Talk:House of Lords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article House of Lords is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 28, 2004.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Cultural event unites Irish Lord, Native American tribes.", The Jackson Sun, January 25, 2005.

Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Socsci.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Representative peer - the link in the second paragraph to the above says nothing about the former hereditary peers elected in 1999. Catchpole 17:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Article talks of the "Reform Act of 1911"... that should be the Parliament Act 1911, right? Also, some mention should be made of the Parliament Act 1949, the argument that the Parliament Act 1949 is unconstitutional (have a look at the House of Lord Hansard for 2000 or 2001, where one Lord introduced a bill relating to this), and the Salisbury Convention (have I got the name right?). -- SJK

make the writting a bit shorter


How is it that the Privy Council is the highest court at the same time as the House of Lords is the highest court? (Is it that the Privy Council always decides cases on the advice of the Lords? Or what?)

--Tb 00:21 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has a list of the areas in which the Privy Council is the highest court - mainly appeals from Commonwealth countries and a few specialist areas like devolution law and appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts. For almost all points of English law the highest court is the Lords. Also bear in mind that the "Lords" and the "Privy Council" in these cases have a substantial number of members in common. (See Judicial Committee of the House of Lords) --rbrwr

Ah, thank you very much. I see now that I misread the wording of the Privy Council page. No strong preference, but it might be nice for House of Lords and Privy Council to each have a sentence briefly acknowledging the judicial role of the other? --Tb 08:26 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Maybe so, though the judicial role of the Privy Council within the UK is pretty small. Most of its UK cases are appeals from doctors who have been struck off by the General Medical Council. See the list of cases so far this year. --rbrwr

Exactly--that's my point. The Privy Council page says "functions as one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom." I understand that that Privy Council does precious little judicial work, and that the Law Lords are vastly more important (for the present!). But the encyclopedia shouldn't rely on this understanding... it should *explain* it. --Tb 09:39 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've put in a brief disclaimer at Privy Council for the moment, and will have a harder look at the "Judicial Committee" pages. --rbrwr

I'm quite interested in the term "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords". More at Talk:Judicial Committee of the House of Lords


In what sense in the House of Lords "ad hoc"? --Tb 20:02 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have been pondering that question myself.... I was going to rewrite the first para myself (after that odd edit earlier) but I got stuck on how much detail to add on the purview of the judicial function - i.e. it is not just the highest court for England (and Wales), but also for Northern Ireland and for Scottish civil cases, but not for Scottish criminal cases or the handful of things that fall under the Privy Council. --rbrwr


Here's a suggestion: Leave the opening paragraph much as-is. Have secions: "Membership", "Legislative functions", "Judicial functions", "History", "Future directions".

Membership would be what it is now, but say more about how the 92 hereditary peers are elected by their peers. :)

Legislative functions could describe what it really does now.

Judicial functions could describe the role of the Law Lords, the two committees in which they do their work, and so forth. (And then the bad page on the "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords" could simply be dropped.)

History would be what it is now.

Future directions would mention perhaps the abolishment of the Lord Chancellor, changes to drop all hereditary peers, reduction in the number of bishops, and dropping of the judicial function.

--Tb 20:51 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is there no public-domain photo of the chamber itself? This would make an excellent opening illustration, I think... Radagast 14:40, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How many options?

A Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament five options to choose from (fully appointed, twenty per cent elected, forty per cent elected, fifty per cent elected, sixty per cent elected, eighty per cent elected, and fully elected).

I count that as 'seven' options. --Palnatoke 07:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No article is perfect, but..

