Re: Hunting is banned!

From: BAC (casswalk_at_NOSPAMdircon.co.uk)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:39:31 -0000

"Robert Seago" <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d137f5680rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article <1101384134.26558.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net>,
> BAC <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > The old Tory hereditary majority has been quietly dispensed with, the
> > place being more of a 'meritocracy' of those appointed for their wisdom
> > and judgement by our elected leaders. Ironic, really, isn't it?
>
> Quietly LOL
>
> But they didn't actually finish as they left a majority of the old order
> there, including a large residue of hereditaries for their life time.
>

As at the end of October, there were 579 life peers, only 90 hereditary and
26 bishops. The 90 hereditaries chosen to remain under s2 of the 1999 Act
are there for life or until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary.
Of the 90, 47 are Tory, 4 are labour, 4 are lib/dem and 33 are crossbench.
The overall constitution of the H o L is 203 Tory, 201 Labour, 68 Liberal
Democrat, 187 Crossbench and 10 'other', including 1 green and
non-affiliates such as Lord Archer. Plus the Bishops, of course. Only 126 of
the peers are female.

Leaving the 90 hereditaries was a compromise pending further promised
reforms, including the possibility of direct elections for some or all
future appointments (an option the government doesn't seem to like any more)
and it also recognised the fact that some of the old hereditary peers had
proved themselves to be useful members anyway, who would possibly have been
elevated to the peerage if not already there by accident of birth.

The problem with the Lords, as presently constituted, is not so much the
presence of the 90 hereditaries, as the stubborn independence of mind of
peers, regardless of their nominal party allegiance. For example, the
'leader' of the opposition to the hunting with hounds bill in the Lords was
a 'labour' life peer.

In fact, the Lords were more in tune with Government thinking over the Bill
than the Commons, since both the Lords and the Government had favoured the
licensing 'middle way' but were thwarted by the wishes of the majority in
the Commons.