Parliament's Great Debate

[said]

A bill was introduced in 1999 which resulted in the number of hereditary Lords being refused a seat in Parliament in favour of Parliamentary elected peers.

I disagree with this for a number of reasons. Those who have been merely granted a peerage, in general, have received this honour for either donating large sums of money to a particular party, by sycophancy or by cronyism. These granted peerages are viewed as a caricature of the real designation by many of the public.

Since these positions are rarely earned under the traditional meaning of such titles, there is very little respect given to those who have been granted them, and therefore carry negligible respect among the electorate. So these peerages are useless in effect. Moreover - since these people have focussed on gaining these titles, and have originated from certain associations - there is likely to be a huge conflict with their personal interests and legislation in Parliament, leading to unfair practices.

There is little doubt that there has to be a balance of decisions made in Parliament, the best available is that which we have had for years. The hereditary peers are secular to the population, and mainly socialise among their own circles. This is as close to being independent of the Political field as we at likely to get. Moreover, such peers have a deep interest in their British heritage, and are likely to be more interested in the country that they hold their titles in, and most are financially healthy and would be less likely to bend towards financial inducements.

If there are a shortage of hereditary Peers, then it is for the existing hereditary peers to elect people from their own circle for they are unlikely to support anyone who will shame them in any way.

What are your views - do we have hereditary peers in the House of Lords or do we have Parliamentary elected peers?

[Hamble]

A bill was introduced in 1999 which resulted in the number of hereditary Lords being refused a seat in Parliament in favour of Parliamentary elected peers.

I disagree with this for a number of reasons. Those who have been merely granted a peerage, in general, have received this honour for either donating large sums of money to a particular party, by sycophancy or by cronyism. These granted peerages are viewed as a caricature of the real designation by many of the public.

Since these positions are rarely earned under the traditional meaning of such titles, there is very little respect given to those who have been granted them, and therefore carry negligible respect among the electorate. So these peerages are useless in effect. Moreover - since these people have focussed on gaining these titles, and have originated from certain associations - there is likely to be a huge conflict with their personal interests and legislation in Parliament, leading to unfair practices.

There is little doubt that there has to be a balance of decisions made in Parliament, the best available is that which we have had for years. The hereditary peers are secular to the population, and mainly socialise among their own circles. This is as close to being independent of the Political field as we at likely to get. Moreover, such peers have a deep interest in their British heritage, and are likely to be more interested in the country that they hold their titles in, and most are financially healthy and would be less likely to bend towards financial inducements.

If there are a shortage of hereditary Peers, then it is for the existing hereditary peers to elect people from their own circle for they are unlikely to support anyone who will shame them in any way.

What are your views - do we have hereditary peers in the House of Lords or do we have Parliamentary elected peers?

Hereditary to ensure the system is not corrupted by bias and bribe.

I can not see Parliamentary peers wearing the gear and no way should their expenses come off the State.

[said]

Hereditary to ensure the system is not corrupted by bias and bribe.

I can not see Parliamentary peers wearing the gear and no way should their expenses come off the State.

I think most people agree with that!

[silver fox]

Hereditary to ensure the system is not corrupted by bias and bribe.

I can not see Parliamentary peers wearing the gear and no way should their expenses come off the State.

There should be NO hereditary peers at all, that is a hangover from an archaic class ridden time and has no place in a modern democracy, who gives a s### about any of them wandering about in their robes and daft hats, if you want a bit of olde worlde stuff for the tourists put a few hired hands in the gear and let them stroll about.

The House of Lords is overstuffed to say the least, it must be reduced then the entire system revised, either appointed or wholly elected 2nd house for a fixed term not life, if appointed by parliament it should carry 1/3 from the right, 1/3 from the left and 1/3 nonaligned and independent, failing that a wholly elected 2nd house elected by the electorate.

The concept that hereditary peers will not be biased is ridiculous, I can't imagine a group from a long line of privilege being anything but totally biased.

The present pantomime where each party when in power "rebalances" the House of Lords generally in their favour, then the next government appoints a few more to keep "a balance", the whole damn thing just grows and grows.

[said]

There should be NO hereditary peers at all, that is a hangover from an archaic class ridden time and has no place in a modern democracy, who gives a s### about any of them wandering about in their robes and daft hats, if you want a bit of olde worlde stuff for the tourists put a few hired hands in the gear and let them stroll about.

The House of Lords is overstuffed to say the least, it must be reduced then the entire system revised, either appointed or wholly elected 2nd house for a fixed term not life, if appointed by parliament it should carry 1/3 from the right, 1/3 from the left and 1/3 nonaligned and independent, failing that a wholly elected 2nd house elected by the electorate.

The concept that hereditary peers will not be biased is ridiculous, I can't imagine a group from a long line of privilege being anything but totally biased.

The present pantomime where each party when in power "rebalances" the House of Lords generally in their favour, then the next government appoints a few more to keep "a balance", the whole damn thing just grows and grows.

