Fifteen new Liberal Democrat working peers have just been announced…
Eight of the new peers came from the Interim Peers list: Dee Doocey was on the 2006 list, Jonathan Marks, Monroe Palmer and Ben Stoneham were on the 2008 list, Sal Brinton is on the 2010 list (announced last Saturday) Nicol Stephen has been on every version of the list as an ex-MP, Susan Kramer was added this summer as an ex-MP and Jenny Randerson would have gone onto the list next summer as a retiring AM.
27 new Conservative peers were announced, 10 new Labour peers, 1 Plaid Cymru peer and 1 Crossbench peer.
This produces a House of Lords comprised as follows:
Labour: 244
Conservative: 220
Lib Dems: 94
DUP: 4
UUP: 3
UKIP: 2
Crossbenchers: 182
Lords Spiritual: 25
Others: 18
You can find the full list of appointments, including the new Conservative, Labour, Plaid Cymru and Crossbench peers at the Downing Street website.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1020
NHS GC knocked of its perch
Star Tales, ed. Steve Cole
The misplaced evidence
Getting things done - Logie Avenue #dundeewestend
Simon R
Martin
Joe Bourke
john oundle
Jeff
77 Comments
How many of these names came from the Interim Peers List?
Not very many!
Far too many!
And I should add that my comment refers to all the new peers, not just the Lib Dems. The House of Lords is a disgraceful anachronism that should be abolished.
Oh look no West Midlanders – again 🙁
Colin
http://www.colin-ross.org.uk
Fantastic news that Luton PPC and leading Councillor Qurban Hussain is appointed to the House of Lords. Many congratulations.
Also of note, Barroness Scott is now on the Appointments Commitee
I can only hope that today marks the start of a campaign against grandfathering arrangements for the elected Lords. A campaign which I’d hope all our Lords would sign up to.
Hurrah for Qurban! But yet again some very disturbing choices elsewhere…
Congratulations to all those appointed to the Lords – I hope your stay is a short one.
What’s the betting they’ll be there for the rest of their lives?
Where’s Lord Pack? A real shame and opportunity missed for our party.
@Anthony Aloysius St: Remote.
I won’t name the peers involved, but it is disgraceful that Labour and the Tories still seem to be rewarding their leading donors. They tar the whole list.
“How many of these names came from the Interim Peers List?”
8/15 – Doocey was on the 2006 list, Marks, Palmer and Stoneham were on the 2008 list, Brinton is on the 2010 list, Nicol Stephen has been on every version of the list as an ex-MP, Susan Kramer was added this summer as an ex-MP and Jenny Randerson would have gone onto the list next summer as a retirning AM.
One of the most promising items on the government’s agenda is the proposal on the cards for Lords reform. Although it’s great to see some fantastic names on the list (I’m always happy and proud when prominent figures in civil society become our peers, like Claire Tyler), there are also some rather odd ones (if you search ‘Paul Strasburger’ on google, most of the hits are about how much money he’s given to us). That’s why we need a reformed House of Lords – power corrupts, especially as far as the dispensation of patronage is concerned, whoever’s in power. We must finish what Lloyd George started!
Paul Kennedy – I don’t think Paul Strasburger has been parsimonious with his money.
Ha ha by rewarding our donors with seats in the Lords we are absolutely continuing what Lloyd George started!
Thanks, Kevin. I didn’t know. Was he on our elected list?
What would the job of an elected second chamber be? Just another football stadium like the Commons?
Once you elect it, the Crossbenchers, Bishops and small parties will probably be gone. You’ll just be replicating the Commons with a different voting system.
As bad as you THINK the Lords currently is it probably does a much better job than those super duper MPs who win popularity contests where people think they’re voting for the party leader and not their local MP.
well Mr Tiger, Democracy may be a lousy system but it’s the best one we have. These appointments are excellent but for me an elected House of Lords is more important than Fairer votes. At least now people are elected for the commons, even if it is lousy system. The idea of lifelong politicians with no mandate is pretty appaulling
Good to see us increasing ethnic minority representation but why so few women again?
