• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

UK politics general discussion

There may have been cases in the past of people from the House of Lords being given ministerial positions. There were elections in the past where women weren’t allowed to vote. It doesn’t mean it’s right. Clearly allowing someone in the House of Lords to be a minister isn’t in the spirit of democracy.
 
Guess they've given up trying to highlight that Starmer has a Knighthood now we've got unelected Lord Dave in charge of the Foreign Office. I mean he won't be able to answer questions in the house of commons.
 
On a side note; is it only me who’s not keen on the fact that David Cameron was able to be miraculously elevated to the House of Lords without any kind of election or regulation?

I could be being overly suspicious here, but there’s something I don’t like about someone just being casually added to the House of Lords on the whim of the PM without any kind of election or even any prior checks. It seems as though Sunak just clicked his fingers and made Cameron a Lord because he felt like it.

I also think it’s a bit odd that a Lord is allowed to hold a Cabinet post. I thought that the House of Lords was supposed to be an impartial house where Commons legislation was viewed and rubber stamped through an impartial lens? Doesn’t having a Lord in a Cabinet post kind of defeat the object of that?

I don’t know. It all seems a bit odd to me.
 
Matt N said:
On a side note; is it only me who’s not keen on the fact that David Cameron was able to be miraculously elevated to the House of Lords without any kind of election or regulation?

I could be being overly suspicious here, but there’s something I don’t like about someone just being casually added to the House of Lords on the whim of the PM without any kind of election or even any prior checks. It seems as though Sunak just clicked his fingers and made Cameron a Lord because he felt like it.

I also think it’s a bit odd that a Lord is allowed to hold a Cabinet post. I thought that the House of Lords was supposed to be an impartial house where Commons legislation was viewed and rubber stamped through an impartial lens? Doesn’t having a Lord in a Cabinet post kind of defeat the object of that?

I don’t know. It all seems a bit odd to me.
Click to expand...
No, you're not alone. It's a disgrace. The whole premise of the House of Lords is a disgrace. I believe Peter Mandelson was the last one to hold a cabinet post from the lord's, but at least he was a lord at the time. Sunak has effectively pressed the panic button, chosen a man off the street and said "you'll do" and made him a lord. Ex-PM or not, he's been politically inactive for a considerable amount of time. It stinks.
 
Matt.GC said:
I believe Peter Mandelson was the last one to hold a cabinet post from the lord's
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t we have Lord Frost in some kind of Brexit-based role fairly recently?

I seem to remember Lord Frost having something to do with Brexit, anyway…
 
Matt N said:
On a side note; is it only me who’s not keen on the fact that David Cameron was able to be miraculously elevated to the House of Lords without any kind of election or regulation?

I could be being overly suspicious here, but there’s something I don’t like about someone just being casually added to the House of Lords on the whim of the PM without any kind of election or even any prior checks. It seems as though Sunak just clicked his fingers and made Cameron a Lord because he felt like it.

I also think it’s a bit odd that a Lord is allowed to hold a Cabinet post. I thought that the House of Lords was supposed to be an impartial house where Commons legislation was viewed and rubber stamped through an impartial lens? Doesn’t having a Lord in a Cabinet post kind of defeat the object of that?

I don’t know. It all seems a bit odd to me.
Click to expand...
Oh Matt.

There aren't any checks for the House of Lords, people are pretty much thrown in there on a whim. A peerage is often given to friends, or as favours to party donors, or to the "talented". Many people have never held a position in government, or been elected to any office at all.

Lords are indeed appointed at the click of the Prime Minister's fingers and at their whim. Typically this is reserved for the New Year's list, Monarch's Birthday honours or PM resignation honours.

Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber may have written many hit musicals, but he's not even been elected to the head of a village choir. He quite famously flew back in 2016 so that he could take part in a controversial vote about disability benefits in the House of Lords.

The Lords isn't impartial, most people are party aligned. They don't have to please voters, so hypothetically they could vote with conscience if they wish but often don't. One of the great "tricks" as it were, is that the Lords have managed to, without reform, convince the public that their role is to scrutinise policy.

Lords are allowed to hold Cabinet positions and it really isn't out of the ordinary, it's been this way since the Peel reforms.

Unfortunately we have an unelected second chamber where grace and favour appointments are made to people who have no qualification.
 
Matt N said:
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t we have Lord Frost in some kind of Brexit-based role fairly recently?

