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.
Politics Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
House of Lords was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 13, 2007
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives


Contents

[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)

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)

[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.

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:House of Lords logo.PNG

Image:House of Lords logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)