Disturbed that Monroe Palmer has been appointed, what has he actually acheived?
“if you search ‘Paul Strasburger’ on google, most of the hits are about how much money he’s given to us”
And also how he is a close associate of Michael Brown – having paid for Brown’s defence and put up the bail money for him – the police investigating Brown later having raided Strasburger’s home!
What the **** is the party thinking of, giving him a peerage? Astonishing.
@Mohammed
Monroe has been a party member and activist for many years. he was Treasurer of the Liberal Party and has been a councillor for I think 30 years. he is also a prominent figures in the Jewish community.
An excellent choice
A few good picks (Sal Brinton, Qurban Hussain), and some very, very dubious ones (Palmer, Stephen, and especially Strasburger).
Mixed bag. Great news about Qurban! Middling news about some others. Totally depressing news about some more…
Neil,
I agree that parity would have been better, but six out of fifteen still improves our performance – we have the best proportion of female members of any of the groups in the Lords, including the crossbenchers.
Mohammed,
Disturbed by Monroe? He’s a former Party Treasurer, active in the Jewish community beyond the Party, former target seat Parliamentary candidate (Hastings and Rye), long-serving councillor. Not a bad record, all in all…
Reduce the number of MPs and increase the number of peers. This makes sense only if you regard elected Parliamentarians as an unfortunate anomoly. But of course the Lib dems are now the champions of the long parliament.. Democrats – don’t make me laugh!
It is difficult to describe the process used to select these peers as democratic, when so few of the successful candidates have come from the elected Peers Panel.
Mr Sharkey, it seems, is being rewarded for the useless job he did running the 2010 campaign. Why not reward people who really do know about campaigning and actually win elections now and again? Peter Chegwyn, for instance?
While I do not doubt that Mr Strasburger has done wonderful things in Bath, the public will inevitably form the impression that he has “bought” a peerage, and that is how the media will spin it. The more and more he turns up and does the business, the less and less that impression will stick.
Why anyone should want to “buy” a peerage, I cannot imagine, but there we are.
I would be grateful if someone could let us know how many came from the elected list current at the time the appointments made, as opposed to ex-MPs/AMs etc?
Was it just 3?
If true, it shows that Clegg continues to be as dishonest as previous Lib Dem leaders in relation to stealing seats in the House of Lords from those duly elected.
If you steal one vote in a local council election you are charged with a criminal offence, but if you steal up to 11 seats for life from those duly elected by the party, nobody bats an eyelid.
I always said if the party was dishonest in how it ran itself in opposition, it would be dishonest in government….. whilst I have no major views on the topic itself, it has already been graphically shown in the tuition fees signed pledge fiasco…. 8(
Donnachadh McCarthy
.
Representative democracy goes backwards!
The number of unelected lawmakers increases as the number of elected politicians is cut.
What don’t they understand about democracy?
Is it right that people who have been rejected by the electorate as legislators by the public get put back in by appointment just a few months later?
(This is a policy argument as I have a high opinion on Sal and Susan – Qurban I don’t know much about other than his biog)
What did the policy state about the numbers that should be from the elected panel etc?
RichardSM – the number of MPs won’t be cut until 2015. If Labour Peers vote for House of Lords reform and for elections to a Senate to start in 2015; up to 150 new Senators could be elected by Proportional Representation on the same days as the next General Election in 2015. Net result the number of elected politicians goes up. Mind you on previous evidence will Labour Peers actually do that?
Mr Strasburger says:
“I am a donor and I have got a peerage. If people think those things are linked that is up to them. They may or may not be right, I don’t know.”
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Big-Lib-Dem-donor-Paul-Strasburger-peer/article-2916099-detail/article.html
@A Voice from Lothian
According to my reckoning, with the 55 peers added in May after the general election, plus another 50 or so today, the House of Lords must be 820+ now.
