´óÏó´«Ã½

so the people with a talent for making money get to run the country and continue to line their own pockets - I don't fancy that at all. and I've rarely come across rich folk with totally altruistic views on life, the universe and everything.

The value of a peerage is in the fact that it (supposedly!) cannot be bought. I suspect that if one could, for example, buy a Nobel prize or an Oscar, people would attach far less importance to them. This is probably true of peerages too. If people could simply and legally buy them, would they still be worth anything?

A Famous African novel, called 'Things Fall Apart' decribes a tribal life in which titles are bought. I think the price, significantly, includes a big feast for the village. This sounds a bit like general taxation and redistribution of wealth to me. It seems to work well for them - until the missionaries came!

Some thoughts:

1. The honour may well make the buyer happy, but the sale of honours does not 'give money to the rest of us', at least not when peerages are (as is alleged at present) sold by *parties* and not by the state.

2. Those with the 'most talent' in their chosen field (such as business) may be those who can best afford to purchase peerages, but this does not automatically make them 'the most talented' in the field of politics.

3. Indeed, insofar as successful businessmen can buy a direct stake in the legislative process, there may well turn out to be a fundamental conflict of interest between that which gave them the ability to purchase their peerage (good business acumen and, presumably, a successful business or two) and the (hopefully) impartial work of a member of the legislative body (eg when drafting or scrutinising legislation directly concerned with those businesses).

3. Naturally, the buyer is happy - for they have bought a direct stake in the legislative process.

No doubt, to some extent, a host of economic aspects (class background being particularly relevant) may well determine just who has a chance of becoming an *elected* representative. In a sense, this is bad enough for liberal representative democracy; how much worse when the wealthy can simply and directly *purchase* access to the law-making apparatus of the state?

I suppose that here I am making the all-too-obvious and none-too-contentious suggestion that the discourses and justifications of free-market economics and democracy are not necessarily always coincidental.

"...Secondly, if markets work well, then the people with the most talent are the ones that will have the most money..."

Please explain this assertion. It doesn't sound like logic to me.

Unless your definition of talent, and your definition of markets, both differ from mine.

People get rewarded with money for their ability (talent) to make money.

Van Gogh wasn't very talented at making money. Does that mean he wasn't talented at all ? What about great works of art that have been inspired by economic suffering: if the talented artist had been rich, the suffering might never have occurred to inspire the work.

Talented people sometimes get rewarded with fame, kudos, time, power, sex, admiration, the elusive "sense of job satisfaction", peerages ... all sorts of non-monetary rewards.

Of course some, not all, talented people make money from their talent.

People inherit money. People win lottery. People strike oil. People sell drugs. People sell slaves. None of these require any talent.

To determine for yourself the relationship between talent and money, go and buy Paris Hilton's CD.

If selling peerages for cash becomes legitimate, then they may as well be auctioned off to the highest bidder. There are two problems with this. First of all, peerages are not the property of the ruling party, and yet the proceeds will go to fund that party's campaigns. What right does a political party have to sell off a commodity which it does not own?
Secondly, the purpose of the upper house is to help to shape the law of the land, to perform a service which affects all of us. It should not be carried out solely by those who are wealthy, as decisions taken about health, education, defence etc, affect us all in more or less equal measure. These decisions should not be taken only by those who have achieved in one narrow field, that of personal wealth creation.

a bit of a dolly as a first challenge...
1) it may make the purchaser happier, but who is benefiting? Not the taxpayer, in this case but a political party. And is this price fair? The political party is stealing the value, which is to incentivise those who contribute to the wellbeing of the country overall.
2) why is it true that those with most talent make the most money? The whole point of peerages is not to reward those with most money (who already have that reward)but those whose distinguished service in one field or other makes them suitable to be a member of a body which influences the society in which we all live. Those whose are willing to buy themselves into that role would seem to be those who are least suited to it.

"Nothing that is of value can be bought"

Nice idea, but can I suggest that honours were never purchases so much as payments? And whilst honours can be seen as a type of currency, a proper means of exchange, what is being exchanged is influence for prestige.

This currency would collapse if its prestige were eroded; imagine the ghastliness if every successful used-car salesman in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot had to be addressed by Polite Society as an equal.

As you see, some things money cannot buy: you either have it or you don't.

Snobbery, for instance.