The hereditary peers are far from ideal - I grant you that. But in the absence of an independent body of people, they are the nearest we have. They are neither concerned with the people, nor for that matter most business other than their own - they are not concerned about politics other than that which may have a local effect - but they are concerned about their own position in the UK and legislations that affect them, which in turn are those that are in the best interests of the country. Many of the Parliamentary sycophants are interested in power and money and therefore the least likely to be trusted - these peers have no need to seek that, they already have it.

[gazaprop]

The hereditary peers are far from ideal - I grant you that. But in the absence of an independent body of people, they are the nearest we have. They are neither concerned with the people, nor for that matter most business other than their own - they are not concerned about politics other than that which may have a local effect - but they are concerned about their own position in the UK and legislations that affect them, which in turn are those that are in the best interests of the country. Many of the Parliamentary sycophants are interested in power and money and therefore the least likely to be trusted - these peers have no need to seek that, they already have it.

If anyone is doing a thesis on naivety can I direct you to this piece of work as an ideal candidate for a case study.

[Hamble]

There should be NO hereditary peers at all, that is a hangover from an archaic class ridden time and has no place in a modern democracy, who gives a s### about any of them wandering about in their robes and daft hats, if you want a bit of olde worlde stuff for the tourists put a few hired hands in the gear and let them stroll about.

The House of Lords is overstuffed to say the least, it must be reduced then the entire system revised, either appointed or wholly elected 2nd house for a fixed term not life, if appointed by parliament it should carry 1/3 from the right, 1/3 from the left and 1/3 nonaligned and independent, failing that a wholly elected 2nd house elected by the electorate.

The concept that hereditary peers will not be biased is ridiculous, I can't imagine a group from a long line of privilege being anything but totally biased.

The present pantomime where each party when in power "rebalances" the House of Lords generally in their favour, then the next government appoints a few more to keep "a balance", the whole damn thing just grows and grows.

It grew to accommodate fairness.
Not all hereditary Peers are Tory or wealthy.

Quote
"Modern composition of the hereditary peerage

Many hereditary peers are associated with famous estates such as Hatfield House; many notable estates are open to the public.
The peerage has traditionally been associated with high gentry, the British nobility, and in recent times, the Conservative Party. Only a tiny proportion of wealthy people are peers, but the peerage includes a few of the very wealthiest, such as Hugh Grosvenor (the Duke of Westminster) and Lord Salisbury of Hatfield House. Most of the largest stately homes belong to the National Trust due to forms of estate tax. A few peers own one or more of England's largest estates passed down through inheritance, particularly those with medieval roots: until the late 19th century the dominant English and Scottish land division on death was primogeniture.

However, the proliferation of peerage creations in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century resulted in even minor political figures entering the ranks of the peerage; these included newspaper owners (e.g. Alfred Harmsworth) and trade union leaders (e.g. Walter Citrine). As a result, there are many hereditary peers who have taken up careers which do not fit traditional conceptions of aristocracy. For example, Arup Kumar Sinha, 6th Baron Sinha is a middle-class computer technician working for a travel agency; Matt Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, is a popular science writer; and Peter St Clair-Erskine, 7th Earl of Rosslyn is a former Metropolitan Police Service Commander. The Earl of Longford was a socialist and prison reformer, while Tony Benn, who renounced his peerage as Viscount Stansgate (only for his son to reclaim the family title after his death) was a senior government minister (later a writer and orator) with solidly left-wing policies".

[silver fox]

It grew to accommodate fairness.
Not all hereditary Peers are Tory or wealthy.

Quote
"Modern composition of the hereditary peerage

Many hereditary peers are associated with famous estates such as Hatfield House; many notable estates are open to the public.
The peerage has traditionally been associated with high gentry, the British nobility, and in recent times, the Conservative Party. Only a tiny proportion of wealthy people are peers, but the peerage includes a few of the very wealthiest, such as Hugh Grosvenor (the Duke of Westminster) and Lord Salisbury of Hatfield House. Most of the largest stately homes belong to the National Trust due to forms of estate tax. A few peers own one or more of England's largest estates passed down through inheritance, particularly those with medieval roots: until the late 19th century the dominant English and Scottish land division on death was primogeniture.

However, the proliferation of peerage creations in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century resulted in even minor political figures entering the ranks of the peerage; these included newspaper owners (e.g. Alfred Harmsworth) and trade union leaders (e.g. Walter Citrine). As a result, there are many hereditary peers who have taken up careers which do not fit traditional conceptions of aristocracy. For example, Arup Kumar Sinha, 6th Baron Sinha is a middle-class computer technician working for a travel agency; Matt Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, is a popular science writer; and Peter St Clair-Erskine, 7th Earl of Rosslyn is a former Metropolitan Police Service Commander. The Earl of Longford was a socialist and prison reformer, while Tony Benn, who renounced his peerage as Viscount Stansgate (only for his son to reclaim the family title after his death) was a senior government minister (later a writer and orator) with solidly left-wing policies".

In your own words many of these peerages date back to medieval times, do you seriously believe that the way of the country then has the remotest link to the country today.

I didn't mention wealth, you did, I mentioned privilege, not quite the same thing, you bring up a few names as if that makes everything OK, you may notice in my post I want to see views from right across the political spectrum, with a good mix of nonalligned and independent people included.