Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Haha, a most unintentional pun but one I will happily take the credit for

    Well as for the 'inferior elected people' comment, these hereditaries were in a pretty emotional state at the time, having been not only deprived of their traditional seats but also sustaining a tirade of bitter and in most parts quite unfair criticism and hostility in the press. So it makes people make sweeping generalizations and overstate their case.
    A lot were bitter because they were deprived of "club" rights in the Lords despite the fact these are enjoyed by ex-MPs in the Commons. That was gratuitous and such rights could have been given for life with no succession to their heirs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    A lot were bitter because they were deprived of "club" rights in the Lords despite the fact these are enjoyed by ex-MPs in the Commons. That was gratuitous and such rights could have been given for life with no succession to their heirs.
    But MPs and ex MPs have at least some credible basis for their status in having once been elected.

    I see no reason in perpetuating unelected hereditary peers perks one day longer than necessary.

    Why not just pick out 100 folk from the street at random and give them club rights each year? Might be much more interesting and more just. Or are hereditary peers such delicate souls that they have to be placated at every turn?

    I'm glad they were bitter though. Better late than never. Might educate them as to how many other less fortunate people feel about them and their feelings of entitlement.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    But MPs and ex MPs have at least some credible basis for their status in having once been elected.

    I see no reason in perpetuating unelected hereditary peers perks one day longer than necessary.

    Why not just pick out 100 folk from the street at random and give them club rights each year? Might be much more interesting and more just. Or are hereditary peers such delicate souls that they have to be placated at every turn?

    I'm glad they were bitter though. Better late than never. Might educate them as to how many other less fortunate people feel about them and their feelings of entitlement.
    This is precisely why the political left has achieved so little in this country.

    If you compare Britain in 1830 with Britain in 1914, virtually every institution had been radically reformed. To take just two. In 1830 the income of the Bishop of Durham was greater than that of many monarchs. By 1914, he was on a salary. The law courts in 1830 were run by the poorly paid deputies (and sometimes deputies' deputies) of sinecurists. By 1914, it was a part of a professional civil service. That modernisation of Britain and transfer of power largely from landed to industrial wealth occurred with barely a squeak.

    The reason is that the Whig and Tory reformers tried whereever possibly to allow vested rights holders to see out their terms (or lives) and where that was not possible the holders were properly compensated. I should add the one exception was the abolition of the sale of army commissions. The officers refused the deal and Gladstone swept the system away with a stroke of the pen and no compensation.

    The left's towering achievement, the NHS (I realise it is pretty rickety now, but it wasn't in the 1940s) was built on this principle. The senior doctors were got onside by stuffing their mouths with gold.

    Since then; very little. Whether you are the friend of Labour or its foe, why should you give up any hard won rights or privileges, no matter how anachronistic they are if you will be stuffed.

    Blair could have rid the countryside of hunting largely without fuss. He could have bought out the packs; the hunt stables; pensioned off the hunt servants and endowed the point to points. With the infrastructure bought out, hunting would have vanished from the landscape.

    Compare what happened with hunting with the handgun ban. The first Act passed under the Tories made it clear that cash would be paid for handguns. Virtually every legally held handgun passed into police hands. No underground handgun shooting circuit developed.

    Going back to the Lords. If club rights and coronation tickets had been guaranteed to the backwoodsmen, there wouldn't be 92 hereditaries in the Lords today.

    It is the failure of vision, admirably illustrated in your post, that means that so little reform has been achieved by succesive Labour governments.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    But MPs and ex MPs have at least some credible basis for their status in having once been elected.

    I see no reason in perpetuating unelected hereditary peers perks one day longer than necessary.

    Why not just pick out 100 folk from the street at random and give them club rights each year? Might be much more interesting and more just. Or are hereditary peers such delicate souls that they have to be placated at every turn?