Whilst your first argument might be true, I think your second leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps if one were to properly define 'talent' with respect to ability to make money and ability to govern, as well as equating 'talent' with ones desire to serve the public interest. Even if these issues were resolved it is not necessarily the case that "the market works well". Unfortunately I don't think we can allow market forces to run riot in the house of lords just yet...

In fact, the more I think about it the more your question of "why?" seems rhetorical.

Re: Rachel's point. The possibility of waning importance may actually be an argument in favour of market forces. If less cache is placed with such a position, individuals may be less likely to buy a position purely for the grandeur, and may care more about the job required of them (of course they may still use the position for self-serving means, but at least they would be contributing to the debate!).

Whilst your first argument might be true, I think your second leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps if one were to properly define 'talent' with respect to ability to make money and ability to govern, as well as equating 'talent' with ones desire to serve the public interest. Even if these issues were resolved it is not necessarily the case that "the market works well". Unfortunately I don't think we can allow market forces to run riot in the house of lords just yet...

In fact, the more I think about it the more your question of "why?" seems rhetorical.

Re: Rachel's point. The possibility of waning importance may actually be an argument in favour of market forces. If less cache is placed with such a position, individuals may be less likely to buy a position purely for the grandeur, and may care more about the job required of them (of course they may still use the position for self-serving means, but at least they would be contributing to the debate!).

It depends on what benefit/utility a peerage confers to the general public at large. That benefit/utility should not be compromised in any way.

This theory would seem to suggest that those that make the most money have earned it through some form of meritocracy where everyone starts from zero and is aiming for the same thing, i.e. to make the most money. However, we all know that some start from a better position than others and we do not all aim for the same things in life. Also, what of the character of the person who makes the most money? You could argue those who push themselves to succeed ahead of everyone else may do so by being less honest and scrupulous.

• First, the honour makes the purchaser happy, and it gives money to the rest of us. (However, the honor induces jealousy in some of us and, if the purchaser is not seen as "honourable" [or at least not dishonourable] in the first place, many may see him/her as being undeserving.)
• Secondly, if markets work well, then the people with the most talent are the ones that will have the most money, and hence the most ability to buy an honour.(The pertinant question here isn't whether or not markets work well, rather it is what "talent" is being rewarded. One may be the most talented self-promotor in the world and a lousy human being at the same time. In the United States we have Paris Hilton... she has gobs of purchasing power but very little honor.)

Your second assumption only holds true if people did not pass on their money to their children, or if children inherited all of their parents' talents. My observation is that such talents tend to be 'watered down' through the generations.

Because of this, surely it is likely that a lot of peerages would be bought by the talentless offspring of rich people?

Peerage and democracy do not seem to mix well. If someone gets a peerage for a service to the crown, it makes sense to reward such behaviour as the monarch is one and with a consistent policy. Peerage for services to the government of the day are intrinsically more complex as issues of fairness are obvious due to the dubious link between the national interest and the party interest.
The idea of making it a commodity is interesting but then it would be unclear what sort of behaviour is going to be rewarded and for what purpouse; biggest tax payer?

I don't really care if some people have such an inferiority complex, or an overblown sense of their own imnportance, that they want to buy a peerage - as you rightly point out, this is similar to buying a personalised number plate.

But I do object to people being able to buy into the governing process of this country; we wouldn't accept it for MPs (would we?). So, let them buy a title if they wish but deny them an actual seat in the House of Lords.

I think Lord Sutch had the right idea; just call yourself 'Lord' if you're that way inclined.

It depends on what benefit/utility a peerage confers to the general public at large. That benefit/utility should not be compromised in any way.

Unless I am mistaken those who acquire peerages for cash have the authority in the Lords to vote and amend or delay commons legislation. What on earth is democatic about that? A wholly elected upper chamber is the only true way forward as regards this issue.

Ah yes but what about those who inherit wealth, position, power titles etc from their more talented/ lucky ancestors...For example Mark Thatcher?
They do say talent skips a generation!!!

Another problem is that your model assumes that there is only one party offering peerages.

If you assume that there are two ways you can use the peerage.
1. to sell to businessmen in exchange for party donations.
2. to entice MPs,who are no longer in favour,to give up their seat in the commons (booting them upstairs).

If a party is wealthy they will be more likely to use option 2 so that they can have better control of their parliamentary party.

If a party is poor they will be more inclined to go for option 1.

This means that the businessman with political convictions is always at a disadvantage to the convictionless businessman who will donate to whichever party in order to get a peerage. Hence weend up with the worst of the worst (useless politicians and convictionless businessmen) as party representatives in the Lords.

