I do like the wiki page on the London mayoralty race. One chap supposedly running is summarised simply as 'YouTuber seeking to win more votes than Laurence Fox'. Another's last name is London, so I like to think they will get some votes just for that. There's a rapper named Drillminister, Count Binface of course, and more.
That’s quite the impressive candidate list, given there’s a £10,000 deposit for a Mayoral election.
I'd just like to make one last quick comment on the Greta joke.
If a fifty year old man came up to me, and said in a letchy way, "I can't wait until your daughter discovers cock", I'd be utterly horrified.
People on Twitter are reading the Lee Hurst joke in the same tone as that letchy fifty year old. They're not hearing the joke in context of him riffing in the way described by @TimT below.
This is a comedy club joke. I've laughed at things that were thoroughly offensive in comedy clubs. And you know what, they were funny in context. And that's OK.
If Lee Hurst was oogling Greta (and come to mention it, they do look somewhat alike), then it would highly offensive. But he wasn't. He was making a joke about how young people - when sex is involved - suddenly lose the long-term planning part of their brain.
Exactly.
The elephant in the room here as well (sorry to bring this up) is that he's a fervent and uncompromising Brexit supporter as well.
If Frankie Boyle had made a similar joke (and he probably would have done five years ago) he'd have been cut much more slack.
Ye gods, how have you managed to crowbar Brexit into this one? I'd no idea that Hurst was a Brexiteer. His Greta joke is offensive because it's macho and sexist. I'd think the same whoever said it. Incidentally, I never said it should be banned/cancelled - I agree that people should be able to cause offence. Just as long as I can say Hurst is a sexist, chauvinistic little shit.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
Frankie Boyle can still be seriously gross and undeniably funny at the same time, when he's on form
The problem with that fat fuck is that he can dish it out but is absolutely unable to take it. Ego the size of a planet but it's made of glass.
Is he the guy who did "why does everyone hate the english"? That was seriously dull.
Finger on the pulse as ever..
No, it had the potential to be interesting. But it was just dull. For example the French one was Boyle and that guy from Eurotrash firing arrows and making crap jokes.
I do like the wiki page on the London mayoralty race. One chap supposedly running is summarised simply as 'YouTuber seeking to win more votes than Laurence Fox'. Another's last name is London, so I like to think they will get some votes just for that. There's a rapper named Drillminister, Count Binface of course, and more.
That’s quite the impressive candidate list, given there’s a £10,000 deposit for a Mayoral election.
Not actually a candidates list - those who have 'said they are planning to stand'. Presumably a few will drop off.
I've just seen TV footage of the big anti-lockdown march today. Some of them are wearing Union Jack caps. No words.
Clearly something to condemn. However unpopular the view might be the Clapham Common women were equally to be condemned. Having a just cause versus being an arse doesn't change the legality.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
Blair removed almost all of them, while also introducing devolved Assemblies and a Parliament in Wales, NI and Scotland without any such equivalent in England when he was trashing our constitution without full thought.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
They were included precisely because they were the grit in the system that was expected to provoke a proper reform of the house.
IIRC, a fully appointed house was voted on by the Commons and rejected... presumably if the House of Lords decided to stop byelections they would effectively be abnegating the will of the elected house?
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
Who do a far better job of rational consideration than the Commons...
Speaking of the anti-lockdown demo today, I don't quite understand why Our Nige has given up on the movement as a wedge to get back into the news again. I'm almost tempted to think he may finally have given up on selling his succession of political used cars, now that he sold his biggest troubled motor for hundreds of millions ; but I expect I shouldn't tempt fate, and he'll be back.
No, it had the potential to be interesting. But it was just dull. For example the French one was Boyle and that guy from Eurotrash firing arrows and making crap jokes.
It was Al Murray who is English. The chances of a Scottish comedian either wanting or being commissioned to make something called ‘Why Does Everyone Hate The English’ are between zero and feckall.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
They were included precisely because they were the grit in the system that was expected to provoke a proper reform of the house.
IIRC, a fully appointed house was voted on by the Commons and rejected... presumably if the House of Lords decided to stop byelections they would effectively be abnegating the will of the elected house?
I don't know if the Lords simply not holding by-elections would be legal. Of course, the Commons could indicate its will by taking action to make them do it again. Or they could let it happen as it doesn't really affect things all that much. Why, even hereditaries switch allegiance, as with the Duke of Wellington, who was elected to fill a Tory hereditary, but now sits as non-affiliated.
People voting on something once doesn't mean it is set for all time, as we know. In parliamentary terms you are explicitly allowed to vote on something again in a future session rather than over and over again in the same one, so they could do that too.
Re: London mayor race (and extended to elections in general). Is there any rule against a candidate changing their name to “None Oftheabove” and chancing their luck?
