Talk:House of Lords

Law Lords -- a hard phrase to get my tongue around!

I see that they have been moved to a new Supreme Court -- 'Merca comes to Blighty! Hayford Peirce 17:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

update

I have updated and simplified this long-neglected article. Comments? Nick Gardner 14:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

a clunky phrase

"90 "elected hereditary peers", who have been elected by and from members who had been granted or inherited hereditary peerages granted by monarchs down the ages" really needs to be rewritten. It does, I guess, actually mean something, but it is not very gracefully stated. Hayford Peirce 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because I tried to keep as much as possible of what was already there when I rewrote it. Peter Jackson 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

History

I think that the paragraph on history adds a lot to the value of the article, but that it would benefit from some vigorous editing. As it stands it lacks citations, is sometimes loosely worded, and is overly detailed to the point where it promises to overbalance the article, even when its other paragraphs have been completed. - Nick Gardner 22:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Which particular statements do you think need citations? And which bits are loosely worded?

I had not intended to start a discussion on citations, and your question suggests that your views on the matter differ from mine. I am content to leave that, and the question of wording, to the history editors. Nick Gardner 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You could always move it to a separate article. Peter Jackson 11:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved it to History of the House of Lords. I intend to wikilink it to the present article. Nick Gardner 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

By custom the Lords never reject 2nd reading of any bill.

The Salisbury convention is based on the concept of electoral mandate. A minority government has no mandate. The convention would apply to the present government only for policies appearing in both manifestos, e.g. cancelling identity cards. In addition, however, it would apply also to something in both Conservative and Labour manifestos, for example, because they have a majority between them. In principle I assume it would apply to non-party issues (abortion, capital punishment, fox hunting etc.) if a majority of MPs mentioned it in their election addresses.

"fulfill" is American spelling, inappropriate in a British topic, don't you think? Peter Jackson 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Nick Gardner 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Primacy of the Commons

The practice of referring to the House of Lords as the "upper house" is apt to confuse the reader. The primacy of the House of Commons is a long-established constitutional principle, and the House of Lords is referred to in official documents as the "second house". To insist that is at the same time the upper house (or that the Commons is the lower house) is, I suggest, an unnecessary and pedantic reflection of their relative status in bygone days. Nick Gardner 17:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tricky, isn't it? Historically speaking, it's not the second chamber because it was there first, in the sense that the Commons were added to the old Great Council in the 13th century. Nominally it still comes first, e.g. in the enactment clause, and the traditional term "upper house" is still often used. How are such terms used in relation to other countries? A lot of constitutions were modelled directly or indirectly on ours, or on parallel developments elsewhere. For example, I seem to remember the US constitution says money bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Do they use such terms as "upper"/"second"? Peter Jackson 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps one of our American fellow-Citizens could enlighten us? Nick Gardner 17:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fit for approval?

I believe that I have replaced the article as it was on 18th February with one that is fit for approval, but I should welcome an informed account of any deficiencies that it may have in that respect. Nick Gardner 22:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"The formerly total hereditary content of the House of Lords has since been much reduced, and it is due to be eliminated."

I'm not sure what this is intended to be saying. The only time when the House was totally hereditary was c. 1641-61. Peter Jackson 10:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"92 "hereditary peers", who had been elected from the membership of the previous House of Lords"

Misleading. The Earl Marshal and acting Lord Great Chamberlain are elected only in the sense that the House voted to have them rather than not. The wording of the Act didn't allow them to elect anyone else to those 2 places. Peter Jackson 10:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine points. Too fine, I suggest, to be worth drawing to the attention of our readers. I suggest we leave this to the discretion of the appropriate editors Nick Gardner 15:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to the Lords

It may be worth mentioning that there is considerable opposition to the House of Lords, especially since its former judicial function passed to the Supreme Court. Many people would like to see the Lords abolished and replaced, as an Upper House, by a legislative review body (which is certainly needed if Johnson is going to stay in office). Tony Benn was a vociferous opponent of the Lords and there was a petition to abolish it about three years ago which gained massive support (I signed it), but predictably got nowhere when it was debated. Just a thought. John (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)