Labour to achieve Lords landmark

[JAG]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4118404.stm



Labour to achieve Lords landmark
The House of Lords
The Tories have long been the largest party in the Lords
Labour is set to match Conservative numbers in the House of Lords for the first time on Wednesday.

Both parties will have 203 peers after Labour ex-chief whip Derek Foster and ex-arts minister Alan Howarth take their Lords seats.

By August, Labour will overtake the Tories as the largest Lords party.

But ministers stress they will not have an overall majority and opponents predict they will still be able to cause the government problems.

New batch

The government is potentially facing a rough ride in the Lords over plans for ID cards and a new offence of incitement to religious hatred.

Once all 27 new peers are sworn into the Lords, Labour will have a total of 214 peers, the Conservatives 208 and the Liberal Democrats 74.


NEW STATE OF THE PARTIES
Labour: 214
Conservatives: 208
Lib Dem: 74
Crossbenchers: 184
Figures based on Lords once all new peers take seats

Full list of new peers

There will also be 181 independent peers, known as crossbenchers.

While new peers are being gradually inducted, the title of largest party in the Lords will sway between Labour and Tories.

Conservative Lords leader Lord Strathclyde said: "Mr Blair has created more peers, more quickly than any prime minister ever, averaging something like 42 a year."

He questioned when the appointments spree would end, but Labour insists it thinks no one party should again be able to dominate the upper house.

'No free ride'

Lord Strathclyde said the landmark of Labour having more peers would make it easier for the government to stave off smaller defeats.

But he warned: "I am confident that many Labour peers coming to the House of Lords will wish to demonstrate that they are not the prime minister's cronies and that they wish to hold this government to account."

Labour peer Baroness Kennedy backed that view saying ministers should not expect a "free ride" as there would be enough independently-minded peers.

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has said the latest batch of peers will not change the "basic arithmetic" in votes.

'Persuasion needed'

Deputy Lords Leader Lord Rooker said the government did not intend to give itself an overall majority.

"We will therefore always have to do deals, there will always be some difficulty if we can't persuade one or other of the other parties to support us, or a majority of crossbenchers," he said.

The government has promised to remove the 92 hereditary peers allowed to remain in the House of Lords in the first stage of reform in 1998.

A joint committee of MPs and peers is to be created to review the conventions of the Lords, such as whether peers refrain from opposing manifesto commitments of the government.

MPs have also been promised a free vote on the House of Lords' composition, which could include directly electing peers.

Previous attempts at reform collapsed when MPs and peers failed to agree on any of seven options, from an all-appointed to a fully-elected second chamber.



~D

*is beaming*

Short of reforming / abolishing it, the best we can do is fill it up with Labour peers so at least we are represented evenly, unlike the previous 100+ years when the Tories have had a constant HUGE majority, even if they had lost elections.

*sniggers*

Just to think the biggest party in the Lords being Labour, ahahahaha!

[King Henry V]

Just a load of cronyism by the Dear Leader, who, now that he can be easily defeated in the Commons, now wants to make it as easy as possible for the Lords.

[English assassin]

Oh come off it. Tone said in 1997 he was going to reform the house of lords to make it a representative body. Now, instead of going there because you are a peer (which at least had the advantage of being slightly random), you go there by kissing Tony's backside.

Yeah, that's a great step forward in modern democratic governance all right. Once again the UK shows the world how these things are done.

I'd also like to know how "filling it up with labour peers" constitutes being "represented evenly". 35.3% of voters voted labour, 21.6% of the country voted Labour, obviously those 21.6% deserve to be "represented equally" by a bunch of Tony's chums?

[InsaneApache]

The upper house should be elected. It is a travesty that it is not. Political appointments (Mandelson anyone?) are not democratic.

It's simple. The powers of the upper house can be enshrined in law, there is no need for the Commons to feel that a democratically enfranchised upper house is a threat to them. A revising and advising chamber it should remain, just an elected one.

