http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13137835 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13137835)
QuoteHouse of Lords full, peers warn David Cameron
David Cameron has been told by a cross-party group of senior peers that the House of Lords is "full" and he must stop creating new members.
The prime minister has created more peers more quickly than any of his post-war predecessors, having ennobled 117 people in less than a year.
The House of Lords now has 792 members who are entitled to attend and vote.
The peers warn that this number is "unsustainable" and is damaging the effectiveness of the Lords.
The warning comes in a report from the independent Constitution Unit at University College London and has been endorsed by 13 peers from all parties.
They include former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler; former Speaker Baroness Boothroyd; the convenor of the independent crossbenchers, Baroness De Souza; former Labour leader of the Lords Baroness Jay; former Tory Cabinet ministers Lord Forsyth and Lord Mackay of Clashfern; former Labour cabinet minister Lord Adonis; former Liberal leader Lord Steel of Aikwood; and former Master of the Rolls Lord Woolf.
Time for some culling? :frog:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ydQWNTVRWio%2FS-bNU_1DLnI%2FAAAAAAAAAWY%2FS0YgKo8pzu4%2Fs1600%2F32733-la_revolucion_francesa.jpg&hash=55d079d04859faee3a9cccbcef24104067202b22)
He has created over 100 new Peers? I just sorta figured they were no longer creating new ones, the whole idea of a peer being sorta outdated.
I guess this is some sort of strategy to keep the HoL voting your way by appointing new ones. Lame.
Quote from: The Larch on April 20, 2011, 07:51:10 AM
Time for some culling? :frog:
I like the way you think citizen :shifty:
Seems bizarre to me that the PM has the power to create new lords. What purpose could that possibly serve?
Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2011, 08:01:38 AM
Seems bizarre to me that the PM has the power to create new lords. What purpose could that possibly serve?
I know. I wonder if one his last day of office he can just name himself a Lord :P.
Logically control over such a largely ceremonial thing should be controlled by the Monarch like in Spain. I mean what else do the figure heads have to do but create more figure heads?
But I think it is to make sure the House of Lords never becomes a serious independent political power.
Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2011, 08:01:38 AM
Seems bizarre to me that the PM has the power to create new lords. What purpose could that possibly serve?
I think the monarch actually ennobles the PM's nominees, rather than the PM directly ennobling them.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2011, 08:05:24 AM
I think the monarch actually ennobles the PM's nominees, rather than the PM directly ennobling them.
Ah ok that makes sense.
The government submits a list to the Queen and she creates them. Since it is her government she naturally agrees with the list :)
Quote from: The Larch on April 20, 2011, 07:51:10 AM
The peers warn that this number is "unsustainable" and is damaging the effectiveness of the Lords.
:lol:
These are all life peers btw, their titles are not hereditary.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2011, 07:56:01 AM
He has created over 100 new Peers? I just sorta figured they were no longer creating new ones, the whole idea of a peer being sorta outdated.
These days, they create life peers, which is the equivalent of a Senator with a lifetime term. The last hereditary peer created was former PM Harold McMillan in the early 80s. Since then, no PM has taken the traditional earldom, although some of them have become life peers (Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher).
QuoteI guess this is some sort of strategy to keep the HoL voting your way by appointing new ones. Lame.
That's exactly what it is. Labour had been packing the Lords for the last decade, and so now Cameron, whose government is relatively precarious (although the idea of Miliband as PM is revolting) feels the need to quickly redress the imbalance.
Is having a lot of peers the same as having a lot of facebook friends? :lmfao:
Quote from: Josephus on April 20, 2011, 08:22:24 AM
Is having a lot of peers the same as having a lot of facebook friends? :lmfao:
No. :mellow:
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2011, 08:20:26 AM
These days, they create life peers, which is the equivalent of a Senator with a lifetime term. The last hereditary peer created was former PM Harold McMillan in the early 80s. Since then, no PM has taken the traditional earldom, although some of them have become life peers (Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher).
Ah ok that is good to know. The old hereditary ones should be allowed to die out naturally (or not) without more being added.
