Feeling very sorry for the Greek people tonight. In fact considering what they have given to the civilised world, as soon as they are allowed to use their own currency again, I shall be looking to make my first visit to their beautiful country. A Drachma reversion will mean"much cheapness" for wily Brits who, should they tire of the sun, sea and sand, can take a packed lunch and watch the rioting.
Screwed over by the banks and the rich who refuse to pay any tax at all, the Greek people have every right to be very cross indeed. Consequently it will not surprise me to tune into breakfast news tomorrow and see parts of Athens and beyond smouldering.
Unfortunately the Greeks don't hold the monopoly on unrepresentative and uncaring politicians. A brief examination of the goings on within the House of Lords within the last 48 hours certainly illuminates that fact.
Starting on Monday afternoon with Lord Tebbit's insinuation, disguised by self-mockery, that the a future election to the House might have to be customised in order to insure against the natural outcome of the democratic process.
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend Lord Forsyth is exactly right. If we were to appoint people to the House in proportion to the votes cast at the last general election, on my calculations we should have about 24 UKIP Members and also, interestingly, about 14 Members of the BNP and a few Greens. I am not sure that that would be greeted with universal acclaim. However, it is clear that something has to be done.
I am beginning to think that we need a market solution. Perhaps whoever is working out these matters-somebody must be working them out, after all-should arrive at a conclusion as to how many Members they would like to leave this House. Let us say that the number is 100 in the first tranche. They could the issue a notice to tender for redundancy; the tenders would be issued in reverse order so the lowest tender would be able to achieve redundancy with some small amount of money. It would have the added attraction that we could look at each other's estimates of much we valued ourselves. I think this would add greatly to the mirth and hilarity not only of this House, but of the nation.
If we are both still around I suspect me and Mr Tebbit might share a few interesting conversations should events be allowed to take their natural course. That is unless low self-esteem proves to be a convenient escape route.
Meanwhile on a far more serious note just take a look at this utterly revolting exchange that took place last night during a debate on referenda within the Localism Bill:
(Lord Greaves Lib Dems) I want to say one more thing about the dangers of extremism. I am really very fortunate in that I represent a small, compact urban ward on my local council. We have small wards and the electorate is under 4,000. I say that I am fortunate because you get to know a large number of people in the area. I was looking at the result for the last time when I had to stand for election, three years ago-I did not have to, but I did-and the party which came second in that ward was the BNP. The BNP got 337 votes, which you might not think is a huge amount but 5 per cent of the electorate is under 100 voters in a ward of under 4,000 electors. I worked it out as 95; I could go and get 95 signatures on a petition for almost anything, on any afternoon that I wanted to, because that is the way that things are with people signing petitions. If somebody goes along and gives them the blarney, they sign it and do not necessarily look at the words on it. That is unfortunate but true.
In an area like that, which does not have a large ethnic minority population but does have a significant number of Asian ethnic minority families, I can imagine the real danger that would occur with an appropriate subject question for the referendum. If they were clever, it would not fall outside the rules but everybody would know exactly what it meant. I would be very unhappy with a threshold of 5 per cent. Certainly, for smaller wards, our view is that it should be very much higher. We are suggesting 25 per cent in the first of our amendments. In the second, we question whether the Secretary of State should by order be able to move the required percentage threshold up or down. It is such a sensitive matter that we question whether the Secretary of State should have that power, which is set out in the Bill.
(Lord Beecham Labour) He and other noble Lords are right to point to some of the dangers that can arise and the mischief that can be made. In the next group of amendments, we shall come to the point about members of councils calling referendums. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about that and support his amendment. However, one can clearly see a variety of difficulties. For example, in my own ward there is currently a proposal for a historic building, which has been acquired by the Muslim community, to be made into a school and community centre. The BNP is already stirring up hostility to that proposal. It is not just a planning proposal; it is a proposal for a school and so on. The amendments on planning would cover the planning side but it goes beyond that. One can clearly see the difficulties that could arise from the referendum process, a public vote and so on.
Lord True (Conservative)
As far as the debate is concerned, I take the point that seeing it only from the point of view of the opposition was a defect in what we said-perhaps it comes from being under the control of my noble friends for 23 years-but I think the point made about the temptation on parties in power to procure referendums is important, and I hope my noble friends will consider it. Equally, the point made about the BNP by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was important, and I hope my noble friends will consider it further.