Would someone tell me what the difference is between a party legitimately rewarding those who have given them financial donations with a peerage and so called “cash for honours”?
And why, when the population will have increased by nearly three million next year we need to lose 50 accountable, elected representatives in the House of Commons and yet can increase the number of unelected, unaccountable representatives in the Lords by over a 100. I’m not being disingenuous, I really would like to know.
“Would someone tell me what the difference is between a party legitimately rewarding those who have given them financial donations with a peerage and so called “cash for honours”?”
Oh, come on – that’s easy!
When Labour does it, it’s “cash for honours”
When the Lib Dems do it, it’s legitimate.
When the Tories do it, it depends whether or not they’re in coalition with the Lib Dems at the time.
Depressing to see more lords appointed instead of getting rid of the lot (with the possible exception of the crossbenchers)
Clearly there are some very worthy names on the list (and some of less merit), but regarding the whole proceedure I have to agree with Mike: this stuffing of the Lords is getting ridiculous: http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/11/19/53-new-peers-created-isnt-this-getting-ridiculous/
And while we Lib Dems rightly admire people like Sal Brinton, Qurban Hussain and Susan Kramer, Mr Smithson’s post points out that there is a less attractive spin that can be put on appointing defeated MPs or unsuccessful candidates: “Quite a few of the latest names failed in their effort to get into the commons at the general election. So why should they now be able to, in effect, get round the view of their electors by slipping into the upper house in this way?”
Lords reform can’t come too quickly in my view!
@MacK and AAS: Yes, another good reason why we need to get patronage out of the Lords. If any appointed people are to be left, they should be as non-partisan as possible (i.e. exclude people who currently hold elected office for a political party or are substantial donors to one from consideration – those people could stand for election to the Lords/Senate instead).
I agree with Ultimo Tiger. As a liberal I utterly hate the idea of the House of Lords. It is unelected and unaccountable. It also works perfectly as a revising chamber. The standard of debate in the Lords is much higher than in the Commons, it is less partisan and generally does a good job of ensuring that legislation does its job properly. It also knows that it is not an elected chamber and, as such, has questionable legitimacy. Their Lordships therefore usually steer clear of all out conflict with the Commons. They will challenge the Commons, but they know that they are ultimately only a revising chamber, and will normally back down if the Commons is absolutely set on a course of action. In short, the House of Lords is a disgrace in theory, and an amazing asset in practice.
@Sesenco
“Mr. Sharkey, it seems, is being rewarded for the useless job he did running the 2010 campaign.”
Quite agree. It could be argued that John Sharkey’s failure to seize the momentum when Nick Clegg’s ratings soared after the first debate has led to today’s present uncomfortable situation. We could really have done with those extra 20-25 MPs who would otherwise have been elected had not the campaign “fallen apart”, as Nick lamented in the Observer.
Now Lord Sharkey is to be Vice Chair of the ‘Yes to Fairer Votes ‘ campaign……..
Anthony Aloysius St
Thank you Anthony, now I understand.
Now, would somebody please tell me why, when the population had increased by nearly three million since 2001, we need to lose 50 M.P.s? If someone can supply me with a satisfactory answer I’ll support the proposition. Honest.
MacK,
“Now, would somebody please tell me why, when the population had increased by nearly three million since 2001, we need to lose 50 M.P.s? If someone can supply me with a satisfactory answer I’ll support the proposition. Honest.”
I take it that’s a facetious question, since the answer is fairly obvious (weakening Parliament and all that). A more pertinent question is why the Liberal Democrats (at least Clegg and his acolytes) are supporting it, and a plausible and coherent explanation has yet to reach my ears.
On the point about defeated MPs returning to the Legislature through the back door, I recall a mini fuss being made about Thatcher putting Hamish Gray in the Lords after his erstwhile electors rejected him in favour of Charles Kennedy.
Only Labour put forward a gender balanced list.
