House of Lords

[CatholicLeft]

Jul 24, 2020 8:24:38 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

This is a surprise - he is only 66 years old. Has he some other plans?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Ex-chancellors do not normally pine for lack of job offers. Darling is already a director of Morgan Stanley in New York. I expect he feels he probably does not have the time to commit to being an active member of the House of Lords.

[tonygreaves]

Yes I've just seen this and am surprised. He don't think he has been an assiduous participant in the Lords. No doubt it his reasons will be discussed. I don't know why he took the name Lord Darling of Roulanish. Roulanish (better known as Breaclete or Breacleit - Brèaicleit in Gaelic) is a tiny village on the wonderful island of Great Bernera in the far-flung parish of Uig on the west coast of the Isle of Lewis. He himself comes from Edinburgh where he has been politically active all his life but his forebears may come from Bernera.

[johnloony]

I'm a bit puzzled why so many members of the House of Lords are retiring these days. Apart from the fact that they now can, whereas in previous decades they couldn't, why bother resigning? Why not just not-bother turning up? They might never know when or if they might suddenly want to vote on a big issue in 10 or 20 years' time.

[neilm]

Jul 24, 2020 22:33:25 GMT johnloony said:

I'm a bit puzzled why so many members of the House of Lords are retiring these days. Apart from the fact that they now can, whereas in previous decades they couldn't, why bother resigning? Why not just not-bother turning up? They might never know when or if they might suddenly want to vote on a big issue in 10 or 20 years' time.

^^this

[neilm]

With Darling, I'd assumed that he'd play a part in a future Labour government. On that basis, leave of absence would be a better move.

[Max]

Jul 24, 2020 22:50:21 GMT neilm said:

Jul 24, 2020 22:33:25 GMT johnloony said:

I'm a bit puzzled why so many members of the House of Lords are retiring these days. Apart from the fact that they now can, whereas in previous decades they couldn't, why bother resigning? Why not just not-bother turning up? They might never know when or if they might suddenly want to vote on a big issue in 10 or 20 years' time.

^^this

The big advantage of no longer being in the Lords is that you are no longer subject to the declaration of interests/incomes. This is I suspect why there are no former Prime Ministers in that chamber, and only two former (permanent) First Ministers (Trimble and McConnell). 

[Richard Allen]

Jul 24, 2020 22:51:08 GMT neilm said:

With Darling, I'd assumed that he'd play a part in a future Labour government. On that basis, leave of absence would be a better move.

Perhaps that was his thinking when he accepted a Peerage in 2015 but now knows that he will be at least 70 when Labour are next in Government and plans to be fully enjoying his retirement by then.

[timmullen1]

Jul 24, 2020 19:00:12 GMT tonygreaves said:

Yes I've just seen this and am surprised. He don't think he has been an assiduous participant in the Lords. No doubt it his reasons will be discussed. I don't know why he took the name Lord Darling of Roulanish. Roulanish (better known as Breaclete or Breacleit - Brèaicleit in Gaelic) is a tiny village on the wonderful island of Great Bernera in the far-flung parish of Uig on the west coast of the Isle of Lewis. He himself comes from Edinburgh where he has been politically active all his life but his forebears may come from Bernera.

There’s a Roulanish Technology Museum in Edinburgh, and its website links directly to Darling’s parliament.uk page.

[timrollpickering]

Maybe the Lords should develop a convention that maiden speeches should include reference to all places in the title and territorial designation so as to enlighten their Lordships?

[tonygreaves]

Jul 26, 2020 12:54:58 GMT timrollpickering said:

Maybe the Lords should develop a convention that maiden speeches should include reference to all places in the title and territorial designation so as to enlighten their Lordships?

It is an often observed convention.

[tonygreaves]

Under the Burns convention it was advantageous for a group to have a member retire since the scheme for reduction in numbers was on the basis of "two out, one in". That convention is about to be smashed in two by Johnson if rumours are to be believed.

[timrollpickering]

Jul 27, 2020 11:43:49 GMT tonygreaves said:

Jul 26, 2020 12:54:58 GMT timrollpickering said:

Maybe the Lords should develop a convention that maiden speeches should include reference to all places in the title and territorial designation so as to enlighten their Lordships?

It is an often observed convention.

Then Darling of Roulanish's speech was an exception.

[neilm]

Jul 27, 2020 11:45:56 GMT tonygreaves said:

Under the Burns convention it was advantageous for a group to have a member retire since the scheme for reduction in numbers was on the basis of "two out, one in". That convention is about to be smashed in two by Johnson if rumours are to be believed.

