The Lords a-leaving - House of Lords to become the Senate

[Blackleaf]

THE LORDS A-LEAVING

PEERS FACE AXE AFTER CASH FOR HONOURS AFFAIR

By Bob Roberts, Deputy Political Editor

08/02/2007

In a massive shake-up, the House of Lords will change its name to the Senate, the number of seats will be reduced and those given a peerage by the Queen will no longer be given a seat automatically.

LORDS are to be kicked out of Parliament after 1,000 years of history under plans for reform unveiled yesterday.​

Those given a peerage by the Queen will no longer automatically get a seat in the Upper House.​

Members of the new second chamber - no longer called the House of Lords - will be known as Senators (America's equivalent of the House of Lords is the Senate).​

The plan to axe the Lords comes after the cash for honours affair, where it is claimed peerages were given for loans.​

It was announced by Commons Leader Jack Straw among a raft of proposals to make the chamber more representative of the population.​

It said: "The link between the peerage and the House of Lords should come to an end.​

"The peerage would continue as an honour but unconnected with a seat in Parliament." Mr Straw also called for the number of seats to be cut from 746 to 540.​

He wants to see half the new membership being elected while the other half is appointed by political parties or an independent commission.​

MPs will be vote on several options, ranging from all elected to all appointed.​

The least popular will be eliminated until one remains the favourite. Elected members will be chosen by proportional representation with a third picked every five years.​

All members will serve 15-year terms but will not be allowed to stand again.​

They will receive allowances based on attendance rather than salaries to discourage absenteeism.​

Church of England archbishops and bishops will stay but MPs may be asked to vote on whether to throw out hereditary peers or allow them to resign.​

If they stay until they die, reform could take until the middle of the century.​

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn led an angry reaction to the proposals, calling them a "dog's breakfast".​

Mr Straw accepted the plans were "unapologetically a compromise" which would not please everyone.​

But he told MPs: "The status quo is no longer an option."​

The plan was backed by the Prime Minister. Tony Blair said: "I have always expressed concern about a hybrid House."​

An earlier attempt at reform in 2003 ended in chaos when MPs threw out all the proposals for an elected chamber.​

The origins of the Lords date to the 11th century when Saxon kings held meetings called Witans with landowners.​

THE MAIN POINTS​

Jack Straw wants half the members elected, half appointed. But MPs will vote to decide on the ratio.​

Chamber to be renamed (may become the Senate but not definite as yet). Members no longer become lords but likely to be titled Senators.​

Life peers no longer get seat in upper house.​

Places for the remaining 92 hereditary lords will be scrapped.​

New members brought in gradually as old-style lords retire, resign or die. Could take until middle of century.​

Members will serve for 15 years but can't seek second term.​

Number of seats to be cut from 746 to 540.​

Church of England continues to be represented.​

Members to get allowance based on attendance, to discourage absenteeism.
******************************************************************************​

OVER 1,000 YEARS OF HISTORY ARE ENDING

08/02/2007

THE origin of the House of Lords lies in the meetings - called Witenagemots or Witens - between the Anglo-Saxon kings, religious leaders and landowners.​

The first Parliament is often considered to be the Model Parliament in 1295, which included church leaders, earls, barons, and representatives of the shires and boroughs.​

In the reign of Edward III in the 14th century two Houses of Parliament emerged - the Commons, consisting of county and borough representatives, and the Lords, still the senior clergy and nobility.​

By the 15th century the Lords included barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes so the term "peer" was devised to show all were equal.​

They were far more powerful than the Commons because of the great influence of the aristocrats and prelates.​

But their power waned in the 15th century Wars of the Roses, with many nobles killed in battle or executed for being on the wrong side and their lands seized.​

The 17th century rows between Charles I and Parliament - largely the Commons - led to the English Civil War and the king's execution. The Lords became largely powerless, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating the government.​

It was even abolished in 1649, when an Act of Parliament declared it "useless and dangerous to the people".​

The Lords did not meet again until monarchy was restored with Charles II in 1660, soon regaining its position as the more powerful chamber.​

But in the 19th century the Commons became dominant as landowners lost wealth and power in the industrial revolution.​

