Talk:House of Lords/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article has been vandalized

This article has been vandalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.97.67.58 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Latin

In the article for George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe is this: The House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings for Die Martis 23° Novembris 1999 records .... Why is Latin used for this reference? JackofOz 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The House of Lords still used Latin in some of its proceedings and documents until about 4 years ago. Remember that this is an institution that also still uses Norman French occasionally. - Chrism 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

reform

they have just voted in the house of commons to make it a completly elected house Catintheoven 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware that this is only a motion proposed by the Government. There is a motion for the House of Lords to consider in the next few weeks, followed by further cross party talks on how to proceed. The next possible period in which a House of Lords Reform Bill to go through Parliament shall be at the next State opening of Parliament, in Novemeber. In other words, there may still be, 18 months say, for any solid legislature to be made law. If it does, indeed, because I doubt Gordon Brown shall want to persue such a policy in his first term as Prime Minister- He shall focus on social rather than constitional reforms.

Party affiliation in the Lords

To this outsider, this list of Lords party affiliations on Template:British_political_parties is pretty bewildering. I put a query on the template talk page, but didn't get an answer that made sense, so I am posting a (slightly reworded) version here.

Right now this template says that there are 196 Lords who are cross-benchers (which the corresponding Wikipedia page defines as meaning that they are "member[s] of the British House of Lords who [are] not aligned to any particular party") and thirteen are "Non affiliated" (no link to any explanation). What exactly is the distinction between these two categories? While part of this is my idle curiosity, I'm wondering if there's any reason we need separate entries in the template. --Jfruh (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Peers in the House of Lords who do not take a party whip (ie. they are not told how to vote by a political party) sit on the Crossbenches. Due to their independence Crossbenchers do not adopt any collective policy positions. They speak in debates and vote in Divisions as individuals. On most policy issues it would be rare if all Crossbenchers who voted were only found to be supporting one side in a Division. There is no process of whipping for the Crossbenchers.

The difference between crossbenchers and the few peers that are non-affiliated is that if you are a crossbencher you have the support and help of other crossbench peers, as opposed to non-affiliated Lords who have to struggle through the complicated and bewhildering world of Westminster by themselves- there are only 2 or 3 non-affiliated Lords. The crossbenchers have a covenor, who is effectivley a leader of the crossbenchers. Crossbenchers are often specialised in a particular field, and shall only really make a contribution when something they are an expert in crops up.

Thank you for the explanation. You say there are only 2 or 3 unaffiliated Lords, but the template says that there are 13 -- is this in error?

A couple of follow-up questions:

• You make it sound like not participating in the Crossbench group, such as it is, puts peers as a disadvantage -- why might they choose not to do so anyway?
• Is there any reason why Lord Brett should be broken out as an "Independent" on this table? Or David Stoddart, Baron Stoddart of Swindon as "Independent Labour" and Lord Stevens of Ludgate at a "Conservative Independent"? Is there a functional difference between these peers and those who are non-affiliated?
• How about Timothy Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley, who makes up a Green caucus of one, or the two UKIP peers -- is their situation functionally different from the unaffiliated? --Jfruh (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• There are 3 non-affiliated Lords Temporal. The reasons why they are non affiliated are: Never attending the House (Lord Grenfell); Being a liar and a criminal (Lord Archer- Lords are still members of the House of Lords even if they have been sent to prison); Being a vicar (Lord Harries of Pentregarth). The rest are the Bishops, who are non-affiliated, but act as a party in their own right on many occasions, Lead by the Archbishop of Cantebury.
• Lord Brett and Lord Stoddart have had their whips removed for being 'rebels' (see chief whip). Lord Stevens (a former metropolitan police comissoner) is a member of the conservatives, but obviously isn't an officially certified member of their Parliamentary party. All these Lords are members of political parties but they do not to take the party whip. (Clare Short is the House of commons equivalent).
• Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke defected to UKIP from the tories. Lord Beaumont of Whitley defected to the Greens from the Liberals. The fact is that these three Lords are members of a political party, and are offically recongnised by the party. They are not independant.

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: yes

2. Factually accurate?: No The article does not have adequate citations and sources. It should have inline citations to establish the factual aspects of the article

3. Broad in coverage?: yes

4. Neutral point of view?: yes

5. Article stability? yes

6. Images?: passable

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Argos'Dad 03:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

House of Lord membership numbers

Am I correct to assume that there is no legally set number of Lords -- that is, in theory at the moment the Queen could create as many Life Peers as the govt. wanted? --Jfruh (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although the government does not make the recomendations- there is an appointments commission that vet any possible Baron/ Baroness for their legitamacy (i.e. are these Lords going to make good contributions to the House of Lords?)

