Talk:House of Commons of the United Kingdom

What the name of this page should be

See Talk:British House of Commons/Page name

How can not voting with the party lead to deselection?

though in some circumstances, an MP may be threatened with deselection if he or she does vote with the party

An MP may be deselected for voting *with* zir party? What are these circumstances? Marnanel 19:14, May 2, 2004 (UTC) I think a "Not" has been left out. john

I've removed the clause as no explanation has been given about a blow job by the queen. It seemed redundant as it was. Might it have been reffering to immediate deselection? Is that the same as expulsion from the party? Mr. Jones 23:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where does the "Father of the House" sit?

The Father of the House traditionally sits on the first seat beyond the gangway (as viewed from the speaker's chair) on the front row.

Is this true? I thought those seats were just taken by senior figures - I don't think Tam Dayell sits there. Heath may have beached himself in that position but I recall him doing so before he became FofH in 1992, and sat there because he was a former PM. Doesn't Skinner sit in that seat on the Labour benches? Timrollpickering 12:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

"Members of a legislature of a non-Commonwealth nation" are ineligible for membership?

Is this still the case? I thought it was relaxed in the early 1980s. There was a case when an SDLP member was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembley of the time (which had the same rules on eligibility as Westminster) but was not allowed to take his seat as he was a member of the Irish Senate. I think this led to this law being revoked. Timrollpickering 08:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I think Ireland is excluded from that, just as Irish citizens are entitled to vote just like Commonwealth citizens. A member of a non-commonwealth legislature is still ineligible. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/GE-cands.htm - Chrism 12:38, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Apportionment

I'm interested to know 'how' the 600-plus seats in the UK House of Commons are apportioned among the various countries and the shires that make up the United Kingdom. Is there an Act of Parliament that says that Scotland/Wales/etc. shall get 'x' number of seats? Why do Scotland and Northern Ireland have more seats in the Commons than their populations would normally allow? Has there ever been a movement towards "one vote - one value" in the United Kingdom, like in Australia in the 1970s? Could somebody more familiar with the minutiae of British elections and politics please help me on this issue? Regards, --Humehwy 19:38, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there was legislation (recently repealed as part of the Scottish Parliament legislation) that required Scotland to have a minimum number of seats. Northern Ireland has similar - it must have between 16 & 18, and usually 17 unless the Boundary Commission see a case for a deviation. The other bits I can recall are that Orkney & Shetland are guarenteed a constituency of their own, and the City of London cannot be partitioned.

Seats are reviewed every decade or so. Generally the Boundary Commission will build them out of local government wards. They're required to aim for near parity, except where local factors or the inconvenience of changes recommend against it. So for example in the latest proposals for Northern Ireland, Fermanagh & South Tyrone has about 6500 more voters than West Tyrone, but rather than transfer wards from Fermanagh (district) to West Tyrone, the proposal is to leave them as they are, tolerating the discrepancy as a price worth paying for seats to be natural (West Tyrone is exactly equal to Omagh and Strabane district councils for eample).

The principle is that an MP represents a community rather than a fixed number of voters, and so community ties and geographic considerations play a large role in determining the distribution of seats. Timrollpickering 23:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To answer your other question about proportional representation. Yes the UK seems to be moving in this direction somewhat. Recent elections to the European Parliament and elections for London's Mayor were conducting under two different forms of PR-like voting systems. However there is no likelihood of the General Election system changing any time soon. Pcb21| Pete 23:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peers

If a member of the House of Commons inherits a peerage, he can no longer sit in the House, correct? In the article, it seems that one needs to be summoned to the Lords in order to be disqualified from sitting in the Commons. Specifically, I was wondering about Viscount Castlereagh - apparently, he served as Leader of the House of Commons until 1822, but he became Marquess of Londonderry (a hereditary peerage) in 1821... ugen64 23:52, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, since 1999, peers can serve in the Commons. Londonderry, however is an Irish peerage, so it did not give Castlereagh the right to sit in the Lords. Similarly, Lord Palmerston spent his entire career in the commons, as his viscountcy was Irish. john k 01:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. ugen64 22:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Long table