Speaking of the anti-lockdown demo today, I don't quite understand why Our Nige has given up on the movement as a wedge to get back into the news again. I'm almost tempted to think he may finally have given up on selling his succession of political used cars, now that he sold his biggest troubled motor for hundreds of millions ; but I expect I shouldn't tempt fate, and he'll be back.
The vaccine rollout has really changed things, the public realise and understand lockdown will be over soon enough once enough of us are fully vaccinated.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
Frankie Boyle can still be seriously gross and undeniably funny at the same time, when he's on form
The problem with that fat fuck is that he can dish it out but is absolutely unable to take it. Ego the size of a planet but it's made of glass.
Is he the guy who did "why does everyone hate the english"? That was seriously dull.
Finger on the pulse as ever..
No, it had the potential to be interesting. But it was just dull. For example the French one was Boyle and that guy from Eurotrash firing arrows and making crap jokes.
Charles, Charles, Charles, that was a ridiculous post.
Surely a man of your intelligence and particularly your lineage knows that you do not ‘fire’ arrows. You ‘loose’ or ‘shoot’ them.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
Who do a far better job of rational consideration than the Commons...
Yes, but just pause for a moment and reflect that without changes, the likes of Patel, Raab, Mogg and Williamson will be entitled to seats in the Lords.
Speaking of the anti-lockdown demo today, I don't quite understand why Our Nige has given up on the movement as a wedge to get back into the news again. I'm almost tempted to think he may finally have given up on selling his succession of political used cars, now that he sold his biggest troubled motor for hundreds of millions ; but I expect I shouldn't tempt fate, and he'll be back.
The vaccine rollout has really changed things, the public realise and understand lockdown will be over soon enough once enough of us are fully vaccinated.
You're probably right on that. I somehow expected he'd hold onto it as a quixotic "anti-establishment" minority interest and dwindling crusade for longer, but he's nothing if not calculating in his choices.
He's toast, but the blame really should fall on the players. Wearing an England shirt should mean something, and it certainly doesn't mean whatever the current crop think it does.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
Frankie Boyle can still be seriously gross and undeniably funny at the same time, when he's on form
The problem with that fat fuck is that he can dish it out but is absolutely unable to take it. Ego the size of a planet but it's made of glass.
Is he the guy who did "why does everyone hate the english"? That was seriously dull.
Finger on the pulse as ever..
Scottish nationalists: We are civic nationalists; we are not anti-English!
Also Scottish nationalists: Well, we do hate the English actually - just like everyone else.
Yes, but just pause for a moment and reflect that without changes, the likes of Patel, Raab, Mogg and Williamson will be entitled to seats in the Lords.
No, it had the potential to be interesting. But it was just dull. For example the French one was Boyle and that guy from Eurotrash firing arrows and making crap jokes.
It was Al Murray who is English. The chances of a Scottish comedian either wanting or being commissioned to make something called ‘Why Does Everyone Hate The English’ are between zero and feckall.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
They were included precisely because they were the grit in the system that was expected to provoke a proper reform of the house.
IIRC, a fully appointed house was voted on by the Commons and rejected... presumably if the House of Lords decided to stop byelections they would effectively be abnegating the will of the elected house?
I don't know if the Lords simply not holding by-elections would be legal. Of course, the Commons could indicate its will by taking action to make them do it again. Or they could let it happen as it doesn't really affect things all that much. Why, even hereditaries switch allegiance, as with the Duke of Wellington, who was elected to fill a Tory hereditary, but now sits as non-affiliated.
People voting on something once doesn't mean it is set for all time, as we know. In parliamentary terms you are explicitly allowed to vote on something again in a future session rather than over and over again in the same one, so they could do that too.
I think by-elections were included in the legislation though
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
They were included precisely because they were the grit in the system that was expected to provoke a proper reform of the house.
IIRC, a fully appointed house was voted on by the Commons and rejected... presumably if the House of Lords decided to stop byelections they would effectively be abnegating the will of the elected house?
I don't know if the Lords simply not holding by-elections would be legal. Of course, the Commons could indicate its will by taking action to make them do it again. Or they could let it happen as it doesn't really affect things all that much. Why, even hereditaries switch allegiance, as with the Duke of Wellington, who was elected to fill a Tory hereditary, but now sits as non-affiliated.
People voting on something once doesn't mean it is set for all time, as we know. In parliamentary terms you are explicitly allowed to vote on something again in a future session rather than over and over again in the same one, so they could do that too.
I think by-elections were included in the legislation though
I'm sure they were given the complexities of it all, but would the government bother to, what, take the Lord Speaker et al to court for not carrying out their lawful duty to undertake by-elections? Of course, it may be they cannot stop it, depending how they are triggered.
But the threat of it may be enough for the government to ponder that there are plenty of Lords themselves who want change, so maybe it would be a good idea to do a minor one to manage it, like when Lords were allowed to retire, or be expelled.
I do love this reassuring line in this BBC story on events in Tanzania, I know it would have been my main concern.
