WI No 1911 Parliament Act?

How would UK politics look if George V didn't threaten to pack the Lords to end the Tory filibuster? How would the UK develop, would there be more PMs from the Lords?
 
How would UK politics look if George V didn't threaten to pack the Lords to end the Tory filibuster? How would the UK develop, would there be more PMs from the Lords?
I honestly don't think that they could stop it forever. Campaigning to restrict the power of the House of Lords was one of the major reasons why the Labour Party rose to relative prominence.
 
What's the most diluted Act that could survive today? Could there still be a PM with senior Cabinet from the Lords? Would it mean in effect two Prime Ministers- the DPM/Lord President in the Commons and the PM him/herself in the Lords?
 
The most interesting what-if here doesn't apply so much to the 1911 reforms, but to the Atlee era one's. The upper house's veto was bound to not last long into the 20th century. But what if the limits on the Lords to delay legislation hadn't been further tightened?

I ask this question as the 1911 legislation was backed by popular mandate from (two) recent elections, while the 1949 law wasn't. And life peerages are another matter altogether.

What's the most diluted Act that could survive today?

The Act which passed OT, combined with my above suggestion of no further reforms. Of course this would depend on a 20th century British political consensus that didn't suffer through world wars and depressions, which isn't very likely.

RogueBeaver said:
Could there still be a PM with senior Cabinet from the Lords? Would it mean in effect two Prime Ministers- the DPM/Lord President in the Commons and the PM him/herself in the Lords?

I think you'll find that the Liberal era of Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith put a practical end to the idea of a PM from the lords--the introduction of universal franchise for all males at the 1919 elections & the rise of Labour as a party of government is just the final nail in the coffin. Then there are certain other political events...

(Anyway, Lord Carrington and whatever Mandy styles himself proves that important ministers can still be drawn from the upper house.)
 
TL research question: Can a hereditary peer remain in the Lords as a Cabinet member, disclaim his peerage while PM like Home did in being downgraded to "Sir", then reclaim it after his term is up? What are the rules around that?
 
TL research question: Can a hereditary peer remain in the Lords as a Cabinet member, disclaim his peerage while PM like Home did in being downgraded to "Sir", then reclaim it after his term is up? What are the rules around that?

Most of the rules are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_Act_1963

The main thing is once you disclaim a Peerage you can't get it back during your lifetime. However your heir will inherit as normal.

Tony Benn's son will become the 3rd Viscount Stansgate, when the former 2nd Viscount dies.

You can disclaim a hereditary peerage and later get a life peerage.
 
How would UK politics look if George V didn't threaten to pack the Lords to end the Tory filibuster? How would the UK develop, would there be more PMs from the Lords?

Parliament would look like a mixture of the Canadian and Australian models. Imagine having a double dissolution of Parliament over a budget crisis, for example? :D
 
That could be used for Rovian purposes in a minority situation, like Trudeau did in 1974... ;) Or like the PM is trying to do right now.
 
That could be used for Rovian purposes in a minority situation, like Trudeau did in 1974... ;) Or like the PM is trying to do right now.

No need - just have another Constitutional crisis like what Whitlam had with the GG in the 1970s in Australia, and you'd have some high drama in Britain that would essentially force some reform of some kind.
 
That would be interesting, because the Queen is completely neutral, since GGs are appointed by the PM. They wouldn't do that because it would severely damage the Queen and everyone involved.
 
That would be interesting, because the Queen is completely neutral, since GGs are appointed by the PM. They wouldn't do that because it would severely damage the Queen and everyone involved.

Hey, you never know with the Queen - here's the cause of "The Dismissal", according to the Genocide:

The Loans Affair, also called the Khemlani Affair, is the name given to the political scandal involving the Whitlam Government of Australia in 1975, in which it was accused of attempting to illegally borrow money from Middle Eastern countries by bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury.

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, Treasurer Dr. Jim Cairns, and others, were prime identities in the scandal.

Sound familiar?
 