Funny though that the apparachniks Bliar placed there turned around and bite his bum quite a few times. I suppose the level of democracy runs deep in the UK, he should take a leaf from their book. ~:handball:

[lars573]

Just how the hell is Toady blair filling the house of lords with his buddies? I mean you have to be a lord to get in their right? How is he able to throw out life peerages so easily?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Lars,
Tony got rid of the traditional ways to enter the lords and now you only get in if you are appointed. By Tony.

[Duke Malcolm]

No, one can also be appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission (http://www.houseoflordsappointmentscommission.gov.uk), which is also appointed. By Tony

Alternatively, one can be appointed at Her Majesty's Pleasure, (which is what I intend to do after a long and devoted career in HM Armed Forces, becoming a teacher, and marrying Princess Eugenie) which rarely happens...

And hopefully the House of Lords doesn't become elected. We hardly need another 600 fools running around vote-grabbing and politicking...

[ShadesWolf]

God help us, from the Blair squad and his buddies

[JAG]

God help us, from the Blair squad and his buddies

You will never get away from Blair - in 10 years time he will be Lord Blair of the universe ~;)

[Duke Malcolm]

You will never get away from Blair - in 10 years time he will be Lord Blair of the universe ~;)

Now now JAG, don't forget, it will be the Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MSCP (Member of the Second Chamber of Parliament). The Lords Reform Committee isn't one for creativity...

[InsaneApache]

You will never get away from Blair - in 10 years time he will be Lord Blair of the universe ~;)

Darth Bliar...with his sidekick Maul Prescott, a fearsome and unpredictable creature, unable to communicate and unwilling to listen unless hit in the face with a fresh/organic chickens egg.

May the dark side save us all from this menace. ~:cool:

[BDC]

I'd make the Commons PR and the Lords take on MPs in the traditional, constituency sense. So people still get local issues raised but the main decision making house is actually representative.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You will never get away from Blair - in 10 years time he will be Lord Blair of the universe ~;)
*looks at Patriot Missile silo* I think not.

[BDC]

*looks at Patriot Missile silo* I think not.
I dunno. Americans seem to love Blair...

[Mount Suribachi]

And hopefully the House of Lords doesn't become elected. We hardly need another 600 fools running around vote-grabbing and politicking...

*applauds*

Between elections for local councils, parliament, the European parliament and the proposed district parliaments the last thing we need is another bunch of people desperate to say anything to grab your vote.

Credit to the Lords, they may be hated by the left on an institutional level, but they're not the governments rubber-stampers to be bullied about at the PMs whim, though that hasn't stopped Blair from trying. They are nowhere near as partisan as the MPs in the commons.

Personally I liked the old fashioned way of resolving conflicts between the Lords and Commons. If the Lords reject a bill 3 times we have a general election based around the issue. If the government wins the election then the Lords pass it. As happened with the reforming Liberal budget of 1911 I think it was.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I say we elect the Lords by lottery-everyone gets a number, and if yours comes up, you serve for a few years. Keeps the non-elected nature of the house, without having them appointed. Should result in a pretty decent cross-section of society too.

[Mount Suribachi]

Ha!

You think we've got some muppets serving now, I can't imagine the dolies who live down my street serving in the Lords *shudders in fear*

[Tribesman]

*looks at Patriot Missile silo*
Silo ???? besides which maybe you should choose a weapons system that has a better track record . ~;)
And anyway I thought Blair was the Whitehouses pet poodle , you wouldn't really want to kill your presidents lap-dog would you ?

More to the topic , scrap the House of Lords .
Can any of the British tell me , are Lord Archer and Mark Thatcher still allowed to take up their seats ?

[JAG]

Can any of the British tell me , are Lord Archer and Mark Thatcher still allowed to take up their seats ?

Yes, amazingly they are. No law against someone who has broken the law taking their seat, if that makes sense ;p

[Mount Suribachi]

Well, Mark Thatcher broke the law in another country, so that would make his situation a legal minefield, but that a crook like Archer should be allowed to keep his seat is a disgrace - although I would fully expect the Lords to to blackball him at every opportunity

[Duke Malcolm]

Sir Mark Thatcher never held a seat, since he was never a peer. He merely is the 2nd Baronet Thatcher, inherited from his father. Lord Archer still holds his seat, however, which is rather silly. But one can hardly say that this is grounds against the system. Tony Blair lyed about going to war, yet he is still Prime Minister.