And there were clashes between Commons and Lords over the 1831 Reform Bill.​

It abolished "rotten boroughs", where a handful of voters elected multiple MPs - while big cities had none - and "pocket boroughs", where aristocrats controlled who was elected.​

After rejecting it the Lords gave in when Prime Minister Earl Grey threatened to get William IV to create 80 pro-reform peers.​

In 1909 came another constitutional crisis when the Lords rejected Liberal Chancellor David Lloyd George's Budget taxing rich landowners.​

In 1910 the Liberals won an election on a "reform the Lords" ticket and a year later passed the Parliament Act ending the Lords' right to block laws. In 1958 life peers were created, meaning people who had not inherited a title were allowed in.​

The 1999 House of Lords Act removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit and vote.​

mirror.co.uk​

 

[marygaspe]

Good for England! Like many people, I am not a supporter of born-into priviledges and titles. The whole monarchy and Lords thing is way out of line with modern society.

 

[darkbeaver]

Good for England! Like many people, I am not a supporter of born-into priviledges and titles. The whole monarchy and Lords thing is way out of line with modern society.

The pope disagrees with you.:wave:

 

[eh1eh]

The pope disagrees with you.:wave:

Hear here! LOL

 

[Blackleaf]

Several suggestions have been made as to what new name to give the House of Lords.

Many people have said not to call it the Senate (which sounds too republican) but to give it a more traditional British name to keep our distinctive traditions.

Another suggestion has been to call it the "Witan", or "Witangemot", named after the regular gathering of "wise men" - or at least powerful figures - in Anglo-Saxon England, the ancestor of the House of Lords.

One less serious suggestions has been to call it The House of Straw, after Jack Straw, the Leader of the House of Commons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your views on a new Lords name

The government is looking for ideas for renaming the Lords



The government is planning to reform the House of Lords, with at least some members being elected.

One of the proposals put forward by Commons leader Jack Straw is a change of name - and using "the Reformed Chamber" until something more permanent is devised.

We asked if you could think of anything more interesting or appropriate.

We have had hundreds of suggestions - and it is clear that by far the biggest response was to keep the old name intact.

Devron Graham, from Kingston, Jamaica, spoke for many when he said: "The House of Lords should remain exactly that. It should be there to keep the Commons in check.

"The gilded chamber must return to its former glory. Forever the House of Lords."

'Something comforting'

Lola J, from London, added: "What do people need to change the name for? The House of Lords is the House of Lords, and I like the idea of them being called Lords while they sit."

Fletcher Catron, from Sante Fe, in the US, agreed: "Though this may sound strange from a US citizen, there has always been something comforting about the permanence of your House of Lords.

"I would be sorry to see it change greatly."

Ben Borowiecki, from London, thinks the renaming plan is misdirected.

He wrote: "The tradition of the name The House of Lords is something to hold on to...

"If anything we should change the name of the House of Commons.

The use of the word 'commoners' is surely much more pressing than that of Lords."

Matthew Woor, from Ipswich, wrote: "The name of the house is unimportant as it has no effect on its powers.

"House of Lords is perfectly acceptable."

Another popular option was to emulate the US - not to mention ancient Rome - and rebrand the Lords as the Senate.

'Last resort'

Bryan Lewin, from London, said "Call it the Senate. And have every member elected.

"In a 21st-century democracy there is no room for appointed members of a legislative body. All members should be elected."

Stephen Clark, from York, said: "What we should do is chuck everyone out, rename it either the Upper House or Senate and then call elections for it immediately."

Gewnhwyfaer, from Sheffield, would go further: "Maybe we should rename both of them [Houses of Parliament]; after all, in this modern "classless" society, Commons is as archaic a notion as Lords.

Could the reforms see a return to Anglo-Saxon ways?


"I suggest The House of Ill Repute and The House of Last Resort respectively."

Dan Dennis, from Edinburgh, wanted to reflect the role the Lords has in scrutinising and amending Commons bills by renaming it "the revising chamber".

Nathan Kirkwood, also from Edinburgh, felt similarly: "The House of Revision maybe? It depends on what the primary role of the upper house will be.

