Quote:
Originally Posted by frogstamper
A lot of those hereditaries are affiliated to the Tory party though coggy, the leader of the Conservatives in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde is an hereditary, until the 2002 house of Lords reform act the Tories had an inbuilt majority by way of hereditaries which had given them a majority for nearly a thousand years. Even now the hereditary make up of the Lords is
Conservative 42
Liberals 3
Labour 2
Cross 28
Others without voting rights 16
After the reform bill the Labour government made more life peers who were affiliated to the Labour party so as to balance the benches.
Having said this the higher echelons of the Conservative party no longer want the hereditary situation to continue, and the remaining 92 will eventually be phased out by "natural wastage" ie: death. By which time hopefully all three major parties will have agreed a consensus.
As it stands now the make up is as follows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_o...nt_composition |
But don't you see that if you make them an entirely elected second house then the divisions will be along exactly the same lines as in the Commons.I want a second house that is entirely independent of the influence of party lines.
I've not been entirely happy about the imbalance of the past but I fail to see how an elected body won't bring us back to frequent imbalance every time there is an election.I frankly think what we have now is preferable to that plus at least with a Lord who is in for life that they aren't affected by short termism as so frequently affects the Commons.Someone complained about the kneejerk reactions of government but it has to be said that the HOL can avoid all that at present.An elected body may not be able to resist.