I do not intend to erase all of User:Jord's hard work, but I found the "fun table" showing the relative sizes of the parties inappropriate. Firstly, the table is, I think, of somewhat doubtful value: it does not show any information not already displayed in the article. Secondly, the table is large and impedes the article. Thirdly, it extends the size of the overall article to nearly a hundred kilobytes: by far too long. Finally, I find the table unnecessary. For these reasons, I regret that I have had to remove the table from the article. -- Emsworth 23:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I got the idea from similar tables used for the Houses of the Canadian Parliament, which are far smaller in membership. I like the concept, particularly for the British House, due to the fact that it showed how few seats there are relative to the members therein and how huge the Labour majority actually is. Although that is already clear in the numbers, a picture is worth a thousand words. You're right though, its extreme size is a serious flaw. If there is any desire to have it there, I think if I played with the code it would be possible to make it considerably smaller. I just copied the code used at the Canadian House of Commons and it is rather cumbersome, with a lot of repetition. - Jord 00:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Follow-up.. I've decreased its size considerably.. it is at User:Jord/play, let me know if it is worth including. - Jord 00:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protocol question

As an American, I came to this page looking for an answer to a minor question: Outside the Commons, what is the polite form of addressing a Member who holds no government office? I assume if I meet Tony Blair I should say, "Good morning, Mr. Prime Minister", but what do I say if I meet George Galloway? (Before I say, "Thank you!", that is.) JamesMLane 09:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Just "Mr Galloway" (or "Sir", if you're feeling really obsequious, I suppose) - they have no special style or form of address outside the Commons Chamber (well, except the post-nominals "MP", of course). The Prime Minister is addressed as "Prime Minister" and all other Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) as "Minister" (as in the sitcom "Yes, Minister" and its sequel, "Yes, Prime Minister"), except Ministers in the House of Lords who could alternatively be addressed as "Lord <Title>" (or "My Lord", if you're feeling extremely obsequious). This is all when you're talking to them as Ministers in their official capacity, of course - if you met Tony Blair at a party you should really just address him as "Mr Blair" (or "Tony"). Proteus (Talk) 09:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps there's a difference here because Bush, unlike Blair, is the head of state. I think that, even if you meet Bush at a party, the correct form of address is "Mr. President". As for addressing MP's, your information might usefully be included in the article, but I'm not feeling particularly bold at the moment, so I'll leave that decision to editors more familiar with the article. JamesMLane 10:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, none of this obsequious nonsense regarding forms of address is uncontended. I personally wouldn't dream of addressing anyone using their title, unless I were compelled to do so. For example, were I on trial, I suppose I might address a judge or magistrate in the customary way. I have addressed letter to MPs "Dear Mr. xxx", and I would address a letter to a minister (or a Prime Minister) in the same way. In law I am a British subject; but I consider myself a citizen, and I decline to confer on any other citizen an honorific to which I am not also entitled.

--MrDemeanour 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the Gov't majority?

What is the Government's majority? The article currently says 68. I got this figure by adding together everyone in the opposition (including the vacant seat of the MP who died recently). I left out the undeclared seat in South Staffordshire and Sinn Fein/IRA, since they have not taken their seats, and this is what I have came up with:

$195+61+6+3+9+3+1+2+1+4+1=286$

I then took that number (286) and subtracted by the number of Labour MP's and got:

$354-286=68$

However, If we include the the undeclared election South Staffordshire and exclude SF, the majority becomes 67. If the vacant seats are left out completely, the majority is 69.

Which is correct? - Hoshie.Crat 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I do 646-5 (to remove Sien Fein) = 641 total MPs in the Commons; 641-355 (Labour MPs minus the Speaker) = 286; 355-286 = majority of 69. Therefore, by my calculation, Labour's majority is 69 (assuming South Staffordshire exists and is either "vacant" or "about to be Tory again").

Is it legitimate to leave out SF, though? In theory they could change their minds about taking their seats and become a factor in the equation at any time. As for South Staffs, though undoubtedly the Tory will win it back (presumably he's missing nearly 2 months' pay!) it doesn't count at the moment. -- Arwel 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

SF don't take up their seats in the Commons and therefore cannot vote on any matters. Therefore they don't exist in the legislature. As South Staffordshire does exist it doesn't matter if it's vacant or not - it's still a seat. Since election night was over I've thought of the majority as being 69 (it was fairly obvious that the previous Speaker was to be re-elected).

