Subject: Oratory and persuasion.
Oratory I a powerful and emotive tool in the hands of impassioned people. The House of Commons is currently debating the proposal to remove of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
I have grown up querying the nature of the English Aristocracy and its place in the running of the country. The idea that the act of ennobling a person and to give them a title is anachronistic, this extension of privilege is out of character in a country which seeks to establish the principle of egalitarianism. In the days of noblest oblige a French term which dictates the idea that noblest dictates their efforts towards the community around them has as in most dictates not taken into their opinion the frailty of mankind.
Our political history unlike the French has sought to find an acceptable key for that class of people who can cast their lineage back to powerful families who name was the stuff and consequence of who we are, their education and their provenance in history with the power and opportunity to give thought to politics as it pertained to them.
Many of the peers are trained in law and therefore trained in the minutia of law and the need for controls to enable a country to act as one and not be riven by competing forces. The establishment was formed by this need and whilst it did not always exclude the needs of the people the priority of the establishment has always been self preservation.
The nature of the Lords unlike its unruly plebeian cousin the Commons was adroit debate rather than the excitement of political name calling. As the Commons has become more ideologically self censoring with the Whips Office driving and calling the tune along party lines rather than individual political opinion. Political parties are agenda driven and choose to draft laws which are popular thereby enabling the ensnarement of the public and their vote.
The Lords not having to rely on the dictates of the voter is far nor free to broaden their view as to the suitability of a proposed act which will become law. They can push the boat out to examine eddies in the deeper current of welfare especially those of unintended consequences. The Commons with its large Labour majority seeks to push ahead with reform of the Lords believing the chamber to be anachronistic, but perhaps it’s this anachronism that is its main benefit since not only does it approach issues from a different point of view it’s not tainted by the pork barrel politics of rewards for your vote.
I think we are unique in having an unelected body who’s purpose is to examine legislature because, as we have seen in so many areas of life, successive governments fail to address failure (as was seen in the Post Office scandal and the Contaminated Blood scandal) to name but two. The forensic evidence gathered by experts and presented, line by line in a quasi courtroom has uncovered the depth of corporate corruption in the Post Office by setting legal minds to the job of unearth the facts.
The Commons is not equipped technically to do the job of vetting each clause of a new act which they wish to become law even though they are the originators of the new legislation. It’s often only through the fine comb of an alternative view that the short comings appear. The Lords, being released of the need to do constituency politics, which takes a lot of time and effort of the ordinary elected politician, have the time to pore over each clause before it’s handed back to the Commons to be passed into law.
Political ideology haunts the Labour Party on such matters as hereditary peers and there is a fear that it will obscure the benefit they bring.
I have grown up querying the nature of the English Aristocracy and its place in the running of the country. The idea that the act of ennobling a person and to give them a title is anachronistic, this extension of privilege is out of character in a country which seeks to establish the principle of egalitarianism. In the days of noblest oblige a French term which dictates the idea that noblest dictates their efforts towards the community around them has as in most dictates not taken into their opinion the frailty of mankind.
Our political history unlike the French has sought to find an acceptable key for that class of people who can cast their lineage back to powerful families who name was the stuff and consequence of who we are, their education and their provenance in history with the power and opportunity to give thought to politics as it pertained to them.
Many of the peers are trained in law and therefore trained in the minutia of law and the need for controls to enable a country to act as one and not be riven by competing forces. The establishment was formed by this need and whilst it did not always exclude the needs of the people the priority of the establishment has always been self preservation.
The nature of the Lords unlike its unruly plebeian cousin the Commons was adroit debate rather than the excitement of political name calling. As the Commons has become more ideologically self censoring with the Whips Office driving and calling the tune along party lines rather than individual political opinion. Political parties are agenda driven and choose to draft laws which are popular thereby enabling the ensnarement of the public and their vote.
The Lords not having to rely on the dictates of the voter is far nor free to broaden their view as to the suitability of a proposed act which will become law. They can push the boat out to examine eddies in the deeper current of welfare especially those of unintended consequences. The Commons with its large Labour majority seeks to push ahead with reform of the Lords believing the chamber to be anachronistic, but perhaps it’s this anachronism that is its main benefit since not only does it approach issues from a different point of view it’s not tainted by the pork barrel politics of rewards for your vote.
I think we are unique in having an unelected body who’s purpose is to examine legislature because, as we have seen in so many areas of life, successive governments fail to address failure (as was seen in the Post Office scandal and the Contaminated Blood scandal) to name but two. The forensic evidence gathered by experts and presented, line by line in a quasi courtroom has uncovered the depth of corporate corruption in the Post Office by setting legal minds to the job of unearth the facts.
The Commons is not equipped technically to do the job of vetting each clause of a new act which they wish to become law even though they are the originators of the new legislation. It’s often only through the fine comb of an alternative view that the short comings appear. The Lords, being released of the need to do constituency politics, which takes a lot of time and effort of the ordinary elected politician, have the time to pore over each clause before it’s handed back to the Commons to be passed into law.
Political ideology haunts the Labour Party on such matters as hereditary peers and there is a fear that it will obscure the benefit they bring.
No comments:
Post a Comment