No article is perfect, but this is just a beautifully done article. I'm proud to see such a high-quality article in Wikipedia; it's a gem that truly deserves to be shown off.Zantastik 03:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on membership

The "Lords Spiritual" form only a small part of the total membership. This article gives the impression that they are the major portion. This is incorrect. anonymous comment copied from Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 28, 2004

Where does it give that impression? Rob.derosa 21:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future of the House

If the House of Lords becomes fully or partly elected in the future, will it regain some of the political privileges it has lost, such as the right to reject legislation passed by the Commons? Funnyhat 07:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. There is no law that states that it would regain any of these powers; the reforms would have to cover such specifics. -- Emsworth 10:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green Peer

THERE IS A GREEN PEER COULD SOMEONE ADD THIS

James Cullis

I think you already did [1]; however you put it in the wrong place - a footnote about hereditary peers - so I took it out again. The Green is Timothy Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley, a former Liberal and Liberal Democrat, who is a life peer. He comes under "other parties" in the "current composition". I wonder whether we need a footnote about the "other parties"; the Greens are the only "real" party among them, the rest being independents of one sort or another or non-aligned. --rbrwr± 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
cullis here surly he is by right another party? 
therefore he should get slot as green is legelly a PARTY

[edit] Simple Math Problem

2+24+706=732. The article says there are 731 members, then proceeds to list 2 archbishops, 24 bishops, and 706 Lords Temporal. This would seem to be a bit of a discrepancy. I'm not sure what is correct... someone please resolve?

The table at the end lists 706 lords temporal and 25 lords spiritual. Could the discrepancy be due to the Archbishopric of York currently being vacant? The previous archbiship, David Hope, resigned some months ago but was then granted a life peerage; John Sentamu was recently designated as his successor but not yet installed. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It is worth adding that the numbers in the table are supported by this official source. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church and State

  • Guys, Why is that there are Bishops and archbishops in the government in England??? When are you guys going to get the Separation of Church and State in England? See http://www.republic.org.uk --Brian (proud American, former US Navy submariner)
    • England doesn't have a government. Perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom? And if you think religion has too much influence on our government, I suggest you take a good look at your own President. Proteus (Talk) 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the religious types in the House of Lords are just kind of groovy, hippy style, kindly old gentlemen who aren't too worried about God n' that. None of them would be even remotely barmy enough to suggest creationism be taught in schools. --bodnotbod 21:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree about the President of the United States, but you see, first of all, the President can't write laws; we have a separation of powers here. Secondly, as much as some members of Congress want to have a Christian theocracy, they can't, because we have a written Constitution preventing it. In contrast, you guys actually have Lords Spirtual, and your Queen is Protector of the Faith. What nonsense. ROFL I refer you again to republic.org.uk. Those guys are the real patriots of Britain, you should listen to them. What silliness, that men should allow themselves to be ruled by a monarch. "Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" -- the Declaration of Independence. Great men they were. As far as creationism, I agree with your adversion from it, but I remind you that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach it in public school. And a federal judge recently ruled that teaching Intelligent Design at a public school in Dover, PA was unconstitutional as well. Another example of how the Founding Fathers were smart to require that there will NEVER be an established Church of America the way there is a Church of England. ROFLMAO :) --Brian (same guy as above)


[edit] Canadians in the House

This article currently states that commonweath members may sit in the house, however, shouldn't the article note the fact that in practice Canadian citizens are prevented by the Prime Minsiter invoking the Nickle Resolution ? This was the famous case of Conrad Black.

Speaking of Black, is there any procedure or precident set to strip someone from the house of lords for committing a crime ? Dowew 00:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No - except perhaps for treason. --Henrygb 16:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The number of hereditary peers

Is the number of hereditary peers(90) after adoption of the House of Lords Act 1999 fixed ?

For example, if a hereditary peer dies, will his/her seat be filled by election or left open ?

