Comments on: A Hereditary Peer By-election

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:49:06 +0000

Please can we not have any more nonsense about the hereditary by-elections having to go, because of the small numbers of electors. All that needs to happen is to have all hereditary replacemnents elected by the whole house. Job done.

By: Croft

Croft — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:10:33 +0000

Thanks for that it’s definitely a starting point. As you suggest updates on a reasonable basis are needed for it not to get rather confusing after successions as to whether the present or former peer is/was on the list – as they don’t give a d.o.b or any qualifying details to help clarify it. Obviously we’re 6 months out of date at present.

Do you have an approx date for when we know who is actively ‘standing’

By: baronessdsouza

baronessdsouza — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:59:53 +0000

Very sorry got distracted and the correct address is

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldelect.htm

By: baronessdsouza

baronessdsouza — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:57:41 +0000

Croft, as I understand it the list of those registered for any future election as a hereditary peer is published and can be accessed on -

http://pa/ld/ldelect.htm

There are also plans to update the list in between the annual updates.

By: Croft

Croft — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:32:11 +0000

baronessdsouza: It was thankyou. I'd been reading Lord Longford's ministerial statement on the matter so I thought I was clear on the military and serving (not former) civil servants but had never heard a comment on the police.

By: baronessdsouza

baronessdsouza — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:09:14 +0000

Jonathan, yes peers can vote in both European and local elections and clearly they can vote for whomever they wish – party or non-party!

Croft, as far as I can see erstwhile civil servants, the armed forces and the police all vote with impunity in the House of Lords as peers of the realm. Was this really your question?

By: Croft

Croft — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:50:23 +0000

Relative newcomers yes: iirc the Earl of Stair (XB) had taken his seat in ’98 (elected 2008) Viscount Eccles (C) April ’99 (elected 2005) and Earl Cathcart (C) in Oct ’99 (!) (elected 2007)

Going by the average age of peers even a short pause of creations would have a brisk impact.

Slightly tying onto Jonathan’s question I was slightly intrigued by one of your flock. Civil servants cannot speak or vote in the Lords (by convention). The military only with permission (although in something of a bon mot by the late Lord Longford as minister replied that ‘the (military) Service rules apparently do not apply to those who reach the highest eminence.’) Could you comment on the ‘rules’ for police officers?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:37:30 +0000

On the subject of “genuinely independent” crossbench peers, a question occurred to me yesterday. Is it acceptable for crossbenchers to vote in the European elections? Of course, this isn’t an issue at general elections, but peers will be eligible to vote next week. Is it OK to vote for a party, just not to be a member of one?

By: baronessdsouza

baronessdsouza — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:16:34 +0000

I absolutely agree that it is both likely and highly undesirable that we have a huge influx of new peers at the next general election. The House of Lords is already rather shamefully large and according to my calculations could be reduced by about 250 – which is why I keep harping on about offering honourable retirement.

I reckoned that if the HoL is to fufill its Committee functions it needs about 450 peers, say 500 to allow for competition for Select Committee seats. At the moment we have almost 750 and it is possible that numbers could swell to over 800. There is no room in the chamber, no offices available and I think the administration of the House would suffer unless it too was strengthened. None of this seems to be necessary.

The Government does argue that to allow small reforms might preclude larger, more radical reforms. I’m not so sure. The seemingly small changes of 1999 have had profound effects and I think tightening up rules, abolishing hereditary by-elections and introducing retirement would be a relatively painless but effective way to go

On new peers and hustings – it always surprises me how up-to-date the hereditaries are about their fellow nobles. Certainly there will be favourites from the pre-1999 cohort but this would not preclude serious consideration of new hereditaries as was shown at the last hustings – where a relative newcomer was elected.

By: senex

senex — Sun, 31 May 2009 12:20:39 +0000

Baroness D’Souza: Your reply to Bedd Gelert: “a Peasants’Revolt moment”. Yes, the Justice Minister had one of those and so did Margaret Thatcher.

From the link below:

“The immediate cause of the revolt was the unprecedented amount of taxation the peasantry faced from the Government.”

This is not over by any means.

Ref: The History of the Peasants Revolt by Jeff Hobbs
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/peasantsrevolt.html

PS: Is there any substance to the BBC offering you an upcoming cameo role as Mère to Lady D’Souza’s in an upcoming Dr Who timeline? Mums the word of course but it would be great publicity for the House of Lords.