IIRC the 92 that were sitting were elected by all the heredetary peers who were eligable to sit in the Lords when the change came into effect. Ironicly making them the only elected members in the Lords.
I imagine something similar will happen here with the hereditaries that actually make useful contributions being turned into life peers.
wait. the house of lords is still unelected? I thought it had mostly become elected with some inherited left or such. You know never mind. I think imma go wikipedia this.
Edit: I remembered the appointment process a bit wrong, see ohulancutash’s reply
For the most part it is appointed. Each prime minister traditionally gives some people peerages at the end of their term, which entitles but does not require those people to sit in the House of Lords. On paper it’s the king that does it, but in practice it’s the PM. There are a few others like the last hereditary lords that this is about (they used to make up most of the House) and the lords spiritual (a couple dozen bishops from the church of England, who I would rather like to see get the same treatment as the hereditary peers)
Peerages are handed out annually on the advice of the PM, and there is a quota system to allow each party to be represented in the intake. The end of term appointments are personal to the PM, and are not part of the same system.
Ahh, there’s the danger of working off of memory without checking. That said, upon checking, it must be more than annually? If we take Blair as an example since he had a long tenure, it seems like he did a big chunk in June most (but not all) years but there are almost always at least a couple of other batches or individual appointments
At certain times you can buy them by bribing the right people be awarded them in recognition of your very kind and generous donations to important projects.
Id love to know what made the 92 special or the 15 mentioned in another comment. Where they like close family lines to the royal family or something?
IIRC the 92 that were sitting were elected by all the heredetary peers who were eligable to sit in the Lords when the change came into effect. Ironicly making them the only elected members in the Lords.
I imagine something similar will happen here with the hereditaries that actually make useful contributions being turned into life peers.
wait. the house of lords is still unelected? I thought it had mostly become elected with some inherited left or such. You know never mind. I think imma go wikipedia this.
Edit: I remembered the appointment process a bit wrong, see ohulancutash’s reply
For the most part it is appointed. Each prime minister traditionally gives some people peerages at the end of their term, which entitles but does not require those people to sit in the House of Lords. On paper it’s the king that does it, but in practice it’s the PM. There are a few others like the last hereditary lords that this is about (they used to make up most of the House) and the lords spiritual (a couple dozen bishops from the church of England, who I would rather like to see get the same treatment as the hereditary peers)
Peerages are handed out annually on the advice of the PM, and there is a quota system to allow each party to be represented in the intake. The end of term appointments are personal to the PM, and are not part of the same system.
Ahh, there’s the danger of working off of memory without checking. That said, upon checking, it must be more than annually? If we take Blair as an example since he had a long tenure, it seems like he did a big chunk in June most (but not all) years but there are almost always at least a couple of other batches or individual appointments
At certain times you can
buy them by bribing the right peoplebe awarded them in recognition of your very kind and generous donations to important projects.If a Lord retires from the house they need to be replaced
That surely can’t be right, there was no way for a life peer to retire until quite recently (and after Blair’s tenure)
They weren’t immortal you know.