I occasionally see (here in the USA) news items about ongoing cash-for-peerages scandals involving Blair and his people … as an American I have to say, What’s the point? Being made nobility is cool and all, but I thought there were no practical benefits to being a Peer anymore, other than being called Sir or having an OBE or something tacked on to your name. Again, American perspective–I’d rather just be filthy rich, which I presume is what these wanna-be-peers are.
Poor nobility used to sell the titles to rich Americans, who had never stepped foot in Britain, and might have no known relatives there.
Never underestimate the importance of being cool. Being able to say to your rich friends, “I’m the Earl of Featherstonehaugh” whey they have no equivalent can pay off nicely in envy.
Even once they are filthy rich, some people need to keep acquiring status symbols.
They like to see their title in a newspaper report, or be addressed in public as ‘Lord Fart of Windy’.
Also, if you are male, your wife gets a title too.
We have a regular honours list in the UK. A few brave firemen or decent charity workers get an award, then all the obedient brown-nosing politicians get one.
So it’s really a political disgrace. Rich people buy honours; political leaders command loyalty by offering them to subordinates.
You’re confusing Lords with Peers.
You’re right that there is no longer any great hoo-ha attached to being a plain old Lord (which is distinct from a ‘Knight’ - Knights are ‘Sirs’, Lords are Lordships).
A Peer is a Lord that sits in the House of Lords, the Upper House of the Houses of Parliament.
A Hereditary Peer is a Lord who has inherited his aristocratic title from his forefathers and ‘used’ to be automatically entitled to sit in the House of Lords and therefore approve legislation from the House of Commons. These were mostly all chucked out when Tony and the Gang took over Government.
A Life Peer is a Lord who is awarded his title and position in Parliament. He’s takes his position until death, but the title dies with him (or her).
So there is aconsiderable influence attached to being awarded a Peerage.
So, getting a peerage is kinda like being named Senator for life?
I can see what all the fuss is about. It sounds like they were literally selling the right to make laws.
Basically yes, Senator for Life AND a fancy new coat of arms. Who wouldn’t want one?
It’s quite a scandal, too. Blair’s the first British PM to be questioned by the Police. He’s desperately trying to distance himself from Lord Levy. Of course, it’s just a coincidence that the day that Blair was questioned at number 10 was the same day that the enquiry into Diana’s death was published 
The House of Lords have the power to reject and amend legislation - though the Lower House can (eventually) override them.
The issue is how the House of Lords made up. Any party in power would prefer to stack the House of Lords in their own favour, thus the government has the capacity to nominate new peers. Actually, so does the opposition, but having been in power for a while, the govt can move the balance of power in their direction. And then they have a legacy of dominance in the Upper House that may last a long time after they have lost power. However, there is no whipping in the Upper House (in a political sense, anyhow - you know how aristocrats are) so peers can and do vote as they believe, not to a party line.
As part of the promised Upper House reform, the Hereditary peer no longer sit in the House. The Bishops of the Anglican Church still have seats. Because no-one can agree how the rest get sorted out, nothing has changed.
I would like to see a proportional representation system applied. Not direct voting for the upper house, but parties publishing lists in advance of an election, and then appointing the Upper House from that list, in proportion to the vote recieved.
The Upper House is part of the checks and balances of working of the UK Govt, and cash-for-peerages threatens that. On the flip side, political parties have always rewarded contributions with elevation to the peerage - you just can’t suggest that when touting for money.
Si
Ah. So kind of like any US president hopes to stack the Supreme Court with as many ideologically friendly justices as possible during his term.
I think we may be overestimating the power of the House of Lords in passing legislation. The last time I remember the House of Lords seriously trying to prevent legislation passed by the Commons from taking effect was the land tax controversy of 1908-11, which resulted in constitutional changes that only gave the Lords delaying power on legislation. I believe any law passed by the Commons three consecutive years goes into law no matter if the Lords reject it, and even this is extremely rare because any serious attempt to hinder legislation would just end up in even having delaying powers revoked.