[Samia Suluhu Hassan] becomes Africa's only current female national leader - the Ethiopian presidency is a largely ceremonial role - and joins a short list of women on the continent to have run their countries...
The 61-year-old is affectionately known as Mama Samia - in Tanzanian culture that reflects the respect she is held in, rather than reducing her to a gendered role.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
Blair removed almost all of them, while also introducing devolved Assemblies and a Parliament in Wales, NI and Scotland without any such equivalent in England when he was trashing our constitution without full thought.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
Strangely, I agree.
I see the fact they hold a large stake in the country and their families part of the Lords hundreds of years as reasons to keep, and not expunge, them. I value that anchored continuity and stability.
He's not aristocracy but I'd far rather have a member of Charles's family in there, say, than Evgeny Lebedev or a has-been retread elected on a low turnout. I'd be happy with, say, 30-40 Lords Terra from our oldest families as well as the 26 Lords Spiritual.
You can faddishise democracy to an ideological extent, which is how we ended up with elected PCCs.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
They were included precisely because they were the grit in the system that was expected to provoke a proper reform of the house.
IIRC, a fully appointed house was voted on by the Commons and rejected... presumably if the House of Lords decided to stop byelections they would effectively be abnegating the will of the elected house?
I don't know if the Lords simply not holding by-elections would be legal. Of course, the Commons could indicate its will by taking action to make them do it again. Or they could let it happen as it doesn't really affect things all that much. Why, even hereditaries switch allegiance, as with the Duke of Wellington, who was elected to fill a Tory hereditary, but now sits as non-affiliated.
People voting on something once doesn't mean it is set for all time, as we know. In parliamentary terms you are explicitly allowed to vote on something again in a future session rather than over and over again in the same one, so they could do that too.
I think by-elections were included in the legislation though
I'm sure they were given the complexities of it all, but would the government bother to, what, take the Lord Speaker et al to court for not carrying out their lawful duty to undertake by-elections? Of course, it may be they cannot stop it, depending how they are triggered.
But the threat of it may be enough for the government to ponder that there are plenty of Lords themselves who want change, so maybe it would be a good idea to do a minor one to manage it, like when Lords were allowed to retire, or be expelled.
It seems about 400 years ago now that getting rid of the first tranche of hereditaries was supposed to be a short-term "stepping stone".
Accounting for the typical British pace, the rest will be gone in around 2100, around the time our descendants are living in eco-friendly, hi-tech pods to escape the wild swings of a changed climate.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
Gosh, I realised some are getting on a bit, but not quite that much.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
It seems he has had his twitter suspended for it...like really....its a poor joke and that's about it. Its hardly Bernard Manning doing some p##i joke.
I really wish I hadn't looked at why Lee Hurst is trending.
It's not very funny... but it's not grossly offensive... just suggests that the individual is a normal young woman with all the rights and freedoms that entails
"Hardly Bernard Manning" and " not grossly offensive"????
OK, come clean, which one of you is the Labour Party candidate for the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election?
I didn't see the original tweet so relying on kentonline (which always seems to do surprising well on my google searches).
As I understand it, he suggested that an 18-year old single woman is likely to (a) like sex and (b) prefer to use contraception rather than abstain or risk pregnancy. He then suggested that this preference would take precedent over her environmental beliefs.
I have no insight into the individual's preference, but I would assume that the above statements would be accurate if applied to the vast majority of 18 year old women.
I must confess, I didn't take the time to analyse Lee Hurst's joke. Call me woke by all means, but on first reading I found it both unfunny and unpleasant.
Oh, don't get me wrong. It is both totally unfunny and deeply unpleasant.
However, I strongly believe that people have the right to be unfunny and offensive. The "correct" response would be to unfollow him and not buy his DVDs (if that is still a thing). It's not to complain to Twitter and try to get him banned.
Incidentally on that subject am I the only person who thinks Frankie Boyle has made the journey from amusing if often grossly offensive youth to pompous, unfunny and still grossly offensive middle age?
Frankie Boyle can still be seriously gross and undeniably funny at the same time, when he's on form
The problem with that fat fuck is that he can dish it out but is absolutely unable to take it. Ego the size of a planet but it's made of glass.
Is he the guy who did "why does everyone hate the english"? That was seriously dull.
Finger on the pulse as ever..
Scottish nationalists: We are civic nationalists; we are not anti-English!
Also Scottish nationalists: Well, we do hate the English actually - just like everyone else.
That Al Murray, what a big fat anti English racist he is, eh? Having a vaguely Scottish surname will do that to you.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
Blair removed almost all of them, while also introducing devolved Assemblies and a Parliament in Wales, NI and Scotland without any such equivalent in England when he was trashing our constitution without full thought.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
Strangely, I agree.
I see the fact they hold a large stake in the country and their families part of the Lords hundreds of years as reasons to keep, and not expunge, them. I value that anchored continuity and stability.
