Talk:Reform of the House of Lords

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 October 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (no reason given for nomination).

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Old comments

This is not a private article. It is open to anyone willing to fill out the facts to come and help. Remember however it is a difficult subject and we've had problems because it started one sided. I'm hoping to take the development out of the gaze of the deletionists by setting up a new account: LordsReform, where we can put articles until they are developed. (But I make no promises because I've been surprised before!)

There is more stuff under development to see it look at: User:LordsReform Or go to the docs: Mike 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussion

I have produced a new introduction and a section on pre-1997 reforms. The modern material still needs some work, to give more information about the House of Lords Act 1999 and the subsequent proposals for further reforms. --Gary J 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A vast improvement! Thanks. I've taken the liberty of formatting it a bit to make it a bit more readable - I hope you don't mind.

I've also started to add some sub pages so that more can be written on each of the options.

I am impressed with how much this article has been improved since I worked on it. That is the benefit of Wikipedia at its best. The product of several people is better than any of them would be likely to do alone. --Gary J 18:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered the sections. I've moved up the history & sequence of events because this makes the article start in a neutral uncontentious way. I've related "issues" as "debate" which again should make it more neutral Mike 22:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why were people so keen on deleting this article instead of improving it? I just don't understand why they thought this issue didn't warrant an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sub pages

I've added Various links and in some cases the actual pages. I would appreciaate some feedback on this idea.Mowgli++ 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC) I've taken the hint (and read policy on sub pages which someone could have told me about!) and have created one page on proposals combing all the proposals on one page.[reply]

Lords Reform - History

Great section!Mowgli++ 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a section I was originally responsible for drafting. I am in the proceess of adapting it, so it can stand alone as an article. --Gary J 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform - Public Debate

Since sub pages need to be stand alone, I've give it some thought and I think covering the debate on Lords reform really needs an article on its own. The scope would be the public debate sourced from Parliamentary speaches, the consultation responses, newspaper articles and letters and any web sites from established organisations or those groups involved in the consultations.

Lords Reform - Roles moved to [[~~User:LordsRefrom/Roles~~]] now User:LordsReform/New

I took this out of the main article as there are quite a few different ideas on the roles of the lords/commons (the consequence of an unwritten constitution?). It is now being used to capture the various interpretations of the relationship between the House of Lords and Commons. My intention is that it will eventually form a section in the article on covering the public debate.

Lords Reform - Aims moved to [[~~User:LordsReform/Aims~~]] now User:LordsReform/New

whilst work is in progress. My intention at the moment is to make it into an "aims" section on the public debate. I'm not sure about the name! There are very different ideas expressed in the many proposal about this issue. In particular there have been quite a few proposals for allotment/sortition. I don't think the background information would be suitable to the main article, but it really needs to go somewhere for those who haven't come across sortition or the many alternavtive views of democracy + the problem of applying it to an upper chamber.Mike 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Reform - Proposals moved to [[~~User:LordsReform/Consultation & Public Debate~~]] now User:LordsReform/New

so that it can be worked on in peace and quiet.Mike 14:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Created to amalgamate the detail information on the range of proposals that have been offered by government, Mps, Lords, public and detailed in consultation papers, Hansard, newspaper, websites. Mike 10:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC) When I've got to a stage where it is relatively stable and balanced, I'll put it back on WikiMike 14:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

2.9 Secondary Mandate

The discussion in this point is not clear what it means: "Critics however see . . . ." It says a single vote may be a choice between voting for the candidate and the upper house. But in the paragraph above that, the writer had stated that voters always only get one vote. And, what is "a vote for the upper house?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommcnabb (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I have a strong feeling that our American colleagues really don't appreciate the way Lords reform has become a subject in its own right deserving a place in Wikipedia. I have tried to strength the introduction to make it sound more encycolpedic whilst at the same time clearly defining the scope of this article.Mike 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is good practice to have an introduction summarising what an article is about. However the use of the heading 'Introduction' is not advisable. If you have no heading the introductory material will go before the contents box. If you look at other articles you will see that is how introductions are normally handled. I believe there is a Wikipedia policy favouring such an approach. --Gary J 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point LordsReform 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing is background information on what the House of Lords actually is, and why there is need for reform. Nothing horribly detailed, but some general background information would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.131 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Issues: reorganization and Re-writes