    I'm glad they were bitter though. Better late than never. Might educate them as to how many other less fortunate people feel about them and their feelings of entitlement.
    You're being rather presumptive. Many of the hereditaries did not see it as 'entitlement', but took it quite seriously as a duty. They may not have been elected (and being elected isn't, and should not, be the only avenue into politics), but they were a rich source of out-of-left-field viewpoints that did not always get aired in Parliament.

    If you'd paid close attention to the video, you'd have seen quite a few hereditaries aren't you stereotypical lords in their estates. There's one who said he's a petrol station pump attendant. Quite a few are farmers. I know the Earl of Essex is a deputy headmaster. A vast number are scholars. A fair few no longer have inherited millions and do ordinary jobs and live in council housing.

    I accept that the hereditaries had to go, but I think it has to be said the sheer glee of some people at their passing is just distasteful, and goes to show that despite our celebrated tolerance of all cultures and creeds in this country, it's still quite acceptable to be an absolute jerk to certain corners of society and tar them all with the same brush.

    The class system is alive and well, but it's not top-down at all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is precisely why the political left has achieved so little in this country.

    If you compare Britain in 1830 with Britain in 1914, virtually every institution had been radically reformed. To take just two. In 1830 the income of the Bishop of Durham was greater than that of many monarchs. By 1914, he was on a salary. The law courts in 1830 were run by the poorly paid deputies (and sometimes deputies' deputies) of sinecurists. By 1914, it was a part of a professional civil service. That modernisation of Britain and transfer of power largely from landed to industrial wealth occurred with barely a squeak.

    The reason is that the Whig and Tory reformers tried whereever possibly to allow vested rights holders to see out their terms (or lives) and where that was not possible the holders were properly compensated. I should add the one exception was the abolition of the sale of army commissions. The officers refused the deal and Gladstone swept the system away with a stroke of the pen and no compensation.

    The left's towering achievement, the NHS (I realise it is pretty rickety now, but it wasn't in the 1940s) was built on this principle. The senior doctors were got onside by stuffing their mouths with gold.

    Since then; very little. Whether you are the friend of Labour or its foe, why should you give up any hard won rights or privileges, no matter how anachronistic they are if you will be stuffed.

    Blair could have rid the countryside of hunting largely without fuss. He could have bought out the packs; the hunt stables; pensioned off the hunt servants and endowed the point to points. With the infrastructure bought out, hunting would have vanished from the landscape.

    Compare what happened with hunting with the handgun ban. The first Act passed under the Tories made it clear that cash would be paid for handguns. Virtually every legally held handgun passed into police hands. No underground handgun shooting circuit developed.

    Going back to the Lords. If club rights and coronation tickets had been guaranteed to the backwoodsmen, there wouldn't be 92 hereditaries in the Lords today.

    It is the failure of vision, admirably illustrated in your post, that means that so little reform has been achieved by succesive Labour governments.
    Not just a failure of vision but of political will. The post war Labour Government had every excuse not to be radical, massive debt and a country in ruins but they had (some) political will.

    I understand your points about gradualism but don't totally agree with them. You can go too slowly. Times have changed and people are better educated and much less inclined to be deferential to the aristocracy than they were even after the Second World war. (Often, of course, the Landed Interests and the Industrial were not separate but complementary ie aristocratic families having a wide range of interests from farming, law, industry to mining - particularly if we include younger sons.)

    It is important to the country as a whole for justice to be seen to be done. The fact that it is often not, may well give an inkling why so many people, unfortunately the young in particular, become alienated from politics and feel nothing but contempt for politicians.

    All they see is that whatever is going on, they are not included and there are no plans for them to be included and whatever politicians say, and they don't say much about justice, they are going to protect the already rich, powerful and privileged.

    This sense of exclusion and cynicism is a very dangerous and worrying development. If we continue to act in this way, we open the door to political adventurism of several different types because we don't include most people in the system.

    Though I was somewhat tongue in cheek with the suggestion of people at random having club rights at the House of Lords, the thought behind it is perhaps not as daft as all that. If you want to protect the club rights of the aristocracy then by extending those rights to others it's a sort of win win situation. They don't lose ; many others can win.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.