He's not aristocracy but I'd far rather have a member of Charles's family in there, say, than Evgeny Lebedev or a has-been retread elected on a low turnout. I'd be happy with, say, 30-40 Lords Terra from our oldest families as well as the 26 Lords Spiritual.
You can faddishise democracy to an ideological extent, which is how we ended up with elected PCCs.
There are options to avoid retreaded has beens or well connected rich people (well, the wrong well connected rich people) if we want to do that.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
They were included precisely because they were the grit in the system that was expected to provoke a proper reform of the house.
IIRC, a fully appointed house was voted on by the Commons and rejected... presumably if the House of Lords decided to stop byelections they would effectively be abnegating the will of the elected house?
I don't know if the Lords simply not holding by-elections would be legal. Of course, the Commons could indicate its will by taking action to make them do it again. Or they could let it happen as it doesn't really affect things all that much. Why, even hereditaries switch allegiance, as with the Duke of Wellington, who was elected to fill a Tory hereditary, but now sits as non-affiliated.
People voting on something once doesn't mean it is set for all time, as we know. In parliamentary terms you are explicitly allowed to vote on something again in a future session rather than over and over again in the same one, so they could do that too.
I think by-elections were included in the legislation though
I'm sure they were given the complexities of it all, but would the government bother to, what, take the Lord Speaker et al to court for not carrying out their lawful duty to undertake by-elections? Of course, it may be they cannot stop it, depending how they are triggered.
But the threat of it may be enough for the government to ponder that there are plenty of Lords themselves who want change, so maybe it would be a good idea to do a minor one to manage it, like when Lords were allowed to retire, or be expelled.
It seems about 400 years ago now that getting rid of the first tranche of hereditaries was supposed to be a short-term "stepping stone".
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
Who do a far better job of rational consideration than the Commons...
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Completely agree with this. There are many many families that have done their bit for the country and never had the slightest recognition. The idea that the upper classes have somehow slaved away preserving the nation over generations is risible.
Some of our wonderful and altruistic hereditaries.
Those who defend the institution say that its members form part of British history and are less partial than peers installed by party leaders. But our analysis suggests that many of the 85 (mostly Conservative) members lobby disproportionately for their interests.
They include Lord Palmer, 69, a shareholder in British American Tobacco and convenor of the Lords and Commons Cigar Club, who has said the economy would “literally collapse” if smoking was banned and called for lighter regulation on tobacco packaging now that Britain has left the EU.
Another is Lord Waverley, 71, who defied the warnings of the British government to visit Russia and signed a trade agreement on behalf of his own company in the wake of the Skripal poisonings.
Lord Carrington, 73, is among many landowners whose participation in debates and scrutiny has often focused on land and the issue of government subsidies for farming.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Completely agree with this. There are many many families that have done their bit for the country and never had the slightest recognition. The idea that the upper classes have somehow slaved away preserving the nation over generations is risible.
Certainly since World War II, and then fully since the demise of the most socially bound and responsible Tory Wets, it is. Residual upper-class dominance in the officer class might be the last claim, but most of Britain's wars since 1945 haven't benefitted it.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Completely agree with this. There are many many families that have done their bit for the country and never had the slightest recognition. The idea that the upper classes have somehow slaved away preserving the nation over generations is risible.
Certainly since World War II, and then completely and utterly since the demise of the most socially responsible Tory Wets, it is. Residual upper-class dominance in the officer class might be the last claim, but most of Britain's wars since 1945 haven't benefitted it.
Wings has been on about this for a while, and it's potentially a huge timebomb. The SNP is almost broke and nobody outside the Sturgeon-Murrell clique knows where the money went, including some £600,000 donated by indy supporters to a 'ringfenced' fund for fighting another indyref.
Enough people support Sindy it seems like it would be pretty easy to find a single mega doner to shore things up if they got into serious difficulty.
that is the problem , they have few if any donors left, people know how dodgy they all are. They are skint , pretending lots of people are joining and they have spent the ring fenced 600K referendum cash on huge wages for Murrell and assorted buddies , paying defamation cases etc.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Completely agree with this. There are many many families that have done their bit for the country and never had the slightest recognition. The idea that the upper classes have somehow slaved away preserving the nation over generations is risible.
Certainly since World War II, and then completely and utterly since the demise of the most socially responsible Tory Wets, it is. Residual upper-class dominance in the officer class might be the last claim, but most of Britain's wars since 1945 haven't benefitted it.
Lions governed by (unelected) Donkeys.
It's a little worse than that. The self-selected priviledged financed by the poor.
I'm a Tory. I'm quite happy with the setup as to Lords vs Commons. I'm not at all happy with the ridiculous gravy train. The Lords should be much smaller and personally I'd just restrict it to ex-MPs.
"As soon as Greta discovers cock, she'll stop complaining about the single use plastic it's wrapped in."