History

This is hard work! I've tried to paraphrase the commission's proposals. I don't know if I've done it very well. Someone could have a look. Look at user:LordsReforms/sources if you want to help or see what has been done. Mike 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

I moved the issues down the article, so that it would open so confrontationally? There seems to be developing a few sections all which are part of "the debate", so I created the new section. Mike 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

It would be useful to have some other input to this section. I've laid it out with my own ideas, not because that is what should be there but because I haven't anything else to put there! Mike 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no section titled "Proposals" in the article.T.Mc 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Judicial role

This does still exist, but has already been reformed. A very little noticed statute called the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 transfers the judicial powers of the House of Lords to a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. That reform will be brought into force when the Supreme Court has a suitably grand court building available (which is expected to be in 2009) and the era of the Law Lords will then end. --Gary J 02:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the great thing about having a Wikipedia article, I'd know things like that and know where to look!Mike 11:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 bill

I can't fault the section on the bill. I added back some detail on the U turn with a quote to indicate why it didn't go through. Mike 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike

Thanks for adding back in your contribution about the opinion poll - I removed it rather hastily from a section that was mostly rendered redundant by the edit I had been composing for the previous half hour, during which time you happened to add this information.

With apologies, I've reverted your addition on the voting system controversy, on the grounds that (i) I do refer to this in the second paragraph of my contribution, and (ii) it is not really correct to call the Alternative Vote a "PR-style voting system", despite the sloppy misreporting of this on the BBC and elsewhere. It does not really make sense to designate a system for choosing a single option out of a set of candidate options as "proportional". AV when used for parliamentary elections, for example in Australia, is not a PR system.

Thanks for an excellent history of recent attempts at reform of the House of Lords.

Regards, C 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claribel07 - thanks. And yes PR was the wrong word to use! I've made a few changes to your paragraph. Unfortunately, I often add in a few spelling mistakes - so sorry if I have! If you are not aware of it then you might like to know you can click on the "history" tab at the top and compare two versions. If you really don't like what someone has added, then you can click on a previous version's date, and it will bring up the previous versions. Then click "edit", and "save" and it will revert to that version! Mike 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and Cabinet

I wish to explain changing the words "Government favours" to "white paper recommends" in reference to the proposed composition of the Second Chamber. When Jack Straw presented the white paper on 7th February 2007, he referred to the 50%/50% option as being his own suggestion, and that it was not endorsed by the Cabinet. A video clip of his speech is available on the BBC website, if you search for "lords reform". Robnpov 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification, Rob. You're quite right: the model suggested by the white paper was not the Government's collective recommendation. I've added "for example" back in, just to make it clear that the envisaged 20% non-party-political element would apply under any of the six options that include appointed members: the two described in the following clauses are only examples. Regards, C 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 results (voting on 100%)

The following may be a valid point, but as written it appears to be very "Political" and because I can't understand the point I was unable to rewrite.

“

However, examination of the names of MPs voting at each division in the Commons shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. Given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% whose result was already known when the vote on 100% took place this shows a clear preference for a fully elected Upper House among those who voted for the only other option that passed.

”

Bugsy 13:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugsy

My reason for adding this information was as a counterweight to the preceding sentence – which calls into question the significance of the larger majority achieved for 100% elected than that achieved for 80% elected, by suggesting that this was in some measure due to tactical voting. My point is that the 211 who voted for 80% and then for 100% effectively voted for 100% as their first preference and 80% as their second preference. This can be deduced from the fact that the vote on the 100% motion was held after that on the 80% motion had already been won: any MP who favoured this outcome over the 100% elected outcome would have voted against the latter motion, having already secured their preferred outcome (76 other MPs did exactly that). Had all the votes been held in the contrary order, those 211 would have voted against the 80% option – and there would likely have been even greater majorities against the other hybrid options.

I'll have a think about how to express this better and then re-edit the section. I may relegate the whole discussion to a footnote – together with the point in the previous sentence about tactical voting.

C 14:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very confusing!The 80% motion was passed. Then came a vote on the 100% option. 211 MPs who voted for the 80% motion voted for the 100% motion - which was passed by a larger majority. Had those 211 MPs really wanted the 80% option they would have voted against the 100% option to defeat it and so ensuring the 80% option alone was carried. (Coachtripfan (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Current event?