[Tribesman]

Sir Mark Thatcher never held a seat, since he was never a peer.
But doesn't he get the seat when Maggie goes to hell ?

Well, Mark Thatcher broke the law in another country, so that would make his situation a legal minefield,
But are not himself and Archer both the subjects (among others) of an inquiry and possible British trial in relation to the coup plot ?

[Duke Malcolm]

Sir Mark Thatcher never held a seat, since he was never a peer.
But doesn't he get the seat when Maggie goes to hell ?


No, Baroness Thatcher only holds a life peerage, not an hereditary peerage, so thankfully, he won't be getting that cushti baronial title...

[ICantSpellDawg]

from a moderatly informed watcher of the british political system - the house of lords is absurd and so is the royal family

a bane on the existence of the UK - but those are just my 2 cents.
the royal family belongs in a british museum if it believes that it should be both tax exempt and recieve government payments

the house of lords could be replaced with an even remotely representative body

i would like to see this - but my desires for the british poli system have nothing to do with reality

[Duke Malcolm]

The royal family is not tax exempt, HM the Queen pays taxes on private income, and the money from the Treasury only pays for things such as having foreign heads of states round for tea.

As for the House of Lords, It should certainly be more representative, and a body independant of politicking should appoint new peers, not big man Tony.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The royal family is not tax exempt, HM the Queen pays taxes on private income, and the money from the Treasury only pays for things such as having foreign heads of states round for tea.

As for the House of Lords, It should certainly be more representative, and a body independant of politicking should appoint new peers, not big man Tony.


weren't they tax exempt only a short time ago?
the Queen decided to call off the side-show because she realized that if she didn't, the entire performance would be cancelled


it is a slow and money swallowing descent that the monarchy is following

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Yep, I agree totally Tuffstuff, the Royal Family is an affront to our democracy and should be removed post haste.

[King Henry V]

How is it actually an affront? Did it suddenly declare that the act of Habeas Corpus was repealed and that the country under a state of martial law? I suppose a supreme head of state with all powers would be better?
The way the Royal Family both pays money in and gets money out is a bit silly and time-wasting. It should just get payed less. What could be done is that it is given property or something and it gets it money from that. The money could be re-paid over a period of time and would be more economic in the long run.
For the house of Lords perhaps a council of wise and learned people should be elected. These people would then appoint all peers, whilst they would be barred from standing for Parliament and other political posts, nor would they be allowed to have any previous record of politics.

[Duke Malcolm]

What you have described about the Monarchy is exactly what happens just now...

Also, perhaps one should remember that it is the present government, and European things which seek to repeal Habeas Corpus (which is trial by jury, yes?), both of which are democratically elected...

The thing about the council of wise and learned people being elected is very similar to what happens now, with the House of Lords Appointments Commission,although these are appointed people, and Big Man Tony can over-rule them (as can HM the Queen, but that is merely Royal Prerogative, and there would be a great out-cry of damaging our democracy, even though Tony seems able to do it at his will...

[InsaneApache]

Yep, I agree totally Tuffstuff, the Royal Family is an affront to our democracy and should be removed post haste.

Interesting viewpoint. This was why the English (and Scots) re-installed King Charles II during the restoration.

We tried being a republic and only suceeded in becoming one of the worlds first semi-elected dictatorships. I, like some of my countrymen, really couldn't give a toss about Madge and her dysfunctional brood....however the alternative is much, much worse.

One has only to look across the Atlantic to see what we might end up with. If you feel happy with a 'President Bliar' or a 'President Prescott' or even (God forbid) a 'President Cherie' then you must have partaken of some strong psychotropic drugs ~D ....and they have a written constitution to protect them. We dont.

No, loath them or hate them....Charlie, Camilla, Phil the Greek, Madge and the rest of the motley crew are here to stay....

[King Henry V]

Habeas Corpus is the law against imprisonment without trial, something which the Dear Leader is trying to do today.

[InsaneApache]

Ahh good ol' Habeas Corpus...perhaps someone would like to remind Bliar and his cronys about this.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

A small detail our beloved leader may have overlooked....