Anybody (i.e. several on here) who doesn't find that grossly offensive has no moral compass. This is a man in his 50s addressing a woman of 18. Without a named subject, it wouldn't be quite so bad - just juvenile. Try imagining it was directed at your own daughter? Misogynistic doesn't begin to describe it.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Hang on, wait, have you hit on an alternative? Every family gets a seat? It’ll be a bit cramped in there but I’m sure their Lordships can budge up.
(On a semi serious note, I have occasionally wondered about every voter getting an online vote in place of the second chamber. No ability to introduce anything, but a national veto on everything until the Parliament Act is used. You could even make it so that, say, a vote of 66% can even override the Parliament Act).
I object to Piers Corbyn, mayoral candidate for the Let London Live party, being granted such publicity during purdah.
Oh, and also that arsehole Cox bloke.
Purdah hasn't started yet.
It wasn't a serious objection, though that said some councils are treating things as purdah now as they tend not to be precise on the dates these things begin.
Some of our wonderful and altruistic hereditaries.
Those who defend the institution say that its members form part of British history and are less partial than peers installed by party leaders. But our analysis suggests that many of the 85 (mostly Conservative) members lobby disproportionately for their interests.
They include Lord Palmer, 69, a shareholder in British American Tobacco and convenor of the Lords and Commons Cigar Club, who has said the economy would “literally collapse” if smoking was banned and called for lighter regulation on tobacco packaging now that Britain has left the EU.
Another is Lord Waverley, 71, who defied the warnings of the British government to visit Russia and signed a trade agreement on behalf of his own company in the wake of the Skripal poisonings.
Lord Carrington, 73, is among many landowners whose participation in debates and scrutiny has often focused on land and the issue of government subsidies for farming.
Farming needs representation and support and is the backbone of our nation, smoking is not illegal and nor is trade with Russia.
Though dismissal of our ancient families and institutions is no more than I would expect from a republican Liberal, non Tory such as yourself
OMG England This is embarrassing. Just walk off the pitch
“Brutality”
“Kicking”
“Jones”
Be gone.
We are shit and we are boring.
And yet, so much talent. I read an article the other day accusing Jones of being Sven Goran Eriksson, who turned a golden age of English football talent into perennial quarter-finalists, when they should have won cups; he got so far, then no further
Jones is like that?
England also remind me of the recent French side (until this year). Plenty of ability but stilted, idea-less, over-coached, nervous, ill-disciplined, pinched.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
It is called the Lords for a reason and that includes representation of the most ancient peerages within the realm there.
If you want an elected Senate fine but as long as we have an appointed Lords as our second chamber then the hereditaries must remain a part of it.
The second chamber can only delay legislation anyway, an elected Senate would try and move towards a US style system and block Commons legislation completely
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Hang on, wait, have you hit on an alternative? Every family gets a seat? It’ll be a bit cramped in there but I’m sure their Lordships can budge up.
(On a semi serious note, I have occasionally wondered about every voter getting an online vote in place of the second chamber. No ability to introduce anything, but a national veto on everything until the Parliament Act is used. You could even make it so that, say, a vote of 66% can even override the Parliament Act).
Personally I think a revising chamber is just a get out for an incompetent Commons. I think the Commons should get it right in the first place, and am a Unicameralist.
If we are to have a second chamber it should be by random selection like Jury service.
I don't suppose it's worth mentioning but compared to the Rugby and Cricket, the biggest sporting shellacking England has suffered this week has been in the horse racing at Cheltenham.
The Irish won everything and for them no doubt it was long overdue revenge for Bucks Fizz winning the Eurovision in Dublin forty years ago.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Completely agree with this. There are many many families that have done their bit for the country and never had the slightest recognition. The idea that the upper classes have somehow slaved away preserving the nation over generations is risible.
Certainly since World War II, and then completely and utterly since the demise of the most socially responsible Tory Wets, it is. Residual upper-class dominance in the officer class might be the last claim, but most of Britain's wars since 1945 haven't benefitted it.
Lions governed by (unelected) Donkeys.
It's a little worse than that. The self-selected priviledged financed by the poor.
I'm a Tory. I'm quite happy with the setup as to Lords vs Commons. I'm not at all happy with the ridiculous gravy train. The Lords should be much smaller and personally I'd just restrict it to ex-MPs.
OK, pop quiz, hotshots!
Which is the only sovereign country on the planet to have an Upper House with more members than its Lower House?
OMG England This is embarrassing. Just walk off the pitch
“Brutality”
“Kicking”
“Jones”
Be gone.
We are shit and we are boring.
And yet, so much talent. I read an article the other day accusing Jones of being Sven Goran Eriksson, who turned a golden age of English football talent into perennial quarter-finalists, when they should have won cups; he got so far, then no further
Jones is like that?
England also remind me of the recent French side (until this year). Plenty of ability but stilted, idea-less, over-coached, nervous, ill-disciplined, pinched.