Encyclopedia sites I've read claim that the House of Lords alone can only delay a bill for about a year when it has already been decided by the House of Commons. Does this mean that the House of Lords WILL change to a election system within a year of March 7, or is there some other factor involved? I'd suppose this isn't the case, since nothing I've heard about this vote (including the article here) makes the change sound particularly imminent. -BaronGrackle 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC) The votes were on the way to proceed toward a bill, not a vote passing a bill. Bugsy 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:House of Lords.jpg

The image Image:House of Lords.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an interim measure I have replaced the image with the public domain Image:House of Lords Microcosm edited.jpg. The only problem with that image though is that it depicts the House of Lords as it was before the fire of 1834. A free use image of the present chamber would be preferred if there is one available. Road Wizard (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentative clause on elections

Although politicians such as Tony Benn maintain that elections are necessary to be democratic: "Democracy means an elected second chamber",[42] few seriously maintain that in a democracy all institutions including judges and juries should be elected

This last clause sounds like something that would be said in a debate on the topic, not in an encyclopedia: it would appear to be trying to establish a case by correlation. I mean, this is not an article about judges and juries: it's about a legislative assembly.Ordinary Person (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Steel Misquoted

In the 'Appointment' subsection, under the 'The range of options' section, the first David Steel quote is taken and used completely out of context, to defend an argument David Steel has never supported.

The subsection selectively quotes a single paragraph from a larger article Steel wrote for the Guardian, in 2007 (not 1997), to defend a ridiculous argument, one that Steel certainly would never want to defend, that there was ever any popular support for the unelected House of Lords, amongst the general public, in 1997, prior to the 1999 reforms.

The quote being used, out of context- "The great strength of the Lords is that it contains not just a bunch of experienced retired MPs but a whole raft of individuals with specialist knowledge and experience from the worlds of commerce, medicine, the services, the civil service, academia, the unions - the list is endless - none of whom would be likely to be available to stand for election. (Lord Steel, former Alliance leader)"

Actually, David Steel is aggressively defending the House of Lords in 2007, created by the 1999 reforms. Reforms introduced by Tony Blair to replace the corrupt and unpopular 1997 (pre-1999) version of the House of Lords. His article was never meant to be read as a defense of the previous status quo, the House of Lords back in 1997.

I quote from the very same Guardian article - "During my 12 years as leader of the Liberal party I regarded myself as hereditary keeper of the Asquith pledge to replace the House of Lords with a chamber constituted on a "popular basis". Now that we face a new attempt to reform the upper house, it is time to stop and ponder whether we are proceeding in the right direction.

The conditions in which Prime Minister Asquith made his commitment have changed in three important respects: the hereditary principle has all but gone; the primacy of the House of Commons is universally accepted; and it has now been agreed by all parties that none should have a majority in the Lords."

Where he says, "The hereditary principle has all but gone…" he is obviously talking about the House of Lords post the 1999 reforms, after it was "...changed...". He is not talking about the 1997 situation or defending it.

"none should have a majority…" That was not the 1997 status quo situation at all! Before 1999, the Conservatives had a permanent majority in the House of Lords, going back more than three centuries. No, "none should have a majority..." was an argument used by reformers of the House of Lords, back in 1999!

David Steel is arguing that after the 1999 reforms a "popular basis" (popular support) had been, to an extent, achieved for the House of Lords.

In 1997 the House of Lords was structured in the same way as when he was Leader of the Liberal party, 1976-88. He would not have wanted so ardently to reform the House of Lords during his "..12 years as leader of the Liberal party.." if he believed it had popular support already in 1997, before the reforms of 1999, now would he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a quote has been incorrectly dated then it should be fixed. If he has been misquoted then the quote should be corrected to state exactly what was said. However, you appear to have stepped beyond correcting mistakes there and are actually adding your own interpretation to somebody else's statements; that is something we do not allow as it breaches the no original research policy. Road Wizard (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some old blog

The Morning Constitutional. This might be some old blog, but I find the content well-explained when it comes to the reform proposals of the House of Lords. Komitsuki (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reform of the House of Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708070744/http://todayintheuk.blogspot.com/ to http://todayintheuk.blogspot.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reform of the House of Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Brown proposals

Needs a new section on the 2022 Brown proposals. S C Cheese (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://labour.org.uk/page/a-new-britain/

Paywalled citation

Citations 70 and 71 to ft.com are behind paywall. I'm not an editor and don't know what policy is, but alternative or at least supporting citations without it seem like a good idea. 24.113.229.172 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]