I believe that the correct calculation does not leave out SF. Instead, it leaves out the Speaker + 3 Deputy Speakers. -- Emsworth 19:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Forms of address when there were multi-member constituencies

Today people say things like "my friend the honorable member for Colchester" to refer to each other in the chamber. What did they say when there were 2 members for Colchester? Morwen - Talk 1 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

There would have been two different constituencies, with different names. For example, Colchester North and Colchester South. So the address might become: "my friend, the honourable member for Colchester North".

Pearcej 06:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, Morwen means before 1945 when some boroughs still elected two members. I think they were called the senior burgess and the junior burgess, depending on length of service. Adam 06:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Akin the Senators in the United States, I guess. But what if they both joined the house at the same time? :) Morwen - Talk 15:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the moment I believe they work out seniority (for determining who is Father of the House, for instance) based on time since they first swore the oath, so I suppose the same practice would apply. (Presumably the practice of swearing the oath in alphabetical order dates back quite a long way.) Proteus (Talk) 16:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Last Peer as prime minister

The last peer to serve as prime minister was the Earl of Home in 1963. He was a peer when appointed, but then almost immediately afterwards renounced his peerage and sought election to the Commons in a specially caused by-election when a Tory MP resigned to make way for him. He could not have resigned his peerage before becoming PM because that would have made it constitutionally impossible for him to be asked to form a government. (Only MPs and peers can be asked.) It is however perfectly possible constitutionally to be a prime minister without being either an MP or peer. For example, PMs hold office without a seat in the period from the dissolution of one parliament and the assembly of the new parliament. It is one of the quirks of the British constitutional system that, since the 18th century while one must be in parliament to be eligible to be asked to form a government, one doesn't always have to be in parliament when prime minister, though in practice the job cannot be done if you aren't in it. It may date from an earlier convention that said that Ministers of the Crown couldn't sit in parliament, and so had to take the Chiltern Hundreds one appointed, though that convention went out many centuries ago. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Home became PM on 19 October and disclaimed his peerage on 23 October. He was thus technically both a peer and PM for four days, but it silly to say that he was the last peer to be PM, because he was appointed PM on the understanding that he was going to disclaim his peerage. Had the Peerage Act not been passed earlier in the year, neither he nor Hailsham would have been considered as candidates for PM. The last peer to be PM in any real sense was Salisbury.
• "Constitutionally impossible for him to be asked to form a government"? The UK doesn't have a constitution, only constitutional conventions. So far as I know the Queen can appoint anyone she pleases as PM - whether they can gain the confidence of Parliament is another matter. But of course she follows convention in appointing PMs, and since the Parliament Act of 1911 it has been the convention that the PM must sit in the Commons. It is possible that there is now also a statute which specifies this, but I haven't heard of it.
• The convention that MPs had to seek their constituents' approval before taking office lasted well into the 20th century. Churchill was defeated when seeking re-election at Manchester as late as 1906 (I think). It may have been abolished at the time of the Parliament Act, or perhaps during WW1. Adam 04:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot that. Thank for reminding me.

Constitutionally, whether for 4 days or 4 minutes, a peer was prime minister. It was not a mere technicality. Either he was a peer and PM or he wasn't, and he was. Indeed the fact that a peer was appointed caused a considerable shock. He is officially described as being the last peer PM, Salisbury the last PM to run the premiership from the Lords.

Constitutionally the Queen asks one of two questions to someone she is commissioning to form a government:

Can you form a government that can command support in the House of Commons? (the normal request, which allows minority governments, etc), or

Can you form a government that can command majority support in the House of Commons? (the form used in national crises that in effect forces the formation of all-party or coalition governments. The last form was last asked in 1940 off Winston Churchill, forcing him to bring in Labour. It was also asked of MacDonald in Lloyd George, the three times it was used in the 20th century. Convention dating back to the Georges dictates that only an MP or peer can be asked to form a government. A non-parliamentarian being asked would be seen as a form of royal coup d'etat to seize government from parliament. While it is effectively impossible to ask a non-parliamentarian to form a government, by a quirk, a PM can cease to hold a parliamentary seat (as Home demonstated when he quit one house without immediately moving to the other) for some period of time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I think it is a technical point, because he was in the process of disclaiming his peerage when he was appointed, and that had been the condition on which his candidacy had emerged, as everyone knew. But I won't argue that point further. The text of the article is technically correct, but I will edit it to make the broader point clear.
• I still say you are wrong in writing that a person who is not a member of either House cannot, as a matter of law, be commissioned as PM. If Home had renounced his peerage a week earlier than he did, are you saying the Queen could not have sent for him? I very much doubt this, firstly because my view is still that the Queen can lawfully send for anyone she pleases, and secondly because it was well-known that he was in the process of becoming an MP and therefore there would have been no breach of convention in sending for him even though he was temporarily not a member of either House. Adam 04:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