Absolutely. We have the players. The coaching is the problem. The kicking game fails more frequently than it succeeds. And it’s horrible to watch.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Completely agree with this. There are many many families that have done their bit for the country and never had the slightest recognition. The idea that the upper classes have somehow slaved away preserving the nation over generations is risible.
Certainly since World War II, and then completely and utterly since the demise of the most socially responsible Tory Wets, it is. Residual upper-class dominance in the officer class might be the last claim, but most of Britain's wars since 1945 haven't benefitted it.
Lions governed by (unelected) Donkeys.
It's a little worse than that. The self-selected priviledged financed by the poor.
I'm a Tory. I'm quite happy with the setup as to Lords vs Commons. I'm not at all happy with the ridiculous gravy train. The Lords should be much smaller and personally I'd just restrict it to ex-MPs.
OK, pop quiz, hotshots!
Which is the only sovereign country on the planet to have an Upper House with more members than its Lower House?
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Hang on, wait, have you hit on an alternative? Every family gets a seat? It’ll be a bit cramped in there but I’m sure their Lordships can budge up.
(On a semi serious note, I have occasionally wondered about every voter getting an online vote in place of the second chamber. No ability to introduce anything, but a national veto on everything until the Parliament Act is used. You could even make it so that, say, a vote of 66% can even override the Parliament Act).
Personally I think a revising chamber is just a get out for an incompetent Commons. I think the Commons should get it right in the first place, and am a Unicameralist.
If we are to have a second chamber it should be by random selection like Jury service.
Don’t disagree. I can equally imagine some regional models, but on the same theme. I’m only taking my turn in the Lords if I get the ermine as a souvenir though.
Wings has been on about this for a while, and it's potentially a huge timebomb. The SNP is almost broke and nobody outside the Sturgeon-Murrell clique knows where the money went, including some £600,000 donated by indy supporters to a 'ringfenced' fund for fighting another indyref.
Enough people support Sindy it seems like it would be pretty easy to find a single mega doner to shore things up if they got into serious difficulty.
that is the problem , they have few if any donors left, people know how dodgy they all are. They are skint , pretending lots of people are joining and they have spent the ring fenced 600K referendum cash on huge wages for Murrell and assorted buddies , paying defamation cases etc.
Wasn't the original financial support for Sindy hugely dependent on the chance of one couple winning the Euromillions?
Yes, but just pause for a moment and reflect that without changes, the likes of Patel, Raab, Mogg and Williamson will be entitled to seats in the Lords.
For life.
And that on its own tells me the Lords has to go.
Jeremy Corbyn as well.
I was assuming he would refuse a peerage a la Michael Foot, Neville Chamberlain or John Major.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Completely agree with this. There are many many families that have done their bit for the country and never had the slightest recognition. The idea that the upper classes have somehow slaved away preserving the nation over generations is risible.
The point is that they've been key stakeholders in the country for centuries and continue to be responsible for the administration of large areas of the land - and thus have a deep interest in the communities in which they're rooted that extends over multiple lifespans. That's a particularly distinct position of responsibility in our society.
I'm a high Tory and I think things acquire value the longer they're in place, and there should be a corresponding higher test for change - particularly where the alternative is disputed or of questionable value.
So, I don't see the harm in keeping a select number of them indefinitely, and I think that a handful of Dukes, Earls, Marquesses and Viscounts adds to the quaintly idiosyncratic nature of the British constitution, which we'd miss if it was wholly lost.
Yes, but just pause for a moment and reflect that without changes, the likes of Patel, Raab, Mogg and Williamson will be entitled to seats in the Lords.
For life.
And that on its own tells me the Lords has to go.
Jeremy Corbyn as well.
I was assuming he would refuse a peerage a la Michael Foot, Neville Chamberlain or John Major.
Mogg, however...
I think he'll do a Prescott/Kinnock.
Say he'll never accept a peerage but then change his mind so his voice can influence the country via th Lords.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Hang on, wait, have you hit on an alternative? Every family gets a seat? It’ll be a bit cramped in there but I’m sure their Lordships can budge up.
(On a semi serious note, I have occasionally wondered about every voter getting an online vote in place of the second chamber. No ability to introduce anything, but a national veto on everything until the Parliament Act is used. You could even make it so that, say, a vote of 66% can even override the Parliament Act).
Personally I think a revising chamber is just a get out for an incompetent Commons. I think the Commons should get it right in the first place, and am a Unicameralist.
If we are to have a second chamber it should be by random selection like Jury service.
Don’t disagree. I can equally imagine some regional models, but on the same theme. I’m only taking my turn in the Lords if I get the ermine as a souvenir though.
The House of Lords ermine is now permanently connected in my mind with that image of Thatcher, sitting in there alone and at the wrong time, with the ermine wrapped around her , and in her latter years. A strange and dreamlike image that sticks with you as a metaphor.
