This is the current make up of the active House of Lords:
Assuming for a moment that there is a Labour government (the maths does at present suggestion nothing else is sustainable) and assuming the SNP refuse to appoint peers, as ii its custom, and assuming that Cameron demands the right to ennoble the likes of William Hague and a few of his other buddies whilst the LibDems seek seats for Danny Alexander (and maybe Nick Clegg) the maths of this are horrendous.
Assuming the cross-benchers will split evenly on any issue and the Bishops and non-affiliated likewise, then right now the pro- Tory alliance that now very obviously includes the LibDems, since Nick Clegg has ruled out working with Labour if it has the support of elected members of parliament, will have a majority of something like 340 to Labour's 215.
So, to make sure it is going to get legislation though Labour is going to need to appoint 125 or more working peers. And the Lords will grow to well over 900 active members.
Has anyone thought about this, because I have not seen it mentioned anywhere? I think it's worth asking.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
SNP have thought of it: they think the solution is to abolish the lords. Seem to remember the Labour party thought that too, at one time. Quite a lot of the electorate are on side with that idea. Looks reasonably simple to me…
Bet me to the answer Fiona. Liebour “claim” they want rid of the Lords. The SNP fervantly want rid of them. If the SNP go down in large numbers this will be the best chance te UK has ever had to shot of them.
We’ve been here before, and it’s time to read up on The Parliament Act of 1911.
Wikipedia has the essentials here:
The Prime Minister, Herbert Henry Asquith , asked King Edward VII to create sufficient new Liberal peers to pass the Bill if the Lords rejected it. The King said he would not be willing to do so unless Asquith obtained a clear mandate for such sweeping change by winning a second general election.
The Lords voted this 1910 Bill down. Edward VII had died in May 1910, but his son George V agreed to grant Asquith a second general election in December 1910 (this also resulted in a minority government), and at the time he agreed that, if necessary, he would create hundreds of new Liberal peers to neutralise the Conservative majority in the Lords.
The Conservative Lords then backed down, and on 10 August
1911, the House of Lords passed the Parliament Act by a
narrow 131—114 vote, with the support of some two dozen
Conservative peers and eleven of thirteen Lords Spiritual.
I suppose it’s too much to ask, that a LibDem should know his party’s history; perhaps erasing the past helps in managing the sense of shame.
Much too much to ask
think Miliband spoke recently during one of the debates about another go at Lords reform (at which point Clegg pointed out his party blocked the last attempt) but if both parties (and the SNP?) are genuinely committed maybe they could tie it in with the whole devolution thing?
Would be good
Labour already has a proposal to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate of 300 members based on the regions.
I support this idea, providing there’s a different election cycle for the Senate and the Commons, and, of course, a different selection process for the two Houses, with the Senate hopefully drawn from local interests, along the lines I proposed on this blog a couple of years ago.
Thereafter it is possible to hope that the Senate will induce and encourage REAL regional parliaments of about 10 in number = Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland + plus 7 English regions, and the eventual withering away of the Westminster system, which will be used just for the State Opening and for Disneyesque gatherings of the old peerage in their gorgeous costumes, for which tourists will be charged entrance fees, and further fees for permits to sit in the seats and be photographed on the woolsack.
The Senate would, of course sit in the old Commons Chamber, remodelled as Graham Allinson MP long ago proposed, into a semicircular arrangement a la the Scottish and Welsh Chambers, and legislation would need to be passed by both the Senate and a majority of the Regional Parliaments, with those Parliaments also having the right to initiate legislation, if local to their region, unicamerally, if not, by the same route as legislation originating in the Senate.
I think that this is now a necessary direction for travel
sounds like an excellent solution to me. would solve the London-centric approach to politics and might persuade the SNP to back away from calling for another referendum (at least for the time being).
So the second chamber grows exponentially. Why not ennoble everyone – that would be real democracy!?
Even if Labour do win, it seems unlikely they will get more than 35% of the vote.
Our FPTP electoral system could actually give Labour a House of Commons majority on about 36-37% of the vote, clearly a democratic injustice.
Wouldn’t the make-up of current House of Lords be a useful democratic block to an election result which would clearly not reflect the will of the people?
Are you suggesting that packing the House of Lords with Labour peers would be a good thing? This would seem contrary to your support of PR for the House of Commons.
KRs
Tim
p.s. – if offered one of the hypothetical 125 peerages, would you decline it?
I am not sure how you think unelected Lords add to the electoral system
The chance I would be offered a peerage is so small I have not wasted my time thinking about it
“I am not sure how you think unelected Lords add to the electoral system”
As things stand. they seem to reflect voting patterns. Cross benchers and Lib Dem peers are not tied to supporting the Tories, especially if they do not have a majority after the election.
I didn’t ask what you thought your chances of being offered a peerage were, I asked what you would do if you were offered one. My chances are certainly slimmer than yours but I am quite happy to go on record as saying I would not accept. Could you please do the same? Surely you are not like John Prescott? All against privilege until it’s your own privilege?
KRs
Tim
You could also ask me if I’d accept an invitation to the moon
And I wouldn’t bother answering that either
How disappointing that you cannot answer a simple question.
I am sure your readers can read between the lines and see that you are leaving the door open to accept an undemocratic sinecure when it would be an easy action to close it.
I am disappointed and I am sure your other readers are too.
KRs
Tim
I am asked lots of things
Would, I for example, becoming a visiting professor?
The answer is maybe. Depends who is asking, and in what in
And also whether I can achieve anything by doing so
I suspect I’d use the same criteria if I was asked to be a peer
If it furthered the cause I was interested in would I say yes? Maybe
I won’t know until I am asked
And that’s the fair answer. The answer is only if advantage can be secured as a result
But if someone like Ruth Lister can decide that the answer to that is yes, I would have, at least, to think about it
An upper house elected by single transferable vote would give a broad representation of the different viewpoints (while not being exactly proportional would be far ahead of the present system). I am not against a proportion being appointed by an independent commission for a set period-not life.
I’m old enough to remember the old Roy Kinnear sketch when Lord Hailsham gave up his title. ‘Dear Lord Hailsahm, if you don’t want your peerage can I have it? My mother in law has always said her daughter married beneath her. Having a title would really impress her.”
Appoint me, Ed, but I would, of course, try to represent the views expressed on this blog.
What is the purpose of a second chamber? If you have 2 elected chambers – with the beauty contest (and money) involved – how can one chamber gave priority over the other?
Supposedly balance – as in the US system
The extreme of one chamber in any one election can be balanced by another on a different cycle
It also produces deadlock
Roughly half of the countries in the world are unicameral. There are several examples of countries that have abolished their second chambers – such as New Zealand, South Korea, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden …
They all manage somehow with unicameral legislatures, without the checks and balances of any second chamber (whether elected, or hereditary, or appointed, or hybrid, or otherwise).