At the time of writing, I haven’t seen the King’s Speech, but it’s a safe bet it will include a bill to enable wayward peers to be stripped of their titles.
The point, of course, is so that Keir Starmer, if he’s still PM by then, can show us just how much he loathes Peter Mandelson. It’s the equivalent of Loyalists after the Restoration exhuming Cromwell’s corpse so they could ‘execute’ him and stick his head on a spike in Westminster Hall. But because Mandelson hasn’t been found guilty of a crime – and is unlikely to be – the bar for removing a title will have to be quite low. It will inevitably be some version of ‘bringing the Lords into disrepute’.
You may think that’s not possible and I’m steeling myself for a barrage of ‘witticisms’ along those lines. But there’s a serious issue here. I know from my work at the Free Speech Union (FSU) that the nebulous standard of ‘bringing into disrepute’ is often invoked by green-haired Torquemadas to urge institutions to defenestrate anyone who dissents from their smelly little orthodoxies, sometimes with great success. Even when the complaint doesn’t achieve its ultimate objective, the process is the punishment, with the victims of these inquisitions emerging at the other end looking ten years older.
So that’s the risk if a head-on-a-spike bill receives Royal Assent. The House of Lords Conduct Committee – assuming that’s the designated hanging jury – will be deluged with vexatious complaints from political activists seeking to humiliate their opponents. One slip of the tongue, or contentious social media post, and a peer will be under investigation by a kangaroo court with the prospect of being ritually shamed.
It’s an absolute certainty that this new mechanism will be used to enforce liberal metropolitan dogma. For instance, if a maverick like Lord Pearson, a former Ukip leader, speaks at a Tommy Robinson rally, a chorus of petitioners will immediately call for his head – and might well get it. Again, I know from my FSU experience that anyone who says something ‘far right’ – such as expressing disquiet about mass uncontrolled immigration – is much more likely to be cancelled than an ‘anti-racism’ protestor chanting: ‘Globalise the Intifada.’ In this way, the Overton Window is moved further and further to the left.
If you think I’m being alarmist, just take a look at the Forfeiture Committee, a shadowy group of mandarins deep in the bowels of Whitehall whose job is to strip people of their honours. We don’t know how long the list of its victims is, because it doesn’t always publish its decisions and many honourees under investigation decide to fall on their swords since that’s preferable to having their disgrace publicised in the London Gazette.
I can tell you with complete confidence, however, that some of these unfortunates have been forced to surrender their honours, not because they’ve broken the law, but because they’ve said something perfectly lawful that the committee thinks is evidence of ‘Islamophobia’ or some other thoughtcrime. I know this because the FSU has gone to bat for some of those poor wretches. They’re solemnly informed they’ve brought the honours system into disrepute and then are put through a year of misery as they wait to find out whether the proudest achievement of their lives is about to be thrown in the bin.
One slip of the tongue, or contentious online post, and a peer will be under investigation by a kangaroo court
At present, peers aren’t at risk of losing their titles if they outrage respectable opinion because the remit of the Forfeiture Committee doesn’t extend to the Lords. But they will be if this new bill goes through. Consequently, it’s bound to have a chilling effect on free speech. People like me will be forced to think twice before challenging some progressive bromide and we won’t be able to hide behind parliamentary privilege since the Lords’ Code of Conduct applies to words spoken in debates.
Still not convinced? I’ve got one more argument for rejecting the bill. If prime ministers are foolish enough to nominate people for peerages who prove to be scoundrels, why should they have an opportunity to correct their mistakes? It would be better if the rogues hung around stinking up the place, reminding everyone what poor judgment their patrons have.
Three of the 65 Labour peers created by Starmer have already been exposed as wrong ’uns and no doubt there will be more. I’d prefer them to remain on the benches opposite so I can nod pointedly towards them whenever a Labour minister wags her finger at me. It’s Starmer whom Mandelson has brought into disrepute and no amount of performative outrage will change that.
Comments