when you write that you will never be an admirer.

    Like

  2. Agree with much of what you say Charles, especially your balanced attitude to UKIP (do try to use upper case. Lower case is for Guardianistas and other lefty trash).
    My disMay at some of the nominations is matched by yours, but a recent one really got my goat. That useless upper class idiot Shirley Williams who, with her equally unqualified buddy Anthony Crosland, destroyed the UK education system. That kind of Mickey Mouse socialist idealism is a classic of babies and bathwater. The closure of grammar schools was a massive loss to Britain. It was the only truly socially mobile system, which enabled bright working class children to rub shoulders with Williams and her pukah peers.
    Like that fool Vince Cable, she has been a BBC favourite for years – I guess that’s the reason for this crass error.

    Like

  3. Your point about UKip representation in the HoL is well made and I have no objection to that at all.

    Regarding the HoL as a whole I take a somewhat different tack. There is a parallel between the HoL, in its present incarnation of political appointees rather than a strictly hereditary system (which I dare say you prefer), and the US Supreme Court in that the balance of power within it represents not only the present incumbents in power but all their predecessors going back as far as the oldest appointee.

    While that has the transient disadvantage of not reflecting a country’s mood, it has the benefit of giving pause for reflection and a degree of stability.

    I also rather approve of the HoL acting as competing body (though I wouldn’t use that phrase myself) with the HoC, rather than acting strictly as a revisory and advisory body. Furthermore, I approve of it taking that role regardless of who is in power. I approve of it because under our system (with one recent exception) the party in power does not reflect the intentions of the electorate and instead grants near absolute power on a party only some 30-40% voted for. That, to me, is wholly unreasonable and short of a parliament that actually reflects voters’ wishes we need a powerful check on the actions of government.

    The HoL is not ideal in that regard, but, as you point out, proper reform takes time and gives unpredictable results.

    NB. I wholly approve of your disapproval of UKip. One assumes that even though you share their aim of withdrawal from the EU you disapprove of the tone and arguments they have adopted.

    Like

    • I understand your points, but I fear I am not convinced by them. Let me try to explain.

      Yes, you are right, I did prefer the hereditary House. But not because I thought the upper chamber should be populated by toffs. Like Tony Benn, I thought we had got the balance between elected legislators and those who were not elected about right. For most of the twentieth century the Lords knew their place. Year after year they acquiesced in policies which they hated. They knew the elected members of the House of Commons had to get their way in the end. Also, of course, just by chance, many experts in their fields were to be found in the Lords. And there were even Communists (that could never happen now). The first life peers were Lords of Appeal in ordinary. They did provide invaluable advice. But they are now, because of Tony Blair’s babyish discovery of the “separation of powers”, ineligible to sit. Today, with a few honourable exceptions, peers are just political appointees, often with nothing to offer other than their loyalty to whichever party leader appointed them. More worryingly, and I know you don’t agree with me on this, they have convinced themselves that they have the moral authority (by virtue of having been appointed to rather than having inherited their positions) to reject legislation proposed by the Commons just because their parties, which have failed to win popular elections, don’t like them.

      Also, the House of Lords is now far too big. True, there used to be about 800 hereditary peers entitled to sit. In practice, however, most of them hardly ever attended. Now, we already have roughly 800 life peers who, on the whole, do attend. And many more are being appointed every year. If things continue as they have in recent years we will soon have an upper chamber with a thousand or more regular attenders. Under the hereditary system Prime Ministers knew they had to be very sparing in their awards of peerages. The modern Prime Minister thinks nothing of appointing thirty or more new peers every year (more if he or she is allowed a resignation honours list).

      As for my failure to admire Ukip, it is more to do with my belief that its antics in the referendum campaign did more harm than good to my cause. Of course, without Ukip we may never have had a referendum at all. I am grateful to them for forcing Cameron to give us a say. But they then seemed to devote themselves to trying to scare decent Brexiteers into voting to stay in the EU.

      A very happy new year to you.

      Charles

      Liked by 1 person

Add your comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s