However our 6/15 is rather better than the Tories’ 6/27.
Quality is great, but quantity matters too… and yes we can have both!
8 out of the 15 appointed new L/D`s are from the Peerage Lists and vindicates that the Members have democraticaly chosen them, unlike the other polical parties, where all are appointed by the Party Leaders.
A new rule should be brought in to ensure that all Peers when elected, actually agree to record a reasonable quota of attendence in the Upper House and contribute to debates of the day or otherwise forfeit their Revising Chamber peerage .Do all current 821 Peers actually attend sessions?
L/D women are clearly prominent and this is to the good and rate as the most hard working and deserving in this batch in my opinion and we know that all 94 L/ D`s Peers , mostly come from Local Government and public service.
“A new rule should be brought in to ensure that all Peers when elected, actually agree to record a reasonable quota of attendence in the Upper House and contribute to debates of the day or otherwise forfeit their Revising Chamber peerage .Do all current 821 Peers actually attend sessions?”
The problem is that someone might given and keep that commitment for a few years but there is no way of retiring. A number of these working peers will have been appointed to “replace” working peers who are no longer quite as active. Given that some might have been appointed in 1997 it’s not unreasonable that some might have said they will take a back seat – only Andrew Philips I’m aware of has had sufficient honour to ask to be retired though
“Now, would somebody please tell me why, when the population had increased by nearly three million since 2001, we need to lose 50 M.P.s? If someone can supply me with a satisfactory answer I’ll support the proposition. Honest.”
Too many people on the trains up to London. Losing a few MP raises the tone.
I don’t want to comment about any individuals on the list (not least because they are future colleagues!) and there are some brilliant additions to our team here.
But the geographical balance is deplorably bad. Most of this list seem to be from the South-east of England, widely defined*. Just one North, one Cornwall, one Scot, one Welsh. One or two others might have “provincial connections” but that is hardly the point (and I may have misjudged one or two).
But it is pretty poor in my opinion.
Tony Greaves
*London or daily commuting distance.
And – oh yes – the gender balance is just unacceptable in an appointed list in which the decision rests with the party not the electorate.
Tony Greaves
An intriguing mixture of the able and deserving with two types of timeservers: the useful and the not-so-useful. But poor gender balance, poor use of Party’s elected peers mechanism, poor geographic spread: having said that, given the type of people who are dominating the nominations for that elected peers list these days, heaven help us.
I agree about gender balance, Tony – particularly as bishops/ elected heredetaries act as de facto reserved seats for men, so there is already an in-built male majority in the Lords.
The absence of safe Lib Dem seats has made it very difficult for us to deliver diversity in the Commons. That is precisely why, for so long as the appointments system continues, we should be hard-wiring diversity into the Lords. ‘Grandfathering’ arrangements and the advantages of incumbency mean that when we finally do get an elected second chamber anyone who is there now will have a head start in the selection/ election… that is why it is so important to ensure we get good women in there now.
Mohammed Shafiq,
You ask a question, but preface it with a derogatory tone.
Monroe Palmer is an incredibly hard working and effective local councillor, former group leader, he has had many roles at a regional and a national level, he has been a target seat PPC and just missed out winning in 1997, he has served the party at considerable personal effort, expense to considerable effect. I can think of few grassroots activists more deserving. In addition his work in the jewish community working for peaceful solutions, tackling racism and anti-semitism have been outstanding. All this over 3 decades and more…
It really is great news all round and I for one am delighted.
Ed
@ Alex
“Too many people on the trains up to London. Losing a few MP (sic) raises the tone.”
But, surely, the trains will now be full of unelected peers!
@Sesenco
Clegg — Plausible? Coherent? Oxymorons I think.
@ Mark Valladares
How does 6 out of 15 improve our gender balance?
The gap between the number of men and women has been widened further.
I agree with Dinti on this, when appointing peers it is wholly within our power to improve the party’s diversity, yet I think I am right in saying that EVERY set of appointments has had more men than women and has therefore made the gap wider.
