 |
| The Queen's Speech (photo: Carl Court/AFP) |
However, amongst the many press photographs of the day one stood out – for all
the wrong reasons. It was of a group of
Lords and Ladies in their full regalia. When I gazed at it I sank into
depression. The Ladies Sharples, Rawlings, Trumpington, Lawrence and the Lords
Grade and Howe looked totally misplaced – indeed, their largely vacant faces,
shambling appearance and general decrepitude made them look “past it” and “seedy”. These were members of the House of Lords, the
“Upper Chamber”, the “Second House” – the people who ultimately vet and approve
the bills and laws proposed by the elected government. They are in a way the guardians
of the nation’s conscience and democracy. They are too, by default, amongst the
shakers and movers of society – there because of their good deeds, their past
record, their alleged wisdom. Sadly, however, they looked like escapees from
some care home. In the society of twenty first century Britain who are these
people? I asked myself. Only Lady Lawrence looked of this life - and
she clutched her mobile phone - telling indictment of our times. Like an overdressed tourist she stands
apparently sending a text message in this one of the most sacred and
magisterial events in our nation’s democratic calendar. Sadly the whole scene
was a grotesque snapshot of all that is wrong with the Second Chamber and,
indeed much of the governance of the country.
 |
| The noble Lords and Ladies of the Upper Chamber (L-R): Lady Sharples, Lady Rawlings, Lady Trumpington, Lord Grade, Lady Lawrence, Lord Howe (photo: Carl Court/AFP) |
It is critical that we have a
“Second Chamber” – possibly in this day and age more important than ever
before. Extremist political views, lobbying,
the impact of global politics, big business and the potential influence
of the media and technology are all anxious to nibble away at our elected
representatives. A Senate, or in our case, the Lords fulfils a critical
function in curbing excess and bringing a longer term vision to simple party
politics. Clearly, the members of that Second Chamber must also be people who
by their actions, thoughts, words, experiences and beliefs be able to fulfil this important task. What I
saw in the photograph was a group of largely senior citizens who might indeed once have
been the glitterati of national life but now looked slightly confused at where
they were and what they were about. I
wondered how representative they were of our society – I don’t mean
representative in the sense of racial or gender mix but rather how
representative they are of the feelings, emotions, aspirations, hopes, fears,
needs and way of life of the sixty million or so people that inhabit this tiny
island. Yes, I am sure that they have all done much good in their lives and I
am sure that the counsel of Lady Lawrence (mother of the teenager Stephen
Lawrence who was brutally murdered some years ago in a savage racist attack) or
of Lord Howe (a man who has held many of the great Offices of State) would be
immensely valuable and wisdom not to be lost. But to be at all relevant, the
qualification for membership of Upper
Chamber, seems to me to be not past good
deeds or longevity. It is, rather, that
the members are able to understand and be in tune with the aspirations of the
nation. Yes, there might be a need for older members , but there is, too, a
greater need for people who are understanding of the workings
of society, the economy, politics, business and all the rest work in the United
Kingdom of today. The House of Lords must, above all things be relevant – not a
club for senior citizens who once did the nation some service. And, since today
we live in a more open and transparent society where the press and 24
hour news reports and shows all that is happening in the Chamber and what the
members are saying, it must be seen
to be relevant. In the State Opening of Parliament there was much wonderful
history and tradition which is part of our heritage and which helps bind us as
a nation – but the way that the Lords is composed, how it conducts itself, how
it and its members presents themselves
and especially the photograph that I saw makes it look irrelevant and a mockery. There are many more
critical reasons why politicians today are viewed with cynicism and why the
electorate are becoming increasingly apathetic, but the irrelevance and perceived
lack of reality in their Lordships should not be easily dismissed.
If
I’m pushed to it and wearing my “religious hat” I might applaud the fact that
the Bishops of the Church of England all sit in the House of Lords – yes, all 26
of them - and are known as the Lords Spiritual. (They read prayers at the start
of each daily meeting and play an active role in the work of the Upper House). Even in modern, multicultural Britain I might
accept that a strong Christian input is vital to the work and decisions of the
Upper Chamber. In the social tapestry of 21st century Britain. I
might find it difficult to defend on
grounds of relevance, democracy, good governance, common sense or any other given
criteria. But I will live with it and accept that, maybe, someone greater than
I can see its value.
