Talk:House of Lords/Archive 1

message: :A Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament five options to choose from (fully appointed, twenty per cent elected, forty per cent elected, fifty per cent elected, sixty per cent elected, eighty per cent elected, and fully elected).
I count that as 'seven' options. --Palnatoke 07:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many options? 

message: No article is perfect, but this is just a beautifully done article. I'm proud to see such a high-quality article in Wikipedia; it's a gem that truly deserves to be shown off.Zantastik 03:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No article is perfect, but.. 

message: The "Lords Spiritual" form only a small part of the total membership. This article gives the impression that they are the major portion. This is incorrect.
anonymous comment copied from Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 28, 2004
:Where does it give that impression? Rob.derosa 21:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on membership

message: If the House of Lords becomes fully or partly elected in the future, will it regain some of the political privileges it has lost, such as the right to reject legislation passed by the Commons?  Funnyhat 07:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That remains to be seen. There is no law that states that it would regain any of these powers; the reforms would have to cover such specifics. -- Emsworth 10:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of the House 

message: THERE IS A GREEN PEER COULD SOMEONE ADD THIS
James Cullis
:I think you already did ; however you put it in the wrong place - a footnote about hereditary peers - so I took it out again. The Green is Timothy Beaumont, Baron Beaumont of Whitley, a former Liberal and Liberal Democrat, who is a life peer. He comes under "other parties" in the "current composition". I wonder whether we need a footnote about the "other parties"; the Greens are the only "real" party among them, the rest being independents of one sort or another or non-aligned. --rbrwr± 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Peer

message: 2+24+706=732.  The article says there are 731 members, then proceeds to list 2 archbishops, 24 bishops, and 706 Lords Temporal.  This would seem to be a bit of a discrepancy.  I'm not sure what is correct... someone please resolve?
:The table at the end lists 706 lords temporal and 25 lords spiritual.  Could the discrepancy be due to the Archbishopric of York currently being vacant?  The previous archbiship, David Hope, resigned some months ago but was then granted a life peerage; John Sentamu was recently designated as his successor but not yet installed.  -- ALoan (Talk) 13:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth adding that the numbers in the table are supported by this official source. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Math Problem

message: *Guys, Why is that there are Bishops and archbishops in the government in England??? When are you guys going to get the Separation of Church and State in England? See http://www.republic.org.uk --Brian (proud American, former US Navy submariner)
**England doesn't have a government. Perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom? And if you think religion has too much influence on our government, I suggest you take a good look at your own President. Proteus (Talk) 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Church and State

message: This article currently states that commonweath members may sit in the house, however, shouldn't the article note the fact that in practice Canadian citizens are prevented by the Prime Minsiter invoking the Nickle Resolution ?  This was the famous case of Conrad Black.  
Speaking of Black, is there any procedure or precident set to strip someone from the house of lords for committing a crime ? Dowew 00:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No - except perhaps for treason. --Henrygb 16:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadians in the House 

message: Is the number of hereditary peers(90) after adoption of the House of Lords Act 1999 fixed ?
For example, if a hereditary peer dies, will his/her seat be filled by election or left open ?
Siyac 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are elections, several of which have already happened. (The two seats held by the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, of course, are just taken by their successors, as happened on the death of the 17th Duke of Norfolk in 2002.) Proteus (Talk) 16:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: can we just scrap the political opinion stuff above, or does it ride around cluttering up the talk page indefinately? -- Akb4 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The number of hereditary peers

message: There is a flaw:
2 Archbishops
+24 Bishops
+706 Peers
=732 Members
But the text says it has 730 members only. So which number is correct? Longbow4u 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 733 (). ;-) Mucky Duck 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The February 1, 2006 stats on that page are 726, while the Wiki article was just updated to 732 (by someone (72.137.243.234 | talk | contribs) who has accidentally made a few little mistakes in his contributions in the past). Should the parliament.uk numbers be copied to the article? Possibly with a note to check the external page for latest stats? Weregerbil 14:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maths 

message: The 1999 House of Lords Act barred hereditary peers from the House, except for 90 as elected by other peers.  Who is eligible to be one of these 90?  Are Irish peers and Scottish peers eligible?
:I think Scottish peers (and Irish peers, so long as they're from the North) are allowed in, because Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the UK. Scott Gall 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1999 House of Lords Act 