Neil,
Before this list, 29% of our Peers were women. 40% of this group are women, therefore the overall percentage will increase, to about 30%, I think. That’s an improvement in my book. Not good enough, but still an improvement.
There is also a dilemma here. The more women we put in the Lords, the less women there are available to run for the Commons. The proportion of women in our Lords Parliamentary Party is twice that of the Commons equivalent. Is improving the proportion in the Commons to 25% a better mark of our commitment to gender equality than achieving 40% in an Upper Chamber we are intending to abolish?
Yes, 50% in each should be our aspiration, but it might not be a zero-sum game.
It’s interesting to note that while the new two BAME Lords has meant that Nick Clegg has now tripled the BAME representation in the Upper House (to six) in the last few months, I seriously doubt whether any BAME peers would have been appointed at all if it had been conducted entirely through internal elections of party members.
The proof of the pudding is the internal election results from last weekend, where BAME members fared particularly badly, and there was no progress whatsoever on ethnic diversity from the previous year.
I would like to add my congratulations to all the new Lib Dem Peers. Particulalry pleased for Qurban Hussain and Raj Loomba. I look forward to working with you all.
I was commenting on those on the list I knew of, sadly I’ve not been around as long as some, so wasn’t aware of Monroe’s work, that was what I was asking about.
I’m glad to be corrected, congratulations to all.
In terms of BME representation it has been doubled under Nick, we should celebrate this but ensure that we carry on the work to make sure we are diverse.
The elections last week were disappointing for BME candidates, we must make progress or we will lose so many people from these communities.
@ Mark Valladares
I suppose that’s one way of looking at the figures, but the point is that Nick could have appointed uo to 15 women and shifted the percentage significantly higher. Every batch of peers that has more men than women widens the gap.
You are right that we need to address the issue of electing more woemn MPs, but the appointment of peers is within our control, and does not have to wait until 2015, and is not reliant on the electorate in our key seats. I certainly wouldn’t want to see potential target seat candidates put in the Lords, but there are plenty of other experienced, able women who are not.
the number of peers will ensure that everything that is proposed will happen as no one can oppose things. I am just watching children in need. How will it be another year into coalition?
What is the point of the Interim Peers List? I know that the 2010 List is too recent to have been useful this time round, but I would have thought that the top 15 (say) of the 2008 version should have gone to the Lords’ panel for assessment. That some have been on the Interim Peers List is meaningless. They are well known in the party – they got on the Interim Peers List. They are well known in the party – they got on the Working Peers List. There is not necessarily any connection between the Interim Peers List. and the Working Peers List, and the Interim Peers List looks like a sop to conference representatives (who have a lot of elections to vote at in ‘even’ years) rather than a real contribution to party democracy.
@ Meral Hussein Ece
Why are you so silent on the watering down if the Equalities Act?
Here’s the Independent’s comment on this shameful spectacle (though it seems to be of very little concern to commenters here):
So much for the “new politics”. It appears little has been learnt by our political parties since the 2007 cash-for-honours affair. Two of the new peers, Sir Gulam and Mr Edmiston, were even questioned by the police in that tawdry business three years ago. And the Tories appear to have forgotten their recent torments over the tax affairs of their former paymaster, Lord Ashcroft. The Liberal Democrats have failed to learn lessons too. Mr Strasburger helped to fund the legal defence of the Liberal Democrats’ disgraced donor, the convicted fraudster Michael Brown.
All three parties will doubtless argue that these new wealthy peers merit their place in the upper house because of their public works, and that their donations have nothing to do with their elevation. But it looks appalling. While big donors are selected by parties for peerages, there will always be suspicions that seats in our legislature are for sale.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-cash-and-honours-are-as-close-as-ever-2139093.html
Bring on the era of a new type of politics. Now could someone enlighten me as to what the difference is between this new type of politics and the old ?.