I seem to remember Lord Frost having something to do with Brexit, anyway…
Click to expand...
You may be right there actually. Not that it's much consolation and this appointment is far worse. Sunak didn't pick a Tory Lord, he made one! No matter what office he used to hold, David Cameron was just one of Charlie's subjects with no more authority than you and I when he was picked to hold a government position. This sets a very dangerous precedent for our democracy in my view.
 
Matt N said:
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t we have Lord Frost in some kind of Brexit-based role fairly recently?

I seem to remember Lord Frost having something to do with Brexit, anyway…
Click to expand...
David Frost has never been elected as an MP, nor has he held any elected positions within parliament. This is the man who negotiated Brexit on our behalf. He also wasn't a Lord until 2020.
 
The last five years is what happens when your country doesn't have a written constitution and just expect the people in charge to play fair.

Labour should be offering constitutional reform to completely modernise British politics but they won't as the current polls have them winning a landslide so they'll just do what they did after 1997 and tweak things a bit.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Lords are indeed appointed at the click of the Prime Minister's fingers and at their whim. Typically this is reserved for the New Year's list, Monarch's Birthday honours or PM resignation honours.
Click to expand...
Kinda, sorta. There is a vetting process which happens before honours lists are published (for the occasions you mentioned).

This doesn't apply when a non-MP is appointed to the government though, David Cameron became a life peer the moment he was appointed to the cabinet.

It's all somewhat moot as it's highly unlikely that David Cameron would not have been deemed eligible for a peerage.

(Not a fan of the Lords, just correcting you on the notion that fingers are clicked and people instantly installed routinely.)
 
Has anyone checked if Nadine Dorries is ok with the news?

Might be worth an extra chapter in her upcoming book at least.

The whole think stinks. But seems to be an issue with all politics across the world atm anyway.
 
WillPS said:
Kinda, sorta. There is a vetting process which happens before honours lists are published (for the occasions you mentioned).

This doesn't apply when a non-MP is appointed to the government though, David Cameron became a life peer the moment he was appointed to the cabinet.

It's all somewhat moot as it's highly unlikely that David Cameron would not have been deemed eligible for a peerage.

(Not a fan of the Lords, just correcting you on the notion that fingers are clicked and people instantly installed routinely.)
Click to expand...
There is a vetting process, but it can be ignored by the PM, as in the case of Lord Lebedev, as it's only advisory. Additionally the comission plays no part in assessing the suitability of a candidate. This is how we end up with Lord Johnson (Boris's brother, nominated by him) and Baroness Owen (the youngest ever peer who did... nothing).

The comission also played no part in vetting the now Baron Cameron, despite his lobbying for Greensill and potential financial impropriety there.
 
Last edited:
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Slight edit for you. An unelected official, serving as prime minister, appoints an unelected official to serve as foreign secretary.

I'll concede that Sunak was elected by his constituency as an MP, but he was certainly not elected by his party to serve as leader and thus PM.
Click to expand...

We don’t elect the government in this country, never have done. There is also no law that says the leader of a party has to be elected. In fact the Tory’s only started giving party members a vote on the leadership in the 90’s, before 1967 even Tory MP’s didn’t get a vote, the leader was selected by a small group of party elders called the “magic circle”.

We elect a representative, they appoint an executive. Tradition states the leader of the largest party becomes PM but none of this is codified. In the past members of the House of Lords have been appointed PM.

Not saying that is correct but when people moan about “the PM wasn’t elected”, sorry it’s a sad fact that we never actually do.
 
We don't, but I was simplifying, which I guess I shouldn't have done. I'm very aware that the PM isn't elected in the traditional sense.

In this particular scenario though, party members and MPs didn't even vote for Mr Sunak to be leader of his party. I know that they don't have to, but it is ridiculous.

The Crown appoints their Prime Minister, so technically it wouldn't even have to be someone from the party with the majority / most MPs in Parliament.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
We don't, but I was simplifying, which I guess I shouldn't have done. I'm very aware that the PM isn't elected in the traditional sense.

In this particular scenario though, party members and MPs didn't even vote for Mr Sunak to be leader of his party. I know that they don't have to, but it is ridiculous.

The Crown appoints their Prime Minister, so technically it wouldn't even have to be someone from the party with the majority / most MPs in Parliament.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t have to be someone from the majority but practically parliament would just vote no confidence if the leader wasn’t the majority leader or part of an agreed coalition/ confidence and supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top