YOU CANT LOCK PEOPLE UP WITHOUT TRIAL IN THE UK UNCLE TONY........IT'S ILLEGAL..

Jeez some folk.

this sounds familiar..


That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

hmm...right to bears arms anyone?

and this...


That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

So the Yanks did have a point (sort of :book: )

[King Henry V]

Ah yes, but only allowing Protestants would be racist wouldn't it.............

[InsaneApache]

Religionist yes....racist .... ~:confused: ...well you got me there mate. :book:

[Duke Malcolm]

Perhaps we should take such things to the Court of Appeal or Session, since the Bill of Rights cannot be repealled... Also, I'm sure that there was something in there about Parliament not having the power to remove rights granted unto the people...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

How is it actually an affront? Did it suddenly declare that the act of Habeas Corpus was repealed and that the country under a state of martial law? I suppose a supreme head of state with all powers would be better?
The way the Royal Family both pays money in and gets money out is a bit silly and time-wasting. It should just get payed less. What could be done is that it is given property or something and it gets it money from that. The money could be re-paid over a period of time and would be more economic in the long run.
For the house of Lords perhaps a council of wise and learned people should be elected. These people would then appoint all peers, whilst they would be barred from standing for Parliament and other political posts, nor would they be allowed to have any previous record of politics.

The affront is the fact that the Royal family are afforded certain rights and privileges simply due to the fact of their birth. In any true Democracy, this is unacceptable. I was fervently against the old inherited peers in the house of Lords for the same reason

I didn't say anything about a supreme head of state with all powers-that's some nice putting words in my mouth. In fact, do we really need an official head of state? Removing the royal family from the equation, our political system would seem to be fine. We wouldn't need to elect a president or anything like that.

[InsaneApache]

We wouldn't need to elect a president or anything like that.

I would consider that statement again if I were you mate. I think you will find that any modern state need a definable 'head' to sign off the laws and treaties etc.

Unless of course you are advocating personal anarchy....

I would have loved that at 17, but at pushing 50 it would just do my back in ~D

[King Henry V]

The affront is the fact that the Royal family are afforded certain rights and privileges simply due to the fact of their birth. In any true Democracy, this is unacceptable. I was fervently against the old inherited peers in the house of Lords for the same reason

I didn't say anything about a supreme head of state with all powers-that's some nice putting words in my mouth. In fact, do we really need an official head of state? Removing the royal family from the equation, our political system would seem to be fine. We wouldn't need to elect a president or anything like that.
Ididn't mean to put any words in your mouth, I was merely drawing your statements to what seemed to me to their logical conclusion. By the same logical process, your argument that the Royal Family are given unfair treatment because of a mere accident of birth would mean that the descendants of a wealthy industrialist would not be allowed their inheritance. You thus attack one of the foundations of the modern capitalist world, the right to inherit.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Ididn't mean to put any words in your mouth, I was merely drawing your statements to what seemed to me to their logical conclusion. By the same logical process, your argument that the Royal Family are given unfair treatment because of a mere accident of birth would mean that the descendants of a wealthy industrialist would not be allowed their inheritance. You thus attack one of the foundations of the modern capitalist world, the right to inherit.

I'm not attacking the right to inherit-I don't care about the possessions, even though they are mostly paid for by the tax payer. It's the political inequalities that concern me.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I would consider that statement again if I were you mate. I think you will find that any modern state need a definable 'head' to sign off the laws and treaties etc.

Unless of course you are advocating personal anarchy....

I would have loved that at 17, but at pushing 50 it would just do my back in ~D

Why? It seems to me that our current political system would work quite well sans queen. I suppose you could re-name the office of PM president if you wanted to, but I doubt it would have much effect.

[King Henry V]

I'm not attacking the right to inherit-I don't care about the possessions, even though they are mostly paid for by the tax payer. It's the political inequalities that concern me.
Oh come on. They can't even vote let alone have any political power.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

only allowing things on grounds of religion will soon be illegal in the U.K. as rules on religious discrimination fall into place with rules on racial discrimination (just to bring up the only give Protestants a gun thing again).