See query. Guy identified as such was, as far as I understand parliamentary representation, associated with Belfast.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure now even on “peer…” House of Lords vs MPs, now I need to relearn the basic definitions.
Thanks.
Leo
It should be “UK Parliament”, since Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom, but not in Great Britain.
A Peer is a member of the House of Lords.
It means he isn’t affiliated with any political party – an independent.
As for ‘what is a peer’, it’s a person who has been awarded a lifetime position and title (AKA a peerage) to sit in the House of Lords. It could be a lifetime peer (ie their peerage/title dies out when they do), or a hereditary peer (born with the privilege and title - these are rarer these days). The title is usually Lord of something/Baroness of something.
The Lords is ‘sort of’ our Senate – they approve laws passed by the Commons (where elected MPs sit). The Lords, however, are less powerful than the Commons - they can’t vote down a proposed Bill from the Commons, they can just request amendments to be considered.
Members of the Lords can and do serve in the elected Government, be a Government Minister or even Prime Minister, although these days PM is generally an MP. Bit more democratic.
A cross bench peer is one who doesn’t support the Government or the Opposition. The Government and Opposition peers sit on benches facing each other across the aisle. The cross bench peers sit on benches that are at the opposite end of the aisle from the Lord Speaker, crossing the aisle. Hence, cross-bench peers.
Whilst you are correct, GB/British is a term which is used colloquially to refer to the UK as a whole. Bit like calling the USA ‘America’. It isn’t precisely correct, but it is standard usage. British Parliament, for eg, would be fine to use. Team GB is what the UK Olympic team calls itself.
Okay, but the Parliament of Great Britain was a specific thing, lasting from 1707 to 1801.
A crossbencher is a member of the House of Lords who isn’t a member of a party, but who wishes to be a member of a party-like organization that collectively organizes things like seats on committees. It’s possible for a member of the House of Lords to simply have no affiliation at all, but that’s unusual for active members.
In any discussion about politics, “peer” is synonymous with “member of the House of Lords”, but they’re not strictly the same. A peerage is a title of nobility, which can be hereditary or granted only for life; only the latter entitles the holder to membership. There are a few members (the bishops) who are not peers, and hundreds of peers who are not members (including most hereditary peers, and more recently it has become possible for life peers to resign, be expelled, or take a leave of absence, all while retaining their peerage titles).
Adding to the above, the major current purpose of the House of Lords is to review legislation. To help accomplish this purpose, some Lords will be selected for their expertise and experience in a particular field. So if, for example, an environmental bill is being reviewed, an environmental scientist or biologist will be a member of the committee doing the review. The Lords selected for their expertise are mostly expected to apolitical. They are in the Lords for their knowledge, not to side with one faction or another. Therefore they’re designated as crossbench regardless of their personal politics or party membership.
Check out a sample of crossbench Lords here in order to get an idea of who gets selected and the expertise they possess.
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/?sort=1&type=6
Peers sitting in the Lords are free to choose their own affiliation - there’s no designation or expectation going on.
Thanks to all.
Politics being what it is, I suppose the point of lifetime tenure is that the Lords ostensibly will see no necessity in responding to local geographic constituencies. (Boo, says I the 'Murkin.)
But human nature being what is, and integral to politics, aren’t committee members chosen (and their membership debated beforehand) with regard to possible conflicts? For example, folding up on the example above, an environment/pollution bill (is that the right word?) may stem from/originate in a crisis in a particular Lord’s (literally) home turf, and whose vote might not be as "pure’ as intended?
This comment from my previous post was inappropriate for this forum, and I apologize.
Also, elsewhere in that post, replace “folding up” with “following up.”
A particular lord doesn’t necessarily have a “home turf”. I mean, obviously, he lives somewhere, but he doesn’t in any sense “represent” the place where he lives, or indeed any place. The whole point of the House of Lords is that it’s not representative, and the idea is that its members serve the common good, not the sectional interests of a particular constitutuency, whether that constituency is defined geographically or otherwise.
That’s the theory. Of course, in practice all members have personal values, personal histories, personal loyalties, which may make them more sensitive to certain concerns or interests and less sensitive to others. Demographically speaking, the Lords are disproportionately male, white, elderly, wealthy, Conservative and living in the south of England, when compared with the nation as a whole. In vocational terms, politicians and former public servants are overrepresented.
There are cultural and structural reasons for this, and of course exactly the same comments are mostly true of the House of Commons (apart from the bit about the public servants). And efforts are being made to address this; if we look at new appointments to the Lords, women, ethnic minorities and the disabled are signficantly more likely to be appointed to the Lords than elected to the Commons. But because membership is for life it will be a long time before this pattern of new appointments is reflected the the makeup pf the House as a whole.
In the meantime, while concerns about the makeup of the House as a whole have been reflected in the patter of appointments, once somebody is in the Lords very little attention is paid to any question other than political affiliation. Whether you are Conservative, Labour, Crossbench or whatever is a material factor in deciding whether you will be appointed to a particular committee, but whether you live in York or Yeovil much less so.
It’s a given that any member of either house will have a variety of motives affecting how they see and do their job.
But bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of legislative business, in either house, is set/driven by the government, not by individual members. Committees are chosen in relation to the balance of the parties, primarily. Some measures may come forward from the concerns of individual members, whether as discrete initiatives or as amendments to government proposals, but they’re not likely to get anywhere without ministerial support or at least acquiescence. And of course, personal financial and material interests are supposed to be declared.
I was referring to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which has a specific objective of picking crossbench peers. However, looking at the number of appointments they’ve made in recent years, it seems like the intention for that body is not being met.