Hey, you never know with the Queen - here's the cause of "The Dismissal", according to the Genocide:

Quote:
The Loans Affair, also called the Khemlani Affair, is the name given to the political scandal involving the Whitlam Government of Australia in 1975, in which it was accused of attempting to illegally borrow money from Middle Eastern countries by bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury.

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, Treasurer Dr. Jim Cairns, and others, were prime identities in the scandal.

Sound familiar?

Urgh, the idea that the Dismissal was a direct result of the loans affair is an (old, old) conservative conceit. (Are you sure you were born in 1988, Dan1988? Most apologia for the Dismissal these days focuses on the general incompetence of the Whitlam govt., and tries not to go into too much detail about why 'Kerr was right'.)

Cairns and Connor had been fired by Whitlam before the Opposition decided to block supply in the senate (& holding up money bills in the upper house was a hugely controversial act in itself, going against precendent, & possibly unconstitutional--the constitution was always explicit about the senate not having the power to amend or reject money bills--hey, that brings us back OT, vis-à-vis the powers of upper chambers to delay the will of parliament!)

The Dismissal happened because the Opposition created a gridlock by blocking supply, which only they could 'fix', as they were of course the natural party of government...
 
Urgh, the idea that the Dismissal was a direct result of the loans affair is an (old, old) conservative conceit. (Are you sure you were born in 1988, Dan1988? Most apologia for the Dismissal these days focuses on the general incompetence of the Whitlam govt., and tries not to go into too much detail about why 'Kerr was right'.)

Sorry about that. :eek: Guess someone will have to fix the Genocide, 'cause that's what's written in that article.
 
Sorry about that. :eek: Guess someone will have to fix the Genocide, 'cause that's what's written in that article.

The main wikipedia page that details the events surrounding the dismissal of the Whitlam government is actually quite passable--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975.

You were relying on this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_Affair, which isn't a bad article. It's just not a very good summation of why & how the governor general exercised his reserve powers.
 
The main wikipedia page that details the events surrounding the dismissal of the Whitlam government is actually quite passable--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975.

You were relying on this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_Affair, which isn't a bad article. It's just not a very good summation of why & how the governor general exercised his reserve powers.

True - but if there are improvements to be made - well, . . . . ;) Sadly, I'm no Australia expert, but still . . . .
 
That's why they should appoint constitutional scholars as GG, or at least have one on staff. Didn't Kerr also get advice from the Chief Justice? How do today's experts view it?
 
How would UK politics look if George V didn't threaten to pack the Lords to end the Tory filibuster? How would the UK develop, would there be more PMs from the Lords?

We have to remember that the Parliament Act of 1911 was always intended as a stop gap to abolishing the entire house anyway. As a matter of fact, the Liberals are the only political party who have always maintained a consistent position on Constitutional Reform, the Tories have always tended to oppose it (though that seems to be changing somewhat) and Labour have historically not bothered with it for fear that it would distract from economic policy (and the desire that so many "radicals" seem to hold for ermine).

Personally I believe that were the act never to be passed (perhaps if the Lords choose to back the Peoples Budget for pragmatic reasons) then the House could evolve into a more advisory body in order to retain the hereditary principle.
 
That's why they should appoint constitutional scholars as GG, or at least have one on staff. Didn't Kerr also get advice from the Chief Justice? How do today's experts view it?

I think I've established my view of Kerr's actions (they were wrong), but IMO the great constitutional root problems in '75 was that the reserve powers of the viceroy were/are not codified; they don't take account of the constitution as it is written; and the constitution had not evolved/been modified to take account of modern, post-1901 government (the great constitutional reform to come out of the Dismissal was the amendment which prohibited state premiers filling senate vacancies with people not of the party of the dead or resigned senator. This is the only reference to parties in the constitution.)

Chief Justice Garfield Barwick gave informal advice to Kerr, yet he wasn't supposed to, as judges of the HCoA can only rule on legal matters in the cases that come before them on the bench--they're not legal advisers.
 
Top