Euro torture
Futility
Ye Gods! Three months of Euro treaty debate after Christmas is promised.
The news chills the blood of those who endured the weeks of torment on past treaties. Europhilliacs and Europhobics will torture each other with speeches of impenetrably dense Euro-babble.
In the Maastricht debate a prize was offered to anyone who could understand three consecutive sentences in the speeches of Europhobe Bill Cash. One and a half was the most that anyone managed.
Voices will be raise to endlessly grind the air with incomprehensible jargon stuck together with multilingual acronyms wrapped in Euro-love or Euro-hate. The Commons Chamber will be suffused with suffocating boredom signifying emptiness and futility.
The Treaty will be passed. The LibDems will vote for. The Labour rebels will be below 40 leaving the Tory in a losing minority.
The media will not report the intricacies of the debate and public opinion will not be changed.
Why three months when three days would be excessive?
Wittering
Correspondents from half a dozen national papers have contacted me this weekend begging for titbits about the Select Committee's meeting with Yates of the Yard on Tuesday.
I've refused to anticipate the cross examination.
Some of the least active poorly informed committee members have been wittering away giving mistaken impressions. What's the point-except to increase the circulation of the Daily Drivel?
Good things can come out of our probe into honours. The system should become less tainted and more transparent. We have serious questions for Yates and others. But they can keep until Tuesday.
Is silence guilty?
There has been a lively series of comments of the blog below 'Sleaze or Stupid?'.
I will abase myself before my accusers if I am proved wrong. A number of Plaid groupies have written but none have produce details on where all these dodgy adverts were published.
I and the Electoral Commission would love to know.
The Unlordly Lord.
The exchange I had with Lord (Mr) Stevenson is available in an uncorrected abridged transcript. It is even more bizarre than I recall.
Q1 Paul Flynn: How many divisions did you take part in in the Lords last year, Lord Stevenson?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: I think none, because I took the decision six years ago that, while I was Chairman of the Commission, unless there was some overriding reason,
I would not take part in political or parliamentary life.
Q2 Paul Flynn: You do not consider, as a legislator, that you should.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No, I am not saying that. I think I may have shared with this Committee before that it was an irony that a member of the House of Lords was appointed chairing this Committee. It was a post-Nolan, if you like, cock-up, because the Chairman was not supposed to be in the House of Lords. The head-hunters who were employed did not realise I was a lord, and I am given to understand that two other people on the shortlist were not.
Q3 Paul Flynn: You are a member of this legislature. You do not vote there. Do you speak there at all?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No. I told you, I took the view that, precisely so that I was completely independent.
Q4 Paul Flynn: I find that extraordinary. Would it not be the sensible thing to withdraw from the House of Lords?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: It could be. I am beginning to learn about being lapsed and things. I am not very sophisticated. It seemed to me that it was, if you like, morally and in terms of proper governance and behaviour the right thing to do not to take part. You could be right, but I did not.
Q5 Paul Flynn: It is not surprising people did not realise you were a lord if you have never voted or spoken.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: The reason they did not is I had only been a lord for a few weeks when they headhunted me.
Q8 Paul Flynn: Why do you like being a lord?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Pass. I do not know.
Q9 Paul Flynn: This seems to be a very interesting point to me. I think we are all aware, all the ermine, the ritual humiliation that people go through when they are introduced, which anyone with a sense of the ridiculous would find a dreadfully painful experience, all the titles and the coats of arms and all that crap that is going on, has nothing at all to do with the legislature of running the country. It is all something that appeals to people's vanity, is it not?
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: There was a question from the Chairman earlier on to which we gave a personal view, because it is not part of the Commission. I personally - and I think we are rather in the same place on this - think it would be a good idea to separate the honorific side from the working legislative side.
Q10 Paul Flynn: Perhaps I can call you Mr Stevenson then.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: You may, indeed.
Q11 Paul Flynn: I would be happy to do that.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: You can call me Dennis.
Q12 Paul Flynn: Call me Citizen Flynn! I think we all know, from talking to people in the Lords, how important this is, what it means to people. Would it not be better if we did separate that and they were called Lord Perkins or Baroness Perkins rather than some member of the second chamber: MSC.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: Just to tell you, Citizen Flynn and Mr Stevenson, it might surprise you, have rather a lot of common ground. I personally think it is most unfortunate, the ermine type thing in the Lords, whereas the Lords is doing a hugely important job, 80 % of which is amending legislation in the public interest. It is a hugely important job with a lot of detailed work. A lot of human beings work very hard at it. It would be much more appropriate to be in normal clothes and offices and so on and so forth. As I said earlier on, speaking entirely personally, I am basically in agreement with the direction you are moving in. Did you call them MOLs? Was it not put that Members of the Lords should be MOLs. Like MPs, MOLs. It is a rather interesting expression, MOLs.
Q13 Paul Flynn: You have said you are happy with the nominations that you have made so far, that you put forward for what we call the people's peers.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No, we do not call them people's peers.
Q14 Paul Flynn: No, I am sure you do not. You call them lords.
Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: No. People.































Recent Comments