There are only 92 hereditaries left IIRC
The Lords' main power is to review government legislation and bounce it back if it is a load of shit, the maximum delay is a year IIRC and they cannot hold back revenue bills. Most active members of the Lords are former government ministers, many of whom have drafted poor laws back in the day. It is quite a useful chamber of government IMO.
Any reform to make it more representative of the voters' will would likely make it a stronger force. Hence governments like to bleat about reform but then never do anything about it.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2011, 08:29:16 AM
Any reform to make it more representative of the voters' will would likely make it a stronger force. Hence governments like to bleat about reform but then never do anything about it.
'Vote for me for Duke of Northumberland and I promise to lead you all in revolt just like the old days.'
Yeah why would the Commons do anything to weaken themselves?
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2011, 08:24:16 AM
Ah ok that is good to know. The old hereditary ones should be allowed to die out naturally (or not) without more being added.
They're not allowed to die out naturally. There was a recent election of a new hereditary Lord but it's rather difficult. Basically they were allowed to choose 92 hereditaries. But one died out without an heir so the remaining 91 hereditaries got to vote in a new hereditary peer from the list of former hereditary peers of the deceased hereditary peer's party.
QuoteThe Lords' main power is to review government legislation and bounce it back if it is a load of shit, the maximum delay is a year IIRC and they cannot hold back revenue bills. Most active members of the Lords are former government ministers, many of whom have drafted poor laws back in the day. It is quite a useful chamber of government IMO.
In addition lots of businessmen like Lord Browne or Lord Sainsbury get appointed, as do scientists like Lord Winston, or non-CofE religious figures like Lord Sachs. My personal favourite is Peter Hennessy (now Baron Hennessy of Nympsfield :lol:) who probably knows more about the constitution than anyone. So though most active members are former (or current ministers, Blair said his noble ministers tended to be far more competent) there's this well of knowledge that occassionally speaks up. So Peter Hennessy's first speech was about the fixed-term parliaments the government wants, it was very interesting - he's opposed to five years.
Many life peers are appointed by an independent commission that rewards the great and the good and most of them become crossbenchers (independents). The PM's powers were left vague by Blair when he reformed the Lords and set up the commission that nominates new ones, the theory was that he'd stop - but he didn't so it's still a power of the PM.
Like RH I actualy quite like this House of Lords - though I do think it's getting unpleasantly partisan which this report points out. I don't know that reform to a wholly democratically elected chamber is a good idea. I don't think that the second, less powerful, revising chamber should have equal legitimacy to the Commons (and if they have PR, arguably more legitimacy) that strikes me as quite dangerous in our system. I mean I think we could see some more tussles with this government anyway, as almost nothing they will try to do will have been in their election manifestos the Lords will not necessarily feel they should stay out of it. If they had equal standing in terms of democratic legitimacy I can't see them just sitting back.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2011, 04:21:56 PM
They're not allowed to die out naturally. There was a recent election of a new hereditary Lord but it's rather difficult. Basically they were allowed to choose 92 hereditaries. But one died out without an heir so the remaining 91 hereditaries got to vote in a new hereditary peer from the list of former hereditary peers of the deceased hereditary peer's party.
There are, of course, far more than 92 hereditary nobles in the UK so the plan is to promote one of them to the Lords as these 92 go extinct?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2011, 04:21:56 PM
Many life peers are appointed by an independent commission that rewards the great and the good and most of them become crossbenchers (independents). The PM's powers were left vague by Blair when he reformed the Lords and set up the commission that nominates new ones, the theory was that he'd stop - but he didn't so it's still a power of the PM.
So it's like a super Knighthood?
The lords really does need sorting out. I've no clue how though. A directly elected lords just sounds a bit...awry. Would mostly just be a double of the commons. A PR lords maybe? I dunno
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2011, 04:34:46 PM
So it's like a super Knighthood?
Yep. A title plus actual legislative power.
QuoteThere are, of course, far more than 92 hereditary nobles in the UK so the plan is to promote one of them to the Lords as these 92 go extinct?
Yes. Presumably at some point we will let the hereditaries just die out, rather than having them carry on with their political allegiance in aspic from 1999. They could end up like the Bishops though.