What is the Burns Convention?

[tonygreaves]

I thought someone might ask that. The House decided to get its "House" in order in the absence of any sense from Government and reduce the number of peers which had reached about 820. A committee was set up chaired by Lord Burns with members from across the House. It came up with a consensus agreement which would reduce the House over a period of time to around 600 and at the same time allow renewal with new younger members. The key proposal was that each group should get one new member for each two members who retired, died or otherwise left.

It clearly needed the agreement of the PM who appoints most life peers (on their own bat or on the nomination of other party leaders). It would also control the appointment of new crossbench peers. Mrs May agreed to abide by the proposals but broke them when she resigned. Johnson has made no such commitment and according to the grapevine is about to appoint a large number of new peers mainly Tory. This may bring the number of eligible peers (those who can turn up and take part) to well over 800 again.

[ilerda]

Was the problem of the lack of consensus with the one person who actually has power over the issue (the PM) not something that the committee considered?

It seems rather obvious that this would be a major obstacle to actually implementing any recommendations or agreement that the committee might decide upon, and if they didn’t include it in their deliberations that would be a massive oversight, not to mention exceptionally naive.

[finsobruce]

Jul 28, 2020 19:46:08 GMT ilerda said:

Was the problem of the lack of consensus with the one person who actually has power over the issue (the PM) not something that the committee considered?

It seems rather obvious that this would be a major obstacle to actually implementing any recommendations or agreement that the committee might decide upon, and if they didn’t include it in their deliberations that would be a massive oversight, not to mention exceptionally naive.

Well they had that consensus when May was PM, I suspect the committee knew the idea was void without it - and then she broke it when she left, which to be fair you might expect from a resignation honours list. 'won't get another chance to do this'.

Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there.

[ilerda]

Jul 28, 2020 19:58:29 GMT finsobruce said:

Jul 28, 2020 19:46:08 GMT ilerda said:

Was the problem of the lack of consensus with the one person who actually has power over the issue (the PM) not something that the committee considered?

It seems rather obvious that this would be a major obstacle to actually implementing any recommendations or agreement that the committee might decide upon, and if they didn’t include it in their deliberations that would be a massive oversight, not to mention exceptionally naive.

Well they had that consensus when May was PM, I suspect the committee knew the idea was void without it - and then she broke it when she left, which to be fair you might expect from a resignation honours list. 'won't get another chance to do this'.

Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there.

But was there buy-in from May during the process? Or did she just happen to agree after it had been decided? 

It also doesn't take a genius to realise that just because one PM agrees it is far from guaranteed that any of their successors will feel obliged to sign up too. This is particularly relevant when it comes to limiting their power of patronage - one of the single most important powers the PM holds as an individual.

[finsobruce]

Jul 28, 2020 20:11:32 GMT ilerda said:

Jul 28, 2020 19:58:29 GMT finsobruce said:

Well they had that consensus when May was PM, I suspect the committee knew the idea was void without it - and then she broke it when she left, which to be fair you might expect from a resignation honours list. 'won't get another chance to do this'.

Johnson of course has never signed up to it. No surprise there.

But was there buy-in from May during the process? Or did she just happen to agree after it had been decided? 

It also doesn't take a genius to realise that just because one PM agrees it is far from guaranteed that any of their successors will feel obliged to sign up too. This is particularly relevant when it comes to limiting their power of patronage - one of the single most important powers the PM holds as an individual.

You'd have to ask Lord Greaves that, but it hardly matters. The fact is that she agreed. Which is a point in her favour.

It doesn't take a genius to do most things, and I'm sure m'learned Lords knew full well that continuity could not be guaranteed. Maybe they were hopeful, maybe they weren't, but the idea was  a good one and now appears to have been scuppered.

[johnloony]

Jul 28, 2020 19:46:08 GMT ilerda said:

Was the problem of the lack of consensus with the one person who actually has power over the issue (the PM) not something that the committee considered?

It seems rather obvious that this would be a major obstacle to actually implementing any recommendations or agreement that the committee might decide upon, and if they didn’t include it in their deliberations that would be a massive oversight, not to mention exceptionally naive.

I guess that they hoped that it would gradually settle in as a convention and become one of the decorative bits of "The Constitution" as one of the things which "happens". After a few years or a decade or two, it would be easier for it to be seen as a firm rule.