I hadn’t thought of this but it does make sense

UKIP has called for more peers in the House of Lords, following the success of Nigel Farage’s party in the European elections.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the former UKIP leader, has written to the Cabinet Office to ask for more members of the party to join him on the House of Lords’ red benches.

He said it was “transparently dishonest” for the party not to have a greater representation in the upper chamber.

UKIP currently has three peers, all defectors from the Conservatives but believes it is entitled to 23 more.

The actual statement is that peers will be created to reflect votes at the GE.

Which is going to be interesting if the LibDem vote continues its collapse and UKIP continues to run above 15% (being pessimistic there).

There will then be a strong case for more than a handful of UKIP peers to be created. Which will cause two almighty catfights. Without UKIP as everyone else backtracks to insist that they didn’t really mean it. And within over who gets to be those peers. I can think of several who would slot right in. And several who would think they would but wouldn’t.

14 comments on “I hadn’t thought of this but it does make sense

  1. I’m guessing that if there’s a similar agreement next time it’ll be worded slightly differently so there’s a threshold, most countries with some sort of direct PR for a chamber say the party has to get X% to get in, IIRC Germany and Israel use 5, but Israel has changed it at least twice that I’m aware of. Because, this close to a GE, it’d be a bit messy, especially as the BNP got nearly half the votes UKIP did last GE and they’re basically dead in the water now. Why no one has gotten around to term limiting appointments or introducing a retirement age (or at least option) is beyond me.

    But yeah, there’s a good point to be made there should be 23ish peers (although why it took a study from a reputable university to do the basic maths I managed with a calculator I don’t know).

  2. The actual statement is that peers will be created to reflect votes at the GE.

    Why have a House of Lords in that case? Why not just elect them? If the House of Lords is to have any purpose – and I note that the one working part of Parliament was destroyed because Blair and all the Tories before him couldn’t accept that something working well in practice is more important than getting the theory right – it is to be counter-cyclical. That is, it should *NOT* just reflect whatever the electorate wanted at the time of the General Election. It should represent more long term interests.

  3. What bollocks. PR was resoundingly beaten in the only national referendum to be held in the UK in the last 30 years. Why should this be bypassed for the UK’s unelected, faceless, undemocratic, crony-appointed ruling chamber? UKIP should fight the general election on the terms the UK public wants it fought on – one which favours massively the two big parties.

  4. Bloke, “PR” was not defeated at all, AV was a “miserable little compromise” and isn’t PR in any form, in fact several people I encountered insisted on voting No because they wanted PR not AV (I tried to explain that idiot nay sayers would then go around saying country rejected PR, they didn’t believe me).

    Plus lots of trades unions were actively courting a no vote because Milliband would introduce AV anyway so give Clegg a bloody nose. and people believed them. Ah well. Biggest mistake the Yes campaign made was marginalising UKIP and Farage when they wanted to be heavily involved.

  5. The actual statement is that peers will be created to reflect votes at the GE.

    “Amongst parties represented in the House of Commons” is what it says in the coalition agreement. Which is why the Greens got one and UKIP didn’t get any.

    Note that it is that peers shall be created such that the membership of the House of Lords at the end of the Parliament shall reflect the votes cast at the General Election for parties that got at least one MP. That is, the total membership of the Lords, not just the Lords created during the term, which is the escalator that is making the Lords bigger and bigger.

    A more sensible compromise would be that 150 Lords would be created each Parliament (that’s about average for recent Parliaments) and they would be shared between the parties according to the vote at the last election. So if you won three elections and then did really badly, you’d still have lots of Lords from the previous ones.

  6. Richard Gadsen said: “Note that it is that peers shall be created such that the membership of the House of Lords at the end of the Parliament shall reflect the votes cast at the General Election for parties that got at least one MP. That is, the total membership of the Lords, not just the Lords created during the term, which is the escalator that is making the Lords bigger and bigger.”

    I’d tackle that growth in Lords sooner than I’d tackle how they were appointed. A mechanism to get them out rather than being set for life. Give the Lords a limit of two parliaments or something like that.

  7. MatGB,

    The Yes campaign was a clusterfucking disaster. You don’t throw a radical idea out there and expect people to grasp it immediately. Plus, it was disorganised.

    But it’s not going to go away. Simple majority voting doesn’t work with things like centralised parties and candidate lists and a clampdown on dissent. if we had open primaries like the USA, UKIP would be like the Tea Party, trying to get Euronihilists to be the Conservative candidate.

  8. I voted no on AV because I want STV, though I admit the characteristic pharisaism and condescension of the ‘Yes’ campaign played a role.

  9. Lord Worstall of Scandium should be fun as everyone goes searching maps for Scandium.

  10. I think murphy would just love to be a lord. It would be the crowning achievement of his life. So if you got it I hope you would be sensitive to his feelings.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.