You’d think having stormy eyes that flash at the sound of lies and wings to fly above the clouds would have been enough.
Try the Hunting Act. Also the Terrorism Act and the ID Card scheme. The Lords cannot stop the acts being passed, but they can slow down the process of Government and delay the implementation of new laws for some time. And they can do so without risk of public censure, because they are appointed for life. But they also only represent themselves, and in the case of the Hunting Act, where the bulk of the electorate supported the banning of hunting (apart from in rural areas), the Lords frustrated Parliament and watered the bill down a huge amount - and that represented the Lords, not the majority of the electorate, in my view. I would suggest that the Lords are more fractious and less inclined to rubberstamp government policy at the moment, and I am not sure that it really is a good thing. Oversight is important, partisan interference is another thing entirely.
Si
In fact it has very little power at all, and that which it *does *have it has to be very careful in exercising lest even that is revoked.
The House of Commons likes it that way, which is one (unspoken) reason why Lords reform has stalled. If the House of Lords became more democratic, there would be pressure on the Commons to restore some real power to it.
Thinking of the powers of the House of Lords only in terms of what legislation it can - or rather cannot - block misses the point. Where it mostly counts is when it amends legislation and the Commons then agrees to accept those amendments. This happens all the time and, although, almost by definition, those successful amendments don’t involve great issues of public controversy, such influence is not irrelevant. A seat in the Lords is also an excellent place from which to lobby ministers and government departments.
And this has a bearing on the cash-for-peerages issue. Not all members of the House of Lords are politically equal. Those who do carry weight, who get amendments accepted and get to influence government policy, do so because they put in the time and effort. A lot of time and effort. Pick the right issue, mobilise the right supporters, master the legislative detail and they can have at least as much influence as many backbenchers in the Commons. They might even become a government minister. But notoriously those major donors who get peerages have a habit of turning out to be among the laziest, least politically engaged members of the Lords.
Which may be because we shouldn’t assume that just because some donors get given peerages, getting a peerage was the reason they gave the money. Usually donors to British political parties give that money for exactly the same sordid reasons donors give to political parties anywhere else. It would be naïve to think otherwise. It is just that, in Britain, peerages are an easy way by which political parties can keep them sweet. Most recipients would be appalled if they thought that this was all they were getting. Think of it as the British equivalent of American Presidents inviting campaign donors to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom - it has only limited practical value, that’s not why they gave the money and it’s a reward they may not actually want, but they’re flattered anyway and their friends will be very impressed.
Peerages are a cheap way of rewarding the party’s supporters - they are, after all, mere words and don’t actually cost them anything to hand out.
I don’t think this is correct. All barons (lords) are peers. Some are life peerages, some are hereditary. A subset of life peers gets to sit in the House of Lords.
All viscounts, earls, marquesses, and dukes are also peers (all or nearly all of them hereditary, I believe) but, again, only a subset sit in the House of Lords.
Knights and baronets (sirs) are not peers, not noblemen, and they don’t sit in the House of Lords. A baronetcy is a hereditary knighthood.
As has been mentioned, while the Lords are not an entirely powerless body (they can delay passage and make non-controversial changes to legislation), they are not remotely comparable to the US Senate in terms of legislative weight. The Senate is a fully co-equal chamber of the Congress, which can initiate and amend legislation and must approve any bill in its final form before it can become law. There is absolutely nothing the House of Representatives can do to strong-arm the Senate on a bill, and in fact the Senate has procedural traditions such as the hold, the filibuster, and the lack of a germaineness requirement for amendments that can allow even a minority of the Senate to kill or substantially change a bill. Finally, the Constitution gives the Senate additional powers (to confirm or deny Presidential nominees, to ratify treaties) that make the US Senate one of the most powerful “upper chambers” in the world.
I love that. Is it yours or a quote?