message: I've noticed that the House of Lords has more members than the House of Commons. Most upper houses have less than the lower house, eg. the Australian Senate has 76 members as opposed to the House's 150, the United States Senate has 100 members as opposed to the House's 435, the Canadian Senate has 105 members as opposed to the House's 308, and the New Zealand Legislative Council had 54 seats before it was abolished, and 54 is less than the 121 seats that the House of Representatives has now. So if other upper houses around the world have less seats than the lower house, then why has the House of Lords got more than the House of Commons? Scott Gall 13:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible discrepancy

message: With the advent of the office of Lord Speaker there will have to be some major changes made to numerous pages on Wikipedia.
David 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Speaker 

message: It says:
"The House of Lords is an unelected body...90 are elected to represent the other hereditary peers" (from the unelected members, but this isn't made very clear). Shouldn't there be some more info about how the members are selected near the top of the page?
193.206.155.195 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yes. This seems a pretty significant contradiction, and it's been over two months since this comment, so I'm going to fix this, and make two other modifications as well. I plan to rewrite the phrase "although power is traditionally held by the elected House of Commons" and expand the phrasing in the first "Introduction paragraph to note the number of life peers vs. hereditary. -- Akb4 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elected 

message: A peer now means a member of the House of Lords. I.e. one of the Life Peers (including Law Lords) and the 90 (+2) hereditary elected peers and the 26 Lords Spiritual who are peers by virtue of their office. The term does not include hereditary Lords who are not amongst the 92. - Kittybrewster 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer

message: (a) Hereditary members of the House of Lords who were members before the reform of 1999; (b) the eldest child of a member of the House of Lords; (c) peers of Ireland; (d) Privy Councillors; (e) the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and (f) Black Rod. - Kittybrewster 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is the significance of being entitled to sit on the steps of the throne? when do people sit there, and why? -- Akb4 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't look it up, but I think they only sit there when the Sovereign (in personam) or the Lords Commissioner are present (and making an announcement). But don't quote me on that. --Mbimmler 14:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They can sit there to watch normal sittings and some usually do.Alci12 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is entitled to sit on the steps of the throne?

message: I'm not sure this needs to go into the article, but I have a question as to the current status of those hereditary peers that were not selected to sit in the House of Lords.  Can they vote in General Elections or stand for election to Commons?  
I could well be wrong, but I believe that under the old rules, Peers did not "have the vote" the same way that Commoners do... ie, They did not vote in the election of their local MP (since they were entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and thus in a sence, represented themselves).  Now that most of the hereditery Peers can no longer sit and vote in the House of Lords, was this changed?  Were they granted the vote or are they now disenfranchised? 38.112.47.92 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they can not only vote for the Commons but stand for election to it (and indeed Lord Lothian, Lord Thurso and Lord Hailsham are currently MPs). This, however, isn't a new state of affairs: the restriction on voting and standing in general elections has only ever applied to members of the House of Lords, and so peers who were not members (such as those peers all of whose titles were in the Peerage of Ireland or (until 1963) Scotland) have always been able to vote and stand for election (and often did so — Lord Palmerston, for instance, a Peer of Ireland, was twice Prime Minister in the nineteenth century whilst sitting in the Commons). Proteus (Talk) 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of hereditary Peers not now in House of Lords 

message: FYI to editors of this article. Lords Reform and a quasi-companion article History of Lords Reform both cover material that is in this article but using their own scope (pre-1997 and 1997 onward). The material in the three articles should probably be coordinated and properly integrated so that those two articles are subarticles of this one, or at least of the History section. At the moment this article does not link to them at all. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lords Reform history 

message: This article should have a section on the future on the house of Lords. It is vital and of the supreme importance that this section for, anyone with a basic knowledge of the political climate of the United Kingdom will know, the future of the House of Lords is often in the news. Therefore the time for a section on the future is needed. Wikipedia must not full behind the times, it must keep up with the prevailing views of the day.87.113.89.95 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to track too closely every twist and turn of current developments is risky: wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. I agree that there probably should be something on this, but much caution is needed to keep it balanced and to avoid it getting caught up in the intricacies of the blow-by-blow debate, which can rapidly become ephemeral. There is something to be said for keeping any such section at the level of noting formal policy prouncements by the government and the major parties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 12:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is an article on Lords Reform where this could be covered in more detail, it isn't necessary to have blow-by-blow, up-to-the-second report here. Yomanganitalk 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Future of the House

message: Is this or is this not a FA? The two CD banners reference it as FA class, but it doesnt show as, and references are pretty thin on the ground. Can anyone clarify this? Thanks RHB 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Status