By: CCBC
Jimbob: most Australians vote a party ticket in Senate elections. The party ticket will have a specific strategy of dealing surplus votes (this is STV, folks) to minor parties to avoid giving them to...
View ArticleBy: athenian
No Mutant Enemy: Jimbob is right, houses that had different constitutional roles would not necessarily have the same make-up, particularly if the electoral system differed, as would be likely in this...
View ArticleBy: matthewr
Well, when he told me about it (now there's a name-drop and a half, many apologies), I got the impression he had joined as a student and not done anything about it for years. The argument that he only...
View ArticleBy: No Mutant Enemy
matthewr, cross-bencher is correct. late in the process, he remembered he was a member of the Labour partyI'm always forgetting stuff like that. Regardless of which, Winston's Blairite views are fairly...
View ArticleBy: Jimbob
I really cannot see the point of two elected houses. If the second house were elected at the same time as the first, it would probably have the same make-up as the first; if it were elected at...
View ArticleBy: matthewr
Actually, No Mutant Enemy, Winston was going to be an independent (cross-bench?) Lord until, late in the process, he remembered he was a member of the Labour party, and mentioned this to the Commission...
View ArticleBy: No Mutant Enemy
I really cannot see the point of two elected houses. If the second house were elected at the same time as the first, it would probably have the same make-up as the first; if it were elected at...
View ArticleBy: athenian
My own view, which I guess is obvious from my tone in earlier posts, is that the Lords do an OK job, but not one notably better than elected second chambers elsewhere in the world. Their much-remarked...
View ArticleBy: Goofyy
I view Lords as a force for conservatism, in the non-political sense of the word. Not neccesarily a bad thing. But when they get all Tory, pardon, I can't see it as much more than lunacy. Whether...
View ArticleBy: UbuRoivas
I imagine not - in today's security-conscious environment, the cucumber wrapped in tinfoil down his trousers would not make it past the metal detectors.
View ArticleBy: potsmokinghippieoverlord
Bah. I guess we won't see the 5th Baron Haden-Guest back in the House of Lords.
View ArticleBy: southof40
Just to second orthogonality's point - a good component of the stupidity described was introduced by Tony Blair in the last ten years. As someone who used to live in the UK it was frightening to me the...
View ArticleBy: UbuRoivas
God bless England and her oddities! Imagine having an upper chamber of Parliament, comprised of hereditary landed gentry only, which is so remarkably genteel that it chooses to set up house at the very...
View ArticleBy: matthewr
Indeed, there's no obvious solution, and good arguments on all sides. Each of the options for appointment — political parties, general election, an independent commission (ha!), primogeniture — has...
View ArticleBy: languagehat
As an anarchist, I thoroughly approve. The more elections there are where 47 doddering hereditary peers choose a replacement and hope he can make it to his seat before he croaks and they have to do it...
View ArticleBy: grouse
I am really up too late—that makes no sense. I mean who will do the selection.
View ArticleBy: grouse
And on the other hand you have the hereditaries, who don't even have the qualifications of being headteacher and local councilor. The problem with an unelected second chamber is who will do the election?
View ArticleBy: matthewr
I think changing the composition of the Lords, for example by introducing elected peers, can't happen without thinking about the role of the Lords. The role of a second chamber is fairly clear in a...
View ArticleBy: athenian
Seanyboy: The cure for admiring the hereditaries is to hear them debate lowering the age of homosexual consent. They were also a solid right-wing Tory block, and much more ready to defeat Labour...
View ArticleBy: Jimbob
But what is the point of the Lords if not to delay legislation? A debate not limited to the parliament in Britain; the Australian Senate faces the exact same situation. Historically, it is the "house...
View ArticleBy: grouse
they would feel entitled and able to use their power (to delay legislation, for example) far more than when the Commons had been more recently elected. You're probably right. But what is the point of...
View ArticleBy: matthewr
grouse, I realise "whichever chamber last elected holding the most power" wasn't quite what I meant to say. When the Lords had been more recently elected, they would feel entitled and able to use their...
View ArticleBy: Jimbob
I'm also a bit confused about how the "parties" side of the House of Lords works, mainly because when I think of aristocratic hereditary peers, I think Tory... Are there really that many...
View ArticleBy: seanyboy
I like the idea of hereditary peers. The idea that there's a bunch of people who have a small degree of political power who aren't influenced by a desire to hold onto power at any cost is a good thing....
View ArticleBy: cillit bang
How do they determine which seats go to what party? I mean, is it by national party registration, or what?Wikipedia implies it's just a number pulled from thin air. Party registration doesn't exist in...
View ArticleBy: imperium
CautionToTheWind, that was the one good bit of British history where there was no King or Queen. Happy days (except for the Irish and to a lesser extent we Scots).
View ArticleBy: ericb
U.S. Congress is to Britain's Parliament, as baseball is to cricket. It takes some effort to understand and appreciate the similarities and the differences.
View ArticleBy: grouse
This perceived mandate would conflict with the Lords' real constitutional role, and in effect result in two competing chambers, with whichever chamber last elected holding the most power. In reality,...
View ArticleBy: martinrebas
"The strangest election ever"? With competition like this? http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/footpowder.asp "Did you happen to read that story from Ecuador? Seems that they sell a foot powder down...
View ArticleBy: matthewr
The debate on reform of the Lords is very interesting, and complex. This is an interesting summary from the Economist. One point that it doesn't mention is something raised by Lord Lipsey: whenever a...
View ArticleBy: Abiezer
I fear the institution will never again reach the heights of the 1649-1660 model.
View ArticleBy: orthogonality
Tony Blair's changing the forms of the "Mother of Parliaments" -- limiting membership in Lords, and "devolution" -- is yet another symptom of his colossal arrogance and foolhardiness. "Prudence,...
View ArticleBy: athenian
They determine the composition of the hereditary group on the basis of the party that the hereditaries affiliated with in the last year when all hereditary peers sat in the Lords as of right. The year...
View ArticleBy: delmoi
How do they determine which seats go to what party? I mean, is it by national party registration, or what?
View ArticleBy: grouse
The list of candidates all have the first initials L, V, or E. Of course that means lord, viscount, or earl, but it seems strange to me to put it this way. Actually the whole thing is strange.
View ArticleBy: athenian
Sorry, it may not be apparent to those not steeped in the arcane elements of the British constitution that there are about 1,000 hereditary peers, of whom only 92 serve in the House of Lords at any one...
View ArticleThe strangest election ever
There's about to be an election (pdf) in the British Parliament's second chamber, the House of Lords. Not an election where the public can choose their lawmakers: that's still a matter of debate. No,...
View Article