The Queen can, in theory, do whatever she wants! Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro says there are 745 members of the House of Lords, while the box to the right says 746, and the table further down, under "Current composition," says 732. Can these be reconciled? --AaRH —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The 745 and 732 figures are from May and are in agreement (732 current members plus 13 on leave of absence = 745 total members). The 746 figure is from July. I have update the May figures so that they now agree with the July data (735 current members plus 11 on leave of absence = 746 total members). Road Wizard (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Age requirements

"No person may sit in the House of Lords if under the age of 21. "

I believe this is incorrect, i happen to take the tour of the Lords the ohter day and the guide mentioned the youngest member of the Lords is 18... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.14.135 (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The age requirements appear to be correct. According to the Standing Orders Of The House Of Lords, as amended on 16 July 2007, Lords below the age of 21 haven't been able to claim their seat in the House of Lords since 22 May 1685. I have added the citation to the article. Road Wizard (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Is "epithet" the right word? Using "Rt Hon" doesn't actually mean that the holder is *really* a right trusty and honourable person, its just a pair of words used for the sake of form. I think "style" (or whatever the technical term is) is a better choice. 202.89.156.185 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The powers of the House of Lords should be in the lead section

I believe one of the most important features of this article is what powers the House of Lords have. I think this should be included in the lead section (as was done for the US House of Representaives. Bilz0r 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of English error - comprise

The article used the word comprise erroneously in two places, but my attempt at correcting this has been undone in one of them.

The Sovereign, the House of Commons (which is the lower house of Parliament and referred to as "the Commons"), and the Lords together comprise the Parliament.

A whole comprises its parts. (Subject, transitive verb, object.) To say that the parts comprise the whole is wrong, as confirmed by Wiktionary which suggests the word compose.

Wiki Ray B 13:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lede

I think the lede should explicitly state that membership of House of Lords is no longer a right of birth to hereditary peers, which some (possibly most) overseas readers may not be aware of. Jooler (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposition, controversy?

There is quite a large anti-Lord following in the UK, whether or not it is strong enough for more mention in the article I don't know, just throwing it out there.Jaccob (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can justify it with supporting media references, why not?Kingkong77 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no discussion of criticisms of this institution at all. As a US citizen many potential arguments against the institution such as nepotism, separation of church and state, democratic process, etc. I would be very interested to learn about and see explained the positions of the "anti-lord" following in UK. (Drn8 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Colour of seats

On a tour of Parliament I went on about 7 years ago, the guide told us the Lords' seats were coloured red and the Commons green, as red was the most expensive dye to make and green the cheapest - can anyone confirm this? I would have thought purple would have been more expensive? Craigy (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

History Section - events of 1322?

The articles says that the power of Parliament was legally recognised in 1322, which is true as far as I know; but the statute in question was one removing previous de facto powers from Parliament (see article on Edward II of England), and the sense of the sentence was that it was a statute granting powers. Anyone object if I change that? Hadrian89 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Peers in the Commons

Can peers serve in the House of Commons, or are they restricted to the House of Lords? fishhead64 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Up until 1999 peers were given an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords (with the possible exception of Irish peers and unelected Scottish peers), which disqualified them from sitting in the Commons. However, under the House of Lords Act 1999 hereditary peers lost their right to sit in the Lords, but allowed up to 92 hereditaries to remain. The hereditary peers elected 90 of their membership to retain their seats while the others had to leave (2 more retained their seats because they held specific Parliamentary offices at the time). When one of the existing 90 hereditary seats becomes vacant the remaining hereditaries vote to elect a replacement from a list of hereditary peers that are willing to stand for election to the Lords.

Under the current rules any hereditary peer not currently in the Lords and not on the list of peers awaiting election is allowed to vote for or stand as an Member of Parliament to enter the Commons. I think there are currently three hereditary peers in the House of Commons but I can only recall the name of one, Douglas Hogg (I think one of the others is a Liberal Democrat MP).

Life peers are given the right to sit in the House of Lords for life so they are not allowed to vote for a Member of Parliament or stand as an MP themselves. Road Wizard (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm curious, then, how the Duchess of Atholl was able to sit in the Commons? fishhead64 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons spring to mind, but specific research would be needed to confirm if I am right or not. First it was not her title, she attained title through marriage to John Stewart-Murray, 8th Duke of Atholl. Second, her husband's title was a Scottish peerage (a title granted before the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland). As part of the terms of Union only 16 of the 154 Scottish peers were allowed to sit in the Lords. I assume that the peers not allowed a place in the Lords were free to stand for election to the Commons, as evidenced by her husband also being an MP for a period of time (see Representative peer). Road Wizard (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A third reason that has occurred to me is that women were not allowed a seat in the House of Lords until the passing of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (female life peers) and the Peerage Act 1963‎ (female hereditary peers). Road Wizard (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help! It would seem that the underlying principle is that a peer may stand for election to the Commons if he or she is ineligible to sit in the Lords. fishhead64 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Salary?