Siyac 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There are elections, several of which have already happened. (The two seats held by the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, of course, are just taken by their successors, as happened on the death of the 17th Duke of Norfolk in 2002.) Proteus (Talk) 16:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hereditary government, what nonsense. Why did Parliament not eliminate ALL hereditary positions, including the monarchy?? Again I refer to the Declaration of Independence... "government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." What right does some schmuck have to govern just because his father was in Parliament? Without a vote his office has no legitimacy in my mind. Thank you, Thomas Jefferson et al., thank you. LONG LIVE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!! --Brian (same one as above)

The US President is a President's son, a Senator's Grandson and a Governor's brother. I'll not start on the Kennedys. Although I acknowledge all are elected, it is one of those odd twists that defines the difference in the way the two countries are governed. Britain has vestigial herditary politicians, whereas the USA is the one with the true Ruling Class.Epeeist smudge 10:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Brian", this kind of political ranting has no place on Wikipedia. We're not here to dispute the virtues of hereditary government. Although as a staunch monarchist I feel that there are advantages to hereditary titles, I will not debate this here. Contact me on my talk page if you want to argue about it, but don't use this page as a political soapbox. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Stick to the facts. Walton monarchist89 13:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

can we just scrap the political opinion stuff above, or does it ride around cluttering up the talk page indefinately? -- Akb4 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maths

There is a flaw:

2 Archbishops +24 Bishops +706 Peers =732 Members

But the text says it has 730 members only. So which number is correct? Longbow4u 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

733 ([2]). ;-) Mucky Duck 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The February 1, 2006 stats on that page are 726, while the Wiki article was just updated to 732 (by someone (72.137.243.234 | talk | contribs) who has accidentally made a few little mistakes in his contributions in the past). Should the parliament.uk numbers be copied to the article? Possibly with a note to check the external page for latest stats? Weregerbil 14:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1999 House of Lords Act

The 1999 House of Lords Act barred hereditary peers from the House, except for 90 as elected by other peers. Who is eligible to be one of these 90? Are Irish peers and Scottish peers eligible?

I think Scottish peers (and Irish peers, so long as they're from the North) are allowed in, because Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK. Scott Gall 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Sign your posts from now on.

[edit] Possible discrepancy

I've noticed that the House of Lords has more members than the House of Commons. Most upper houses have less than the lower house, eg. the Australian Senate has 76 members as opposed to the House's 150, the United States Senate has 100 members as opposed to the House's 435, the Canadian Senate has 105 members as opposed to the House's 308, and the New Zealand Legislative Council had 54 seats before it was abolished, and 54 is less than the 121 seats that the House of Representatives has now. So if other upper houses around the world have less seats than the lower house, then why has the House of Lords got more than the House of Commons? Scott Gall 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The House of Lords has more members than the House of Commons mostly for historical reasons. Originally, the House of Lords was smaller than the Commons; in Henry VIII's time, there were only 29 peers. But the members of the House of Commons represent a fixed number of constituencies (659, I think), and an MP who loses an election loses their seat. The House of Lords, on the other hand, can theoretically have an unlimited number of peers; there is no legal limit on the number of life peers that may be created. Because peers serve for life (and hereditary peers also pass on their titles), and are not subject to election or periodic removal, the House has grown very large. Clearly, this situation doesn't apply to the Australian Senate or most other Upper Houses, which generally have a fixed number of elected seats. As for the Canadian Senate, which is appointed, I don't know if there is a fixed number of seats or if an unlimited number of senators can be appointed. I'll just check... Walton monarchist89 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found out that the membership of the Canadian Senate is fixed at 105, as you said, and that its membership is also divided up between the different Canadian provinces and territories. No such fixed constitutional limit exists for the House of Lords; the Sovereign, on the advice of the UK Prime Minister, can appoint an unlimited number of peers. Hope this answers your question. Walton monarchist89 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

House of Lords have no fixed number of members. So may be it is good idea to describe in this article, how did this number changed in a timeline?

Igor

[edit] Lord Speaker

With the advent of the office of Lord Speaker there will have to be some major changes made to numerous pages on Wikipedia.

[3]

David 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elected

It says:

"The House of Lords is an unelected body...90 are elected to represent the other hereditary peers" (from the unelected members, but this isn't made very clear). Shouldn't there be some more info about how the members are selected near the top of the page? 193.206.155.195 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yes. This seems a pretty significant contradiction, and it's been over two months since this comment, so I'm going to fix this, and make two other modifications as well. I plan to rewrite the phrase "although power is traditionally held by the elected House of Commons" and expand the phrasing in the first "Introduction paragraph to note the number of life peers vs. hereditary. -- Akb4 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer

A peer now means a member of the House of Lords. I.e. one of the Life Peers (including Law Lords) and the 90 (+2) hereditary elected peers and the 26 Lords Spiritual who are peers by virtue of their office. The term does not include hereditary Lords who are not amongst the 92. - Kittybrewster 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is entitled to sit on the steps of the throne?

