The original idea was that the nobility (i.e. the people with the wealth and the land) formed the upper house and used its power to protect their interests. Money and land were handed down on a hereditary basis along with seats in the Lords (and grand-sounding titles). Thus the Tories always had a permanent inbuilt majority there, regardless of General Elections, from the 17th century up to c.2000. In Tony Blair's time all but 90 of the (mainly Tory) hereditary peers lost their votes in the Lords, and the House was greatly reduced in size. Thus David Cameron has found himself in the odd position, unprecedented for a Tory PM, of having no majority in the Lords, a tiny majority in the Commons, and a deeply divided party. He has been forced to make lots of concessions and compromises just to keep the show on the road, and appoint lots of new Tory peers. Much though I dislike Cameron, his party, and his policies I have to admire his political skill in keeping it going this far.
May I point out that the larger the number of members there are in a representative body, the less power each individual member has. The smaller the number of members, the more power each has. That is why the vote of each US Senator (100 Senators for c.350 million people) is a lot more important than each MP (650 MPs for c.65 million people).
Since life peerages came in (in Harold MacMillan's time) the House of Lords has become full of experts. Nearly all the members are experts in something, and not only in politics. Surgeons, scientists, generals, writers, academics, lawyers ... you name it. By a curious paradox, our House of Lords, although the most undemocratic legislative body in the Western world, has ended up containing the widest variety of people representing every walk of life. Still, the government of the day has to get its legislation through somehow.
Funny that. I don't dislike Cameron at all. I think he's a pretty decent bloke. He's obviously a product of his class and education but he can hardly help that. That's not to say that I approve of his policies or his party, especially. But as a PM, he could be far worse. He could be Tony Blair.
Agree. Mostly.. I won't be voting for the Conservatives in a general election while the party remains under Mr Cameron's leadership, and I shall vote against him in the EU referendum; and much as I dislike the Cameron/Osborne cabal and the direction in which they have taken the party and the way they have needlessly damaged it with their dictatorial handling of the EU referendum, Cameron isn't in the same league of loathsomeness as the repellent Mr Blair.
I'm fed up with only hearing one side of the Blair divide. Just for a change, can we hear from some folks who really hate him?
bit of topic (not that it ever bothered before) but me smile Common Space - #MoodieVision series finale: Paint It Cack
I came across full price paperback copies in a couple of bookshops today and had a flick through. The style is unmistakably Owen Jones with a steady stream of folksy anecdotal stuff about how the mighty screw the downtrodden. Damned if I was going to pay £9.99 for it so I will continue to keep and eye out for it in the remaindered bookshops.
Alex Massie was not impressed. The Establishment: and How They Get Away with It by Owen Jones, review: 'pedestrian' - Telegraph Russell Brand thinks Owen Jones is "our generation's Orwell" :Wideyed:
It's not the money, it's the principle. It would probably end up next to my unread £1.99 charity shop copy of Tony Blair, My Journey.