Hooray, we might soon get rid of all the hereditaries. Bunch of unelected people we cannot get rid of, I'm sure the Brexiteer will support this.
Britain’s system of hereditary peerages is outdated and must be abolished, two candidates to be the House of Lord’s next speaker say today.
The 85 dukes earls and barons who sit in the chamber by birthright “devalue” democracy and can no longer be justified, it is claimed.
The intervention by the two peers, who are standing to replace Lord Fowler as speaker, came as a Sunday Times investigation found that the hereditaries cost the taxpayer more and contribute less than life peers.
According to the most detailed data analysis of the institution to date:
● Hereditary peers have cost the taxpayer almost £50 million in expense claims since 2001
● The average hereditary has spoken in the chamber just 50 times over the last five years, compared to 81 times among life peers, and when they do speak, they are 60 per cent more likely to mention their own business or personal interests in the chamber.
The presence of the hereditaries in the Lords was supposed to be a temporary compromise after most were removed in 1999. However, two decades on, those remaining have the right to make or amend laws, and claim a tax-free payment of £323 a day plus travel for parliamentary work.
Baroness Heyter, who along with Lord Alderdice and Lord McFall is standing for speaker this week, said: “It’s not something that would be accepted by the British public today.”
Heyter, the shadow Lords leader, 71, said that byelections — the secretive process by which the hereditaries replenish their numbers whenever a member dies or retires — were “wrong”. Only members of the same party as the departed can vote and the number of peers per party is frozen at 1999 levels, meaning that, in some contests, the electorate can be just three.
As it stands, the contests are paused due to the pandemic. Heyter said that the house should vote on whether or not to resume them at all. Lord Alderdice, the Lib Dem candidate, called for their permanent suspension, saying hereditary peers should be allowed to “wither away”.
Lord McFall, the final candidate, said he “admired” the work of those advocating reform and said that byelections had become “absurd”.
I fail to see why replacing the remaining few hereditaries with yet more political appointments will improve the Lords, either the second chamber goes fully elected or you keep some hereditaries
That's a very curious approach, when the very fact the chamber is now mostly appointed shows that heriditaries are not the defining element and you could remove it without also going full elected.
No, as the hereditaries are the cornerstone of the Lords as are the Bishops, as long as the Lords retains an appointed element the best of them must remain.
I would far rather have a few hereditaries than yet another poiitical donor life peer
So much a cornerstone of the Lords that they removed almost all of them and stated the ones who remained were a temporary measure only?
When not even all hereditaries in the Lords, let alone generally, do not support the status quo, I think it is a losing battle.
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
My family have also had a stake in the nation for hundreds of years, yet we do not get representation in the Lords...
Long overdue for abolition.
Hang on, wait, have you hit on an alternative? Every family gets a seat? It’ll be a bit cramped in there but I’m sure their Lordships can budge up.
(On a semi serious note, I have occasionally wondered about every voter getting an online vote in place of the second chamber. No ability to introduce anything, but a national veto on everything until the Parliament Act is used. You could even make it so that, say, a vote of 66% can even override the Parliament Act).
Personally I think a revising chamber is just a get out for an incompetent Commons. I think the Commons should get it right in the first place, and am a Unicameralist.
If we are to have a second chamber it should be by random selection like Jury service.
Don’t disagree. I can equally imagine some regional models, but on the same theme. I’m only taking my turn in the Lords if I get the ermine as a souvenir though.
An alternative representation would be local councillors having a representation. 1 senator per 200 000 population perhaps, selected by their fellow councillors. This would mean regional representation, and experienced in committee representation. It would also encourage interest in becoming a local Councillor.
I've just seen TV footage of the big anti-lockdown march today. Some of them are wearing Union Jack caps. No words.
Clearly something to condemn. However unpopular the view might be the Clapham Common women were equally to be condemned. Having a just cause versus being an arse doesn't change the legality.
No Union Jack caps at the Clapham Common event. Wholly different kettle of fish.
This France team is so good to watch. A France-England final in the 2023 RWC would be thrilling.
Not if it's the England team we saw today
1. England would never get that far 2. England play boring boring, losing rugby, as of now 3. France would hammer us, if we did get that far, and it would be tediously one-sided
France will likely win in 2023. Home advantage. A young well coached team with oodles of talent. Dupont.
Comments
No2AV = 68%
Yes2AV = 32%
#justsayin'
I am a Tory, I never saw the need to change the Lords as it was in 1999 and I certainly do not seek to change it now, the remaining hereditaries have had a stake in our nation for hundreds of years, they should stay
IIRC, a fully appointed house was voted on by the Commons and rejected... presumably if the House of Lords decided to stop byelections they would effectively be abnegating the will of the elected house?
People voting on something once doesn't mean it is set for all time, as we know. In parliamentary terms you are explicitly allowed to vote on something again in a future session rather than over and over again in the same one, so they could do that too.