"Please not the Senate. Let's keep our distinct political system."

Steve Griffiths, from Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, thinks the name does not matter as much as the work done by the second chamber.

House of Peers

He wrote: "Call it anything but have it 100% elected to rid us of political patronage and also sort out party funding to avoid further dubious practices."

House of Peers was chosen by some readers for various reasons.

Shannon D, from Knoxville, in the US, said that "'Lords' implies 'nobility' and we all know that politicians in any country are anything but noble most of the time."

Tim Wilson, from Oxford, argued: "The house of peers seems eminently suitable, as they will presumably be our peers."

Mr Straw's involvement in the reform plans prompted Chris Sewell, from Wigan, to pay tribute: "The house that Jack built."

Several others suggested marking his involvement by calling it the "House of Straw".

While the biggest call was for the retention of the House of Lords title, followed by the overseas-inspired Senate, Patrick, from Leeds, looked for inspiration close to home - but a long time ago.

He suggested the title "Witan", or "Witangemot", named after the regular gathering of "wise men" - or at least powerful figures - in Anglo-Saxon England. This body was said to challenge and limit the powers of over-mighty monarchs. Will the reformed Lords, whatever its name, be able to do the same to the Commons?


news.bbc.co.uk

 

[Blackleaf]

The whole monarchy and Lords thing is way out of line with modern society.

Monarchy isn't out of line with modern society.

As I have said many times on this forum - the Constitutional Monarchy is a much newer political idea than the Republic.

Anyone living in a Republic is being governed by an ancient political system dating back to at least 2000 years or more.

Britain's Constitutional Monarchy dates back only to the Seventeenth Century and many other European countries - such as Spain, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Sweden - and others all around the world also enjoy the benefits of the Constitutional Monarchy.

And the US has a House of Lords, only they call it the Senate because Americans can't become Lords.

House of Commons = House of Representatives

House of Lords = The Senate

Having a House of Lords, but with a few changes and maybe a name change - I like the Witan - is needed to keep the House of Commons in check.

"Witan" may hark back to the Anglo-Saxon monarchies, but it's no different from the Americans using "Senate", which harks back to the Roman republics.
*********************************

New Labour may change the House of Lords, but let's hope that they don't target our Monarchy. We don't want a Republic.


Here are some excerpts from Tom Utley's column in today's Daily Mail. I can't write the whole article -

Daily Mail

Tom Utley

9th February 2007

OH MY GOD! FERGIE IN FISHNETS. HOW LONG BEFORE THE WRECKERS WHO'VE KILLED OFF THE LORDS TURN THEIR GUNS ON THE MONARCHY?

Suddenly the most paradoxical feature of the British constitution under the present crazy arrangements, is that the only elected members of the House of Lords are the 92 remaining hereditaries.

Whatever finally emerges from the dog's breakfast of plans for Lords reform served up by the Government this week one thing has been decided already: the last remaining hereditaries will be swept away - and with them a thousand years of British history. True, one or two may survive as party appointees. But nobody will ever sit in the Lords again by virtue of bloodline alone.

Plenty of the elements of the constitution were running pretty smoothly when Mr Blair took over in 1997 - not only the Lords, but the Union with Scotland, the independence of the Civil Service and the separation of the judiciary, legislature and executive.

That didn't stop New Labour from taking an axe to the whole delicate edifice - poisoning England's relations with Scotland, politicising the judiciary and civil service and treating Parliament with contempt.

Why should we suppose the Monarchy will be spared the same brutal treatment just because the Queen is good at her job?

All I can say is that the arguments FOR the Crown are far stronger than those for the hereditary peerage. At a time when so many of the links that bind our country together are weakening - there are large parts of our cities where you won't even hear English being spoken - the Monarchy remains a powerful unifying force.

A growing number of Labour politicians will tell you that the Crown should go the same way as the hereditary peerage, and for the same reasons. It is monstrously "anachronistic" and "unfair", they will say, that our head of state should be chosen by a mere accident of birth.

Most will concede that the present Queen, with her great strength of character and sense of duty, does her job almost flawlessly. Somehow she has managed throughout all these decades in the pitiless public eye to preserve the dignity and something of the mystique of her office.