She couldn't have asked him to form a government if he wasn't in either house. Saying that he was going to try to get elected didn't mean he would be elected. Apart from anything else, making a candidate PM would be an intervention in an election by giving them a boost electorally. While he was in the Lords she would have no responsibility for that. It would be up to him and his party to act subsquently and she would not have responsibility for their political actions. But she would have responsibility if he was outside parliament and she was boosting his chances of getting in. That would have been an overtly political intervention (helping a Tory candidate get a seat by beating Labour and the Liberals) of the sort she could not, and would not, do. Westminster system heads of state and de facto heads of state act in a minimalist manner. However well meaning, too much of an intervention could drag oneself into political controversies, as Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General of Australia, found to his cost. In theory she can ask anyone to form a government. In practice she cannot. She has to choose someone with a seat in either house. In fact nowadays the issue of choosing a peer is off the agenda entirely so that it is now an MP who will always be asked. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Those are political arguments, not constitutional ones. I think you have conceded the constitutional point, for which I thank you.
• On the earlier matter, "The Re-Election of Ministers Act 1919 severely restricted the necessity to seek re-election on appointment to government office. The Re-Election of Ministers Act (1919) Amendment Act 1926 ended the practice." (thanks to David Boothroyd). Adam 05:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort, Adam. Countries with unwritten constitutions do not have a clear demarcation. Their conventions are a product of history, tradition, precedent, political realities and constitutional concepts. That constitutional convention on selecting PMs is 100% rock solid. Nobody without a seat in either house can be appointed prime minister. If the Queen tried to do that she'd be out of job in 24 hours. If Home was not a peer he could not have been appointed and would never have been appointed. It was only the fact that he was a member of one of the houses that qualified him for appointment. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, you yourself wrote: "In theory she can ask anyone to form a government. In practice she cannot." The first sentence concedes the constitutional point (the "theory"). As a matter of law, she can appoint anyone she likes. The second sentence states the political reality that in practice her choice is bound by convention, as I of course acknowledge. Adam 06:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

PS, I would value your comments on Unreformed House of Commons which I finished over the weekend. Adam 06:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we have an issue about the differing "importance" of the constitutional conventions... The convention that the Queen asks whom she likes to form a government is a pretty high level one and is unliekly to be broken short of compleate collapse of society. The convention that the Queen only happens to like the leader of the largest party in the Commons (or, more generally, that she only appoints members of parliment) is more recent and seems more "breakable"... Im not sure, for example, what would happen if a PM died a fortnight before the general election? Logic would sugest that the PMs "deputy" (if there was an obvious one) would be appointed as a caretaker, but in this case they wouldnt be an MP at the time... Iain 13:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Little point to make on all this - a PM who's not a Member of Parliament is more common than you realise - it happens during general elections when all MPs cease to hold their seats until they win again (or someone else does instead). The absence of the House of Commons does not affect the functioning of the Government, and the PM and Ministers hold office until the next PM 'kisses the hand' and forms a new administration - even if the PM loses their seat (in practice the new PM is appointed the following day - the Friday. Mauls

There is however a practical difference in two areas:

1. The Prime Minister was in parliament at the point when s/he was appointed;
2. There are no MPs so it isn't as if he is outside the House and others are in.

It is a different issue to appoint someone from outside an existing Parliament.

BTW in theory the Prime Minister does not legally have to be in the Commons and could still be in the Lords. The reason why only MPs become PM is simply because all parties recognise that for their own electoral purposes they have to be led by an elected MP. In theory any member of the cabinet can be in the Lords still. In practice only the Lord Chancellor is; there has not been a peer in cabinet since Lord Carrington resigned in 1982.