But there are other aspects
epitomised in the photograph that I cannot accept. I read yesterday that one of
the Ladies in the photograph – Lady Rawlings - has been criticised for her
bizarre comments about how “the poor”
should cope with their predicament (this, in austerity Britain, a country with
one of the most unequal societies on the world – a fact that politicians of all
persuasions agree on). Her comments were
not only staggering but offensive. That
this woman should be one of those we are supposed to admire, respect and look
up to – for after all she is a “Lady” and a member of the nation’s highest political chamber, the House of Lords
– says much with how out of touch the Second Chamber is.
 |
| Black Rod demands entry to the Commons to summon MPs to hear the Queen's Speech (photo: Carl Court/AFP) |
And another of the pictured Baronesses, the Lady Sharples, was widely reported for using her handbag on a cyclist passing her outside the House of Lords. He had, allegedly, jumped a red light and nearly knocked the 84 year old over. Describing the incident, she said: "I had a bag and I swiped him. I did not hit him hard enough. They are a ruddy nuisance.”
Now, many cheered her bravado and perhaps this is all good knock about
stuff but the worrying thing is that she then raised the matter in the Upper
Chamber. She asked the government's transport spokesman: "Can the Minister say whether I am within my rights when, at a
pedestrian crossing, a cyclist rides straight at me when I have the lights in
my favour?.....I swiped one with a bag the other day. Would I be in
trouble?" is this what the
Upper House is for? Is this why we pay huge amounts of money to subsidise the
little personal foibles, prejudices, adventures and experiences of the noble
Lords and Ladies? I think not. Does it show off our government at its best?
Does it make them appear relevant, worthwhile and important to the nation on
the eyes of the electorate? I think not.
I read these little tales and look
at the photograph and think to myself how divided we are as a society. Do we
need any more evidence of the unequal society? How can an Upper Chamber
composed of people like the Ladies Rawlings and Sharples conceivably understand
the life and needs of the pensioner living in a tower block unable to get out
because the lifts do not work; how can they really get to grips with the fact
that the parents with the handicapped child who requires full time care are
finding it very difficult to afford “luscious lobster”; how can they comprehend
the parents on zero hours, minimum wage contracts for whom the advice on toast
crusts and eggs will be largely irrelevant because they can’t afford bread and
eggs in the same week? But still the noble Ladies will don their ermine gowns, live pampered in their mansions and every so
often travel, all expenses paid, to sit in judgement and graciousness in the
Upper Chamber quite oblivious to most of 21st century Britain.
 |
| A bit of ceremony, tradition and heritage (photo: Carl Court/AFP) |
In writing this, the words of
Mabel Layton in Paul Scott’s great
series of books on the last days of the British Empire in India, The Raj Quartet, came back to me. It is 1944 and Mabel, the
widow of the ex-commander of the Pankot regiment is at a family wedding. She is
standing in the Officer’s Mess at Pankot.
She looks around at the fading battle
flags, the antique silverware and mahogany. It is the final months of the
Second World War and the British Raj in India is in its death throes. Mabel has
not visited the Mess for many years – when her husband died she became somewhat
of a recluse mainly because as a younger woman she had incurred the wrath of the
Raj military and social elite of Pankot when following the Amritsar massacre by
Brigadier Dyer at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 she had secretly made donations
to the victims of the massacre in the local Sikh population. Mabel knew there
was something profoundly wrong with the Raj and the way that it clung to the
past rather than moved India forward to its future as an independent nation. As
she stands there taking in the faded glory and outdated, prejudiced atmosphere
and behaviour she turns and says to her friend “I thought there might have been changes, but there aren’t. It’s all
exactly the same as when I first saw it more than forty years ago. I can’t even
be angry. But someone ought to be.” To
a small degree that was how I felt when I looked at the photograph of the Lords
and Ladies and thought about the prejudiced comments by Lady Sharples and Lady
Rawlings.
 |
| Mabel Layton (played by Fabia Drake) as she was depicted in the TV version of The Jewel in the Crown |
No comments:
Post a Comment