Can you imagine a President Blair - or a President Thatcher, for that matter - commanding anything like the near-universal respect and affection earned by the politcally neutral Queen during her long reign? What's more, would you happily bet your last penny that a presidency would turn out to be TEN TIMES more expensive than the Monarchy?

dailymail.co.uk

 

[Blackleaf]

The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales.



Here's an extract from the book "The Monarchy of England", written by British historian David Starkey -

Extract from The Monarchy of England: Volume I – The Beginnings by David Starkey


Get this book

In this edited extract, David Starkey sets out his thesis for his history of the English monarchy, and then describes the two moments when England truly became a nation-state – first, under the politically sophisticated Edgar, and then under the man who would later be considered one of the worst English kings: Aethelraed.

To most people today, monarchy seems to be a matter of ceremony and sentiment. But, in fact, it's far more than that. It's the natural, universal form of government. Not all monarchs are kings, of course, They can just as well be presidents or dictators. But everywhere, in the end, power comes down to the decisions of one person, the person with authority. A prime minister or a president is a king for the time being, and can be as powerful as any medieval monarch or Roman emperor.

But in Britain – or, rather, in England – monarchy takes on a special meaning because we still have our monarchy. It is over 1,500 years old, which means it is the oldest functioning political institution in Europe. It is also unique because, right from the beginning, the English monarchy had a strong popular element. This means that its history is more than a tale of kings and queens, or royal heroes like King Alfred and Henry V and crowned villains like King John. It's also the story of a dialogue between king and people in which the English people learned to rule themselves, and thus became the envy and the example of the world.

The English monarchy is, and has been for centuries, a driving force in Britain. And that is the theme of this book: how English kings and queens of long ago built this nation, beginning in the chaos and violence of the Dark Ages.

...​

In 973, about 70 years after King Alfred died, his great-grandson Edgar came to Bath for what was probably his second coronation. He had already been crowned 'King of the English', but in the meantime he had established his authority over all Britain.


Participatory kingship
Hence the choice of Bath for another, bigger ceremony. For in Bath there was a unique combination of a Christian abbey next to the largest, most impressive ruins of Roman Britain. It was an incomparable setting for Edgar's coronation as king of the first British empire, 10th-century style. And the ceremony matched the occasion's significance. Unlike Saxon kings of a previous age, Edgar was invested with a crown, not a helmet. And the service, conducted by his archbishop, Dunstan, deliberately compared the king to Christ.

This coronation was so spectacular that, when in 1910, more than a thousand years later, the King-Emperor George V was eager to emphasise his imperial status, he turned to Edgar's coronation service as a model. And he was right to do so. For George V's kingship was the lineal descendent of Edgar's and of Alfred's and of that participatory kingship what had been pioneered in England over a millennium before.

Out of the chaos of a post-Roman Dark Age Britain, the English had created perhaps the world's first nation-state: one king, one country, one Church, one currency, one language and one single, unified representative national administration. Never again in England would sovereignty descend to the merely regional level. Never again, despite disagreements and troubles, wars and even revolutions, would the idea of England – and the unity of England – ever be challenged.


Silver pennies
His second coronation celebrated the fact that Edgar had managed to establish his leadership over the whole island of Britain. But the heartland of his power was the country then called Aenglaland – one of the best organised, richest and most united countries in Europe. Its stability was founded on the close relationship between the monarch and his people. He could not rule without their participation, and his power and laws protected them from exploitation by local warlords. As a result, the country was experiencing an age of unusual prosperity. Under royal patronage, English art and literature flourished.

An indication of the sophistication achieved in Edgar's England is the fact that the English currency achieved a standard unmatched in Europe. Every six years, all the silver pennies in circulation were called in, melted down and reminted with new designs. This was done in local mints with designs and dies centrally supplied to the moneyers by the king, who was thus able not only to ensure uniformity and maintain standards, but to increase or decrease the silver content.


Practical politics
Another technique used by Edgar to promote strength and centralisation was monastic reform. At the beginning of his reign, there was only one properly constituted Benedictine monastery, that at Glastonbury. By the end, there were 22.

