| And for many years now, even the remaining minority of hereditary peers in the chamber are elected to that job, albeit not by the general public. My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers so that they can keep doing the exact same job. Many life peers (who are all entitled to be there) rarely attend, so it would be kinda silly if Lord Snootington, the fifteenth Earl of Whatever is kicked out for being a hereditary peer despite also being the linchpin of an important committee and one of the top 100 attendees in the Lords, while they keep Bill Smith, a business tycoon who got his peerage for giving a politician a sack of cash and hasn't been in London, never mind the House of Lords, since 2014... |
| |
| ▲ | skissane 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages But that political deal is just an informal extralegal “understanding”, it isn’t actually in the text of the bill-having the bill text grant someone a life peerage would upset the status of peerages as a royal prerogative, and they don’t want to do that | | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have. They don't have any expectation against losing their seats entirely when hereditary peers are ejected from the House, and, even with a sufficient number of life peers voting with them, they couldn't actually prevent such a bill from passing, only delay it. Securing a commitment of life seats is getting something they didn't have. | |
| ▲ | mastax 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; the deal only needs to be seen as fair enough by the other peers. Or really, it only needs to be seen as fair enough to the House of Commons. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree; As I understand it, it was necessary (in order to pass the bill without the delay the Lords can impose) to secure a deal on the hereditary peers (not with them), because the Conservatives (the largest Lords faction) and many of the cross-benchers among the life peers, a sufficient number in total to delay the bill (the Lords can't actually block it permanently) oppose the bill, not just a group among the existing hereditary peers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hunterpayne 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The hereditary peers were elected and that's what is being discarded? So before at least the voters got some choice and that's going away? Amazing... | | |
| ▲ | Nursie an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The hereditary peers were elected By a larger pool of hereditary peers. Previously several hundred members of the aristocracy were all entitled to a seat in there by virtue of their birth and title alone. After reforms in 1999 this group had to nominate from within themselves a subset of 92 hereditary peers who would be allowed to participate in the chamber. If by "the voters" you mean the general public, then no, they had no say at all. |
|
|
