Should UKIP get more peers in the House of Lords

UKIP to only be offered 2 seats in the House of Lords even though the government's own rules say they should have 21-24 peers. So should UKIP be given more peers?

http://www.ukipdaily.com/rumour-ukip-offered-two-seats-house-lords/#.U5HuJiiX68A

Reply 1

SHallowvale

14

The House of Lords reform agreement stated that:

''Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election''

UKIP got 3.1% of the vote in the last general election. There are around 780 members of the House of Lords. Therefore: yes. UKIP, under that agreement, should have around 24 members of the House of Lords (and not 3, which they currently have).

That being said, all political parties would gain more seats if this agreement was properly enforced. Roughly speaking, the Conservative Party would gain 80 seats, Labour would gain 8 (ouch), the Liberal Democrats would gain 81, the BNP would gain 15 and the Green Party would gain 6. These changes would actually strengthen the coalitions power in the House of Lords.

Sources:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05623/reform-of-the-house-of-lords-the-coalition-agreement-and-further-developments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Reply 2

gladders

16

I also find that the convention of appointing peers based on electoral strength to be increasingly untenable. What if UKIP gets 10% of the vote at the next election, and then is obliterated at the one after? Those peers will be in place for decades.

The appointments system needs to be effective to prevent flooding by one party but it must also prevent the House's membership exploding more than it already has. It needs urgent reform, but election is absolutely not the answer nonetheless.

Reply 3

Rakas21

21

Original post by Ace123

UKIP to only be offered 2 seats in the House of Lords even though the government's own rules say they should have 21-24 peers. So should UKIP be given more peers?

http://www.ukipdaily.com/rumour-ukip-offered-two-seats-house-lords/#.U5HuJiiX68A

Given their share of the vote in the last election i suppose so.

With that being said one of the biggest priorities regarding constitutional reform should be to reduce the size of the HOL to 500 (better still, 100 like the US senate).

Reply 4

The_Duck

7

Due to other members of the lords such as bishops, no, their share is more proportional than it appears.

Reply 5

Asariond

4

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the rules meant to give parties representation in the House of Lords based on voteshare in General Elections, not European ones? In addition, considering the above points, as well as the fact that a solid majority of people didn't vote in said election, even if they're entitled to more Lords at all, it shouldn't be anywhere near 22. They have no mandate to represent, say, 25% of the entire population in the House of Lords, if they only received 25% of the vote out of 34% of the population who actually voted.

Of course, it's all idiotic electioneering. UKIP really are just as bad as any other party in terms of being power-obsessed and out-of-touch.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 6

anarchism101

17

No. If we're going to have an upper house that represents share of the vote, then have it elected as such.

Personally I'd like the Lords to be abolished completely, but as long as it's around it should be different to the Commons, and not simply a copy.

Reply 7

zippity.doodah

3

the house of lords is unapologetically corrupt and cronyistic - whether they are successful in getting their fair proportion of the seats in there frankly doesn't matter much to me even as a supporter of theirs. the house of lords is utterly pointless and fantastically out of date. it is the absolute worst blend of cob-webbed has-beens and rich old nobodies, and some sons of centuries-old noblemen that nobody cares or knows about. an absolutely useless chamber that has no value to anybody. it does not check the government if ministers are sitting and commanding the agendas in that chamber unlike a senate that is separate from the government, which is vested in support from the house of commons. if it is about knowledge or skill then they'd simply be hiring people from mensa or university professors and other such institutions. if it had political legitimacy then it would have some kind of popular mandate, but when you look at how many peers are liberal democrats you have to question what on earth is wrong with our political system...

(edited 9 years ago)

No

Original post by Asariond

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the rules meant to give parties representation in the House of Lords based on voteshare in General Elections, not European ones? In addition, considering the above points, as well as the fact that a solid majority of people didn't vote in said election, even if they're entitled to more Lords at all, it shouldn't be anywhere near 22. They have no mandate to represent, say, 25% of the entire population in the House of Lords, if they only received 25% of the vote out of 34% of the population who actually voted.

Of course, it's all idiotic electioneering. UKIP really are just as bad as any other party in terms of being power-obsessed and out-of-touch.

I see this a lot in the guardian, I don't understand what you people expect from a political party, they are competing with three parties who have been established for a very long time, do you just expect them to lie down and die a natural death? That's what would happen if they didn't keep pressuring like this (look how much media attention this is getting). What's wrong with using politics (instead of force) to change politics? That's what democracy is about right?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 10

Asariond

4

Original post by DErasmus

I see this a lot in the guardian, I don't understand what you people expect from a political party, they are competing with three parties who have been established for a very long time, do you just expect them to lie down and die a natural death? That's what would happen if they didn't keep pressuring like this (look how much media attention this is getting). What's wrong with using politics (instead of force) to change politics? That's what democracy is about right?

I agree with you completely, but the problem is that they always posit themselves as something different to the norm. That's one of their major platforms, yet they are simply offering the exact same elitist, out-of-touch behaviour that we already have, even without all of their less-than-admirable policies.

Reply 11

DErasmus

3

Original post by Asariond

I agree with you completely, but the problem is that they always posit themselves as something different to the norm. That's one of their major platforms, yet they are simply offering the exact same elitist, out-of-touch behaviour that we already have, even without all of their less-than-admirable policies.

I won't defend their policies but the system is setup like that, without forcing it from the outside there's no other way you can put yourself into a position of leadership. They're forced to behave within the rules of the system in order to effectively change it, not saying they won't behave like this when they do get in power, but how else could they? Right now they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Reply 12

Asariond

4

Original post by DErasmus

I won't defend their policies but the system is setup like that, without forcing it from the outside there's no other way you can put yourself into a position of leadership. They're forced to behave within the rules of the system in order to effectively change it, not saying they won't behave like this when they do get in power, but how else could they? Right now they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I disagree to an extent, although I recognise you make a valid point. You do need to play the major parties at their own game to a degree, and that what UKIP initially did. They've gotten as far as they have in the European and Council elections through fantastic political skill, by getting out there and engaging with voters and showing that they could provide an end to the out-of-touch political elitism they harp on about time and time again. But that 'of the people' mask slips far too often for me to really believe it, with issues about expenses, party members' behaviours, and prolific comments that convince me they're not all they make themselves out to be.

Reply 13

Observatory

20

The House of Lords should simply be abolished without reform or replacement. Its last true constitutional function was that of the highest court of appeal - a function that has now gone to the Supreme Court. Today it is little more than a stagnant pool being filled higher and higher with the worst political plankton.

The title of "Lord" could then be reserved for people who have contributed something to the country or humanity as a whole.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 14

DErasmus

3

Original post by Asariond

I disagree to an extent, although I recognise you make a valid point. You do need to play the major parties at their own game to a degree, and that what UKIP initially did. They've gotten as far as they have in the European and Council elections through fantastic political skill, by getting out there and engaging with voters and showing that they could provide an end to the out-of-touch political elitism they harp on about time and time again. But that 'of the people' mask slips far too often for me to really believe it, with issues about expenses, party members' behaviours, and prolific comments that convince me they're not all they make themselves out to be.

It's a political stunt: it's best to see UKIP as composed of two factions: a) the traditionalist conservatives who oppose the European Union because they are xenophobic, traditionalist and racist (these are usually the elderly Christian types who have failed to adapt and see modern society as an illness), these are usually those who also long for a sense of identity, and b) the libertarian faction who disagree with the European Union because they do not believe in excessive government power and feel that political union like the European Union has to much power and is actually detrimental.