Is this it? The best 15 people we could come up with?
Lester – does Monroe not count as BAME?
Lester,
Not six, but seven – everyone forgets David Alliance… although I’m not sure that Monroe would self-define as BAME.
I think we got 15 too many peers out of this arrangement, but if these people were options in an open-list PR election for the Senate, we’d be spoilt for choice.
PR for the second chamber is a bigger deal than AV for the commons for me. Odd as it may sound, the house of Lords in 5 years will be more democratic than the house of commons, I just hope all of our new peers would be willing to stand for election under STV or PR to get their job back!
Unsurprisingly the names I don’t recognise on the list are big donors. If we want to reward donors for their support, give them a commemorative plate and a bunch of flowers, not lifelong voting rights without being elected.
Stuffing the lords with more members while taking members out of the commons doesn’t make much sense. I hope the senate uses much larger, multi-member constituencies and is considerably smaller in population than the commons.
The new list of peers is out
https://www.libdemvoice.org/15-…..22130.html
There doesn’t seem to be much connection to the interim peers list
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~ro…..0peers.htm
In particular there doesn’t seem to be a Lord Pack even though Mark was second. Is there some reason for this – ie has Mark changed his mind ?
I would be keen to find out why Mark has been overlooked.
Ed Joyce
The interim peers list is below, but there does not seem to be much of a link between it and the published list. It is only a guide for the leadership as I understand it. The ommission of Mark Pack who came second seems to be at odds with the democratic process. Can someone explain why this occurred – ie did Mark change his mind or is there more information to follow.
First
Prefs
Jon BALL 35
Sue BARING 60
Kay BARNARD 90
Bob BARTON 6
Graham BISHOP 25
Bob BLEZZARD 12
Chris BONES 34
David BOYLE 96
Sal BRINTON 228
Nasser BUTT 29
Alan BUTT-PHILI 46
David BUXTON 36
Richard CHURCH 55
Val COX 37
Peter CRYSTAL 18
Elizabeth DALY 31
David GODDARD 21
David HARE 4
Dirk HAZELL 16
Antony HOOK 39
Andrew HUDSON 6
Gerry JEROME 18
Paul KENNEDY 8
Richard KNOWLES 22
Sandra LAWMAN 8
Catherine Le G 10
Liz LEFFMAN 35
Christopher 17
David NAGHI 5
Mark PACK 189
Peter PHILLIPS 10
Farooq QURESHI 13
Flick REA 66
Serena TIERNEY 13
Mike TUFFREY 55
John VINCENT 22
James WALSH 39
Ian WALTON 43
Chris WIGGAN 50
Ed,
All nominees are vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, a process which takes some time. It can safely be assumed that this list was submitted prior to our election.
And, of course, at that point, my potentially noble friend, Dr Pack, was not on the list…
Mark V
So Sal wasn’t on the list (though I wouldn’t have a problem with submission for approval prior to the list being elected)
However this:
“In particular there doesn’t seem to be a Lord Pack even though Mark was second.”
isn’t valid.
Mark wasn’t “second” as no attempt is made to order the list. Neither the order you are elected under STV, nor the number of first preferences you get, is indicative of anything. When ordered lists are needed (eg for the Euro selections) then repeated counts are done for 10 places, then 9, then 8 etc etc.
Does Mark Valladares think that John Sharkey was on the list BEFORE the election result? Why?
David,
It would be unlikely that John Sharkey would have been on the list before the election, because a dissolution list was announced. Whether or not Nick was minded to offer him one in due course at that point is anyone’s guess though.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself entirely clear though. It can safely be assumed that the list was submitted prior to the conclusion of our interim peers election. My apologies for that lack of precision on my part…
Just to remind people, and especially Ed Joyce, that the recent elections are not the entire list. These have been “top up” elections (held every so often, from my understanding). Others remain on the list from previous elections. I am sure Mark V will confirm this (or otherwise!)