I think the answer to all your "challenges" can be found here:

In short...

Government based on patronage and wealth becomes corrupt as people will see their "purchase" as an investment and will use their political power to recoup their investment and then to increase their wealth.

I think a straight purchase would be a bad idea for many of the reasons stated by other people.

However, I do rather like the idea that rich people could pay for a place in a lottery to become a peer.

It would generate a lot more money (hopefully not for a political party) and the lottery could be a voting process (oooh, phone votes, more money!!) so only the best of a bad bunch would get in.

It would be interesting to see how people would want to contribute £1m (the going rate I think) if there was no certainty of a result?

Leaving aside the question of whether wealth is the sole reason for deserving an honour, how much are these honours being sold for? If a knighthood costs £100 million, say, then only Richard Branson and people of that level of income will be able to purchase one. If the price is set at £1 million, then the number of potential knights may exceed the number of available knighthoods (or other honours) If you set the price of a peerage at £1000, then it falls within the means of middle-class salaried workers.
My vote would be to set the price of a basic honour at about £10, allowing everybody the chance to buy one. Then the entire population could be a Lord, Earl, Knight, MBE or whatever. Everyone would have to be addressed politely as Sir or Madam and would get a vote in the House of Lords, turning that body into a truly democratic.........(cont. on page 97)

I asked my bank for a loan to get a peerage and they turned me down.

Are we going to assume that the rich list does not include the criminally wealthy who have yet to be caught?

Suppose a group of people club together to buy an un-regulated peerage and then raffle it?

Which one of these possibilities sounds like the current system?

to maximise revenue from peerage sales you should auction a single peerage every year to the highest bidder rather than negotiation secretly.

only sell a single peerage per year as value is likely to decay rapidly if to many are sold.

auctions are the best way for small quantity.

It amazes me that so much time & effort has been put into investigating claims about the sale of honours, without it actually being ascertained that it is illegal. After all, the only people being "robbed" by the sale of honours are those that want to be. That was of course until the police decided to investigate, then suddenly the public purse was robbed to pay for the investigation.
What are the alternatives?
It seems that those in power don't think it a crime to rob those who don't want to be robbed by proposing that political parties should be publicly funded. Now that really would be a crime! But then most things politicians do seem to border on the criminal. Perhaps we should open the whole of Government to market forces & pay politicians by results.
A few rich or power hungry people might pay for legislation, pretty well the people who pay for honours today. So it seems unlikely that Government would change, except to become a little more transparent.But as for the rest of us, I doubt many of us would be buying.

Are we going to assume that the rich list does not include the criminally wealthy who have yet to be caught?

Suppose a group of people club together to buy an un-regulated peerage and then raffle it?

Which one of these possibilities sounds like the current system?

As regards the argument about talent; on the premise that markets work well people with talent will have the most money and thus honours and this is argued as more just than people inheriting them. John Ralws would argue that the talented and those born into privelage both have honours by arbitrary means because talent is due to luck. What Rawls calls 'the natural lottery' decides who has which talent and how much. Rawls aruges that talents should not merit reward over non/lesser talent as people have done nothing to deserve these talents. Maybe then, ralws would argue that in spite of any economic reasoning, the political privelage should be put into the hands of everyone, that everone should be given at least an agreed minimum amount of political power.

Everyone seems to be talking about 'buying' honours, but suppose I buy the relevant honor, become Lord Jambo of Dalry, fall on hard times ( yet again) can I then sell my Lordship?

If so where do I sell it, on eBay? Will there be a dusty corner of the Stock Exchange that will be a market to trade in these honours.......

Just a thought...

"the people with the most talent will have the most money"- Evan, this is the central fallacy in the argument.

A talent for making money usually goes hand in hand with a single minded focus on material things at the expense of spirituality, creativity, love etc. A society which wants to be functional needs to find a way of introducing these concepts into economics as part of the bottom line. If something makes a lot of money for one sector of the community but at the expense of the happiness of a larger sector, then it should not be seen ultimately as profitable.
This seems to be starting to happen, but a wee bit late for the current incumbent at no 10.

"Secondly, if markets work well, then the people with the most talent are the ones that will have the most money, and hence the most ability to buy an honour."

This is only true if monetary reward is the only motivating factor, but of course that isn't true. There are plenty of very talented people who forgo money making opportunities because they have alternative motivations. For instance, if a man gives up the opportunity to work longer hours because he wishes to spend more time with his family, is that a sign he lacks 'talent'?