(a) Hereditary members of the House of Lords who were members before the reform of 1999; (b) the eldest child of a member of the House of Lords; (c) peers of Ireland; (d) Privy Councillors; (e) the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and (f) Black Rod. - Kittybrewster 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

what is the significance of being entitled to sit on the steps of the throne? when do people sit there, and why? -- Akb4 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't look it up, but I think they only sit there when the Sovereign (in personam) or the Lords Commissioner are present (and making an announcement). But don't quote me on that. --Mbimmler 14:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
They can sit there to watch normal sittings and some usually do.Alci12 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of hereditary Peers not now in House of Lords

I'm not sure this needs to go into the article, but I have a question as to the current status of those hereditary peers that were not selected to sit in the House of Lords. Can they vote in General Elections or stand for election to Commons?

I could well be wrong, but I believe that under the old rules, Peers did not "have the vote" the same way that Commoners do... ie, They did not vote in the election of their local MP (since they were entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and thus in a sence, represented themselves). Now that most of the hereditery Peers can no longer sit and vote in the House of Lords, was this changed? Were they granted the vote or are they now disenfranchised? 38.112.47.92 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they can not only vote for the Commons but stand for election to it (and indeed Lord Lothian, Lord Thurso and Lord Hailsham are currently MPs). This, however, isn't a new state of affairs: the restriction on voting and standing in general elections has only ever applied to members of the House of Lords, and so peers who were not members (such as those peers all of whose titles were in the Peerage of Ireland or (until 1963) Scotland) have always been able to vote and stand for election (and often did so — Lord Palmerston, for instance, a Peer of Ireland, was twice Prime Minister in the nineteenth century whilst sitting in the Commons). Proteus (Talk) 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lords Reform history

FYI to editors of this article. Lords Reform and a quasi-companion article History of Lords Reform both cover material that is in this article but using their own scope (pre-1997 and 1997 onward). The material in the three articles should probably be coordinated and properly integrated so that those two articles are subarticles of this one, or at least of the History section. At the moment this article does not link to them at all. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Future of the House

This article should have a section on the future on the house of Lords. It is vital and of the supreme importance that this section for, anyone with a basic knowledge of the political climate of the United Kingdom will know, the future of the House of Lords is often in the news. Therefore the time for a section on the future is needed. Wikipedia must not full behind the times, it must keep up with the prevailing views of the day.87.113.89.95 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying to track too closely every twist and turn of current developments is risky: wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. I agree that there probably should be something on this, but much caution is needed to keep it balanced and to avoid it getting caught up in the intricacies of the blow-by-blow debate, which can rapidly become ephemeral. There is something to be said for keeping any such section at the level of noting formal policy prouncements by the government and the major parties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a risk. The whole point of an encyclopedia on the internet is that it is constantly updated if this is not done I might as well go buy a book. Therefore why not take a risk? Wikipedia must not fall behind, if so it could become dull, repetitive and simply boring. The only way to stop this is to have a small section tracking the news, I would be willing to do this. EditorNo.235 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on Lords Reform where this could be covered in more detail, it isn't necessary to have blow-by-blow, up-to-the-second report here. Yomanganitalk 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I too believe it is necessary to have a news report of what is going one, it sounds like a great suggestion.194.154.22.54 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA Status

Is this or is this not a FA? The two CD banners reference it as FA class, but it doesnt show as, and references are pretty thin on the ground. Can anyone clarify this? Thanks RHB 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Ignore me, just found the FAR review :/ RHB 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/u/Talk%7EHouse_of_Lords_4802.html"