Surely a man of your intelligence and particularly your lineage knows that you do not ‘fire’ arrows. You ‘loose’ or ‘shoot’ them.
How long does Eddie Jones have left?
For life.
And that on its own tells me the Lords has to go.
Also Scottish nationalists: Well, we do hate the English actually - just like everyone else.
But the threat of it may be enough for the government to ponder that there are plenty of Lords themselves who want change, so maybe it would be a good idea to do a minor one to manage it, like when Lords were allowed to retire, or be expelled.
[Samia Suluhu Hassan] becomes Africa's only current female national leader - the Ethiopian presidency is a largely ceremonial role - and joins a short list of women on the continent to have run their countries...
The 61-year-old is affectionately known as Mama Samia - in Tanzanian culture that reflects the respect she is held in, rather than reducing her to a gendered role.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-56444575?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
Does Merkel really get called mutti I wonder?
I see the fact they hold a large stake in the country and their families part of the Lords hundreds of years as reasons to keep, and not expunge, them. I value that anchored continuity and stability.
He's not aristocracy but I'd far rather have a member of Charles's family in there, say, than Evgeny Lebedev or a has-been retread elected on a low turnout. I'd be happy with, say, 30-40 Lords Terra from our oldest families as well as the 26 Lords Spiritual.
You can faddishise democracy to an ideological extent, which is how we ended up with elected PCCs.
Accounting for the typical British pace, the rest will be gone in around 2100, around the time our descendants are living in eco-friendly, hi-tech pods to escape the wild swings of a changed climate.
Long overdue for abolition.
“Kicking”
“Jones”
Be gone.
We are shit and we are boring.
Do we live in a democracy if we cannot kick out our (un)elected rulers?
Those who defend the institution say that its members form part of British history and are less partial than peers installed by party leaders. But our analysis suggests that many of the 85 (mostly Conservative) members lobby disproportionately for their interests.
They include Lord Palmer, 69, a shareholder in British American Tobacco and convenor of the Lords and Commons Cigar Club, who has said the economy would “literally collapse” if smoking was banned and called for lighter regulation on tobacco packaging now that Britain has left the EU.
Another is Lord Waverley, 71, who defied the warnings of the British government to visit Russia and signed a trade agreement on behalf of his own company in the wake of the Skripal poisonings.
Lord Carrington, 73, is among many landowners whose participation in debates and scrutiny has often focused on land and the issue of government subsidies for farming.
I'm a Tory. I'm quite happy with the setup as to Lords vs Commons. I'm not at all happy with the ridiculous gravy train. The Lords should be much smaller and personally I'd just restrict it to ex-MPs.
(On a semi serious note, I have occasionally wondered about every voter getting an online vote in place of the second chamber. No ability to introduce anything, but a national veto on everything until the Parliament Act is used. You could even make it so that, say, a vote of 66% can even override the Parliament Act).
Though dismissal of our ancient families and institutions is no more than I would expect from a republican Liberal, non Tory such as yourself
Jones is like that?
England also remind me of the recent French side (until this year). Plenty of ability but stilted, idea-less, over-coached, nervous, ill-disciplined, pinched.
If you want an elected Senate fine but as long as we have an appointed Lords as our second chamber then the hereditaries must remain a part of it.
The second chamber can only delay legislation anyway, an elected Senate would try and move towards a US style system and block Commons legislation completely
If we are to have a second chamber it should be by random selection like Jury service.
I don't suppose it's worth mentioning but compared to the Rugby and Cricket, the biggest sporting shellacking England has suffered this week has been in the horse racing at Cheltenham.
The Irish won everything and for them no doubt it was long overdue revenge for Bucks Fizz winning the Eurovision in Dublin forty years ago.
"Shaun" and "Edwards".
Which is the only sovereign country on the planet to have an Upper House with more members than its Lower House?
But we have the talent to do this. SO DO IT
Mogg, however...
I'm a high Tory and I think things acquire value the longer they're in place, and there should be a corresponding higher test for change - particularly where the alternative is disputed or of questionable value.
So, I don't see the harm in keeping a select number of them indefinitely, and I think that a handful of Dukes, Earls, Marquesses and Viscounts adds to the quaintly idiosyncratic nature of the British constitution, which we'd miss if it was wholly lost.
Say he'll never accept a peerage but then change his mind so his voice can influence the country via th Lords.
Still, at least the French are trying to make TSE a bit less miserable.
I wonder if they’ll delight him enough to change his mind on the AV thread.
Well I probably couldn’t wish the French well ever actually.
Like an old fashioned Barbarians game
My late Scots father in law always said it is the finest anthem in the world
1. England would never get that far
2. England play boring boring, losing rugby, as of now
3. France would hammer us, if we did get that far, and it would be tediously one-sided
France will likely win in 2023. Home advantage. A young well coached team with oodles of talent. Dupont.