Is there a salary? Or do they just get allowances? I didn't see anything about this though maybe I missed it:) Malick78 (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New file File:House of Lords and House of Commons during King Charles I's reign, circa 1640-1642 from NPG.jpg

Recently the file File:House of Lords and House of Commons during King Charles I's reign, circa 1640-1642 from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Hello, if I could make it out clearly I would have changed it myself but I am still not 100% certain. I can see that 21 lords maintain appointment through religious importance and 90-odd are hereditary/selected from the inheritance group. Could someone add to the lead section "90-odd are seated after inheriting a lordship title, 20-odd are seated because of their religious signifigance and 600 or so more are there because... (?)" It just doesn't cover it now. House of Commons, United States Senate and United States House of Representatives all cover how the numbers are tallied in their lead sections. It might make a bit of a "list" sentence but at least the info would be concise and accessible? ~ R.T.G 10:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Entire article needs to be updated since the creation of the Supreme Court

I've noticed that in the article there are still plenty of areas which haven't been updated since the end of the Law Lords and the creation of the Supreme Court since the 1st October 2009. Any mentions of the Law Lords or the judicial functions of the House of Lords needs to be put in the past tense rather than the present tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.219.141 (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from merely changing the tense, the entire "judicial function" section should be rewritten to reflect that the judicial functions are now historical. Gabbe (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No sense

The article at first seems absolutely brilliant, but it really isn't because of one thing - namely, after reading the whole article, I still have no idea what role is of the House of Lord in British parliamentarism, and more especially, there is no data as to how the MPs are elected/appointed/whatever? --CROAnalyst (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Second chamber

The first sentence in the article refers to the "second chamber", but it's not at all clear what that means, even in its second or third use in the article; perhaps some clarification would be helpful if the phrase is to be used in the lead. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Citizens and Citizens of Ireland?

The eligibility requirements section says that members of the House of Lords must be UK citizens, Commonwealth citizens, or citizens of Ireland. Are there actually any Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizens who sit in the House of Lords?

This seems like an incredibly strange provision. Is there a reason why it was ever thought to be a good idea to have non-British citizens have a say in domestic UK government? It seems strange enough to think of a Canadian or Australian being in the House of Lords, but even weirder to think of Commonwealth members like Rwanda or Pakistan. Perhaps oddest of all is Ireland, which has chosen not to have any special relationship with the UK like the Commonwealth nations do. It seems like this is something that requires a little more explanation. Tbj2102 (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There have always been various sitting peers, life and hereditary, who are citizens of other Commonwealth countries, though many will also have had UK citizenship: see e.g. Australian peers. In terms of Commonwealth peers with no obvious links to the UK, there is of course Robin Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon, who was ennobled in 1996 when he retired as President of the NZ Court of Appeal. He then sat as a UK law lord until he reached the retirement age of 75. (As a Privy Counsellor, he also sat on appeals to the Privy Council in London from NZ and various other Commonwealth countries.)

Why? The main reason is simply the way British nationality law has developed. UK citizens developed as merely one sub-category of "British subjects", which included citizens of other Commonwealth countries. Commonwealth citizens are still not considered "aliens"/"foreign" in the UK, which is why they are eligible to vote and to be members of either house of Parliament, the judiciary, armed forces, police, civil service, etc. Only in very limited areas, such as the FCO, are non-British citizens not allowed. The second reason, as you can see from the example of Lord Cooke, is the close ties that still exist between the UK and other Commonwealth countries.

As for Ireland, the reason is simply that the Ireland Act 1949 treats Irish citizens in all respects exactly as if they were British nationals. Andrew Yong (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, not in all respects, surely. When the Bob Geldofs of the world get their honorary knighthoods, they're not permitted to be known as "Sir Bob" (I know, I know, most everyone calls him Sir Bob - but they're wrong) because they're not citizens of a Commonwealth realm. Why do they make this distinction at the knighthood level, but still allow them to become members of the House of Lords? Geldof can never properly be Sir Bob Geldof unless he adopts British citizenship, but he could well become Lord Geldof one day without having to take that step. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Function?

After reading the article, I still have no idea what the House of Lords, umm, does. Other than the ability to delay certain bills by varying amounts of time it seems to have absolutely no function other than to look pretty, and I'm sure that's not correct but I couldn't find any other function at all. Help, please? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The House of Lords is the Upper House of the UK Parliament and serves as a "second look" at all Legislation introduced in the House of Commons (lower house). They can revise legislation, debate legislation, and introduce amendments to legislation. They can also introduce their own legislation. They have a Question Period where Ministers of the Crown (who do not sit in the House of Commons) can be questioned on their respective Ministries. They have Legislative Committees which can also review legislation. The Speech from the Throne is read from the House of Lords, and until the recent implimentation of the UK Supreme Court, the House of Lords was the equivalent. Jonathan (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Membership Function?

Neither the lede nor the body of the article convey the slightest idea of precisely how members are determined, only various factors that qualify, with even the presumptively inherited seats, an unquantified fraction, not explicitly stated. Are they appointed by the crown, the current government, elected or what? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Life Peers

The article leaves me confused. Life peers, a portion that outnumbers all others, were mentioned only cursorily at the end of the article, with any info about who they are, how they are chosen, what are their qualifications. Can anyone articulate on the subject? Tran Quoc123 (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They are appointed by the Queen on the suggestion of the prime minister. Usually, the larger part are in turn suggested by the parties to him, and some are suggested by an appointment commission. There are no formal qualifications required AFAIK. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Crowned Portcullis.svg

The image File:Crowned Portcullis.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)