Edgar personally gave a gift of land to Winchester, but the gift was more than just an act of piety. By gifts such as this, Edgar was serving another god: he was promoting the idea of a united Aenglaland. Monasteries like Winchester were national institutions; they held land all over the country, they were centres of a self-consciously English culture and, above all, they were royal.

All this was good PR, but it was also vital practical politics, because Edgar's England, the unified England, was only a few decades old. There was always the possibility that it could be destroyed by enemies abroad or, more dangerously, at home.


Golden age
Only two years after the ceremony at Bath, Edgar died. Immediately there was trouble. At that time, for all the political sophistication in England, there were no rules of succession. Edgar had two surviving sons. The elder, Edward, was crowned king. But just three years later at Corfe, he was attacked and killed by his own half-brother's henchmen, probably on the orders of his stepmother. The murder brought to the throne that half-brother, a man who is remembered today as one of the worst kings ever to wear the crown.

His name was Aethelraed, still known today as 'the Unready'. His real nickname, though, was 'the Unraed' – that is, 'badly advised or counselled'. It's a pun on his own name of Aethelraed, meaning 'noble counsel', and is a product of hindsight, first appearing almost a century later. It is also, at least for the earlier decades of the reign, unfair. England in the 990s enjoyed something of a golden age of church building and of legal and administrative reform.

But soon it was again being threatened by seaborne raiders. The Danes had almost been too much for Alfred the Great himself. How would Aethelraed the Unraed fare?

Shock and awe
A century before, Englishmen had beaten off the Scandinavians. But now a far greater storm was about to break over their heads. First, many of the raiders were refugees from the Danish rulers. They were seeking to restore their fortunes by marauding in England, and to establish their futures by settlement.

Second, a new tough professionalism characterised the Viking world. The Danes (probably under the leadership of their first Christian king Harold Bluetooth) had created a formidable military machine, backed up with engineering and organisational skills, and this they released on England. It was blitzkrieg – even shock and awe.

The stuff of legend
In the year of our Lord 991, a menacing fleet approached the coast of East Anglia. The Norsemen were back. The Viking fleet sacked Ipswich and then made landfall on an island in the Blackwater estuary near Maldon in Essex. The whole of eastern England was threatened. The Danes' first move was to send a messenger to the English, demanding money with menaces. Aethelraed's commander retorted that they should come across the causeway and fight it out like men.

There then took place one of the greatest battles in English history. On the seaward side of the causeway, there were the hordes of the most dangerous invader yet faced by an English king; on the landward side, the forces of the most sophisticated monarchy in western Europe.

The English defeat that followed became the stuff of legend and of literature, the subject of a famous Anglo-Saxon war poem that encapsulates exactly the Dunkirk spirit of the English warriors.


Unusual propaganda
But it also tells about the men who fought. The soldiers are described as hailing from all over the country. Among the English, so the poem tells us, there is an aristocrat from the Midlands called Aelfwine, then a local man, a yeoman called Dunnere, and from far-off Northumbria a warrior called Aescferth. It was an English army, not an Essex army, that went down to defeat that day.

So every region of England was represented in this roll-call of the army and each rank of society from the top almost to the bottom. The result was to emphasise the unity of England as a country in which a common sense of nationhood overrode distinctions of locality and class. The poem is propaganda, of course, but it is unusual propaganda at a time when, in most of Europe, horizons were much narrower and loyalty to a local warlord came first and last.

For England in 991 was the first nation-state. It wasn't a modern state, of course, but it did have representative institutions, it was ordered, it was united and, above all, it was rich.


http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/M/monarchy/extract.html

 

[canadarocks]

Several suggestions have been made as to what new name to give the House of Lords.
news.bbc.co.uk

How about the House of Parasites?

 

[I think not]

And the US has a House of Lords, only they call it the Senate because Americans can't become Lords.

Thank God for that or thank our founding fathers, either or.

 

[marygaspe]

How about the House of Parasites?

OUCH!!! That pretty well sums up my opinion too. I dislike even in Canada having an appointed House of government.And I am most against welath and priviledge allowing these people exatled levels of power in any government.

 

[Curiosity]

The House of Uncommons