One final point re the above: in practice a new PM is not appointed after each election. When Blair won the last general election he did not Kiss Hands (source: Downing St & the Palace for something I was writing at the time). He was only appointed once: in 1997. Ditto with Thatcher, who was only appointed once, in 1979. It is only if the PM resigns that the Queen commissions someone to form a government, and that only happens when (a) they conclude they cannot gain supply having lost the election, or (b) they have lost their seat, in either which case they resign. Heath in 1974 did not immediately resign, and until he did so the Queen could not ask Wilson to Kiss Hands. In theory, as was the practice in the 19th century, he could have stayed on a put a Queen's Speech to parliament, waited to have it voted down and then resign. The tradition of resigning immediately only dates I think from around 1918 when Lloyd George unilaterally assumed the right (now exercised by all PMs) to decide himself to request a parliamentary dissolution. Until 1918 that was a decision of the entire cabinet. (The 1922 constitution in Ireland copied the pre-1918 procedure, with the Governor-General being advised to dissolve by the Executive Council (cabinet). Only in 1937 did Ireland copy the post-1918 British procedure and have the Taoiseach (prime minister) on his own choose when to ask the President of Ireland for a dissolution.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Queen could of course dismiss a PM who didn't resign... but that would also be a move into controversial terrority - c.f. Whitlam in Australia. An important point to remember with constitutional convention is that it isn't legally binding. Although in normal circumstances political considerations prevent it being broken (whether it applies to the Queen, politicians, etc.) there may be circumstances whereby someone thinks they can claim a special case, and try there luck. In those circumstances there isn't much that others can do, other than shout 'not fair'! - the Whitlam situation was partly as a result of ignoring conventions by both the Government and Opposition (e.g. upper house blocking the budget). More recently, and closer to this article - the Lords through out the long-standing convention that they not oppose legislation that the Government backed in the election. The 'excuse' for convention breaking in that case was the the Government had changed the circumstances by removing hereditary peers from the Lords. Mauls

The convention of resigning immediately after a general election rather than waiting to be voted out by the new House goes back well before 1918. Without checking, I'm fairly certain that Beaconsfield resigned at once in 1880. Possibly Gladstone did so in 1874. The custom was then established unless there was genuine uncertainty about the loyalties of the new House (ie in 1923 and Feb 1974). In 1905, of course, Balfour resigned before the election, a precedent that some others should have followed :) Adam 00:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now checked. Gladstone resigned immediately after the 1874 election, establishing the precedent which has been followed since. Adam 14:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just want to pick up on a point made by FearÉIREANN, who said "there has not been a peer in cabinet since Lord Carrington resigned in 1982". Currently Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, is a member of the Cabinet, and is a life peer. Clearly the above statement made was wrong. --Wisden17 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of seating positions

Parliament (parliament.uk website) lists the number of seats available in the chamber as 427, not 437 as listed here. [1]

Furthermore, the BBC also use this number. [2]

So does Channel 4. [3]

I haven't found a 'respectable' source listing there as being 437 seats - I presume this came from a misprint or typing error somewhere, so am changing it to match the sources referenced.

Mauls 22:46, 17 October

Identical article

I think that there is an identical article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons. for your notice.

The Table

This is an article on the House of Commons, so why does the massive table include Parties who are not represented in the Commons?! Such detail belongs in the article about the general election, not here. I'm afraid to say that the size of the table just made me skip it - not good. --kingboyk 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Partitionist body"

With respect to the recent amendment concerning the Sinn Fein explanation, I believe the previous (now current) wording is correct due to the policy previously adopted by the party. They refuse to sit in the Commons because to do so would be to recognise the authority of the Crown in some part of Ireland, this is true. But there is an additional, more subtle, reason, which is that the writ of the UK Parliament only runs in some part of Ireland. It was for the same reason that the party refused to sit in the Dail until its constitution was amended. When it came to contesting the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998 a similar amendment was made, but the policy still holds for the UK Parliament and the original reasoning stands. --Ross UK 22:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Language

Which words are banned in the Commons? I know that "liar" and "hypocrite" are. —209.98.246.61 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

I am requesting for a temporary lock of this article due to indecent vandalism. The images I have seen on this article are rather indecent for youg children. People who do this should be ashamed!

Draig goch20 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What images? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When I came on here last there was serious pornographic images which could offend young children, this is why I am calling for IP Addresses to be band when using wikipedia so only users will be able to edit/Create articles. Certain content put on here is appaling and I do support the users who fight vandalism, but in the case of wikipedia, there are kids in schools reading it and there are young learners looking at this site at home. Am I right in saying that images like I saw on the day I posted my last comments should be seen by young children using wikipedia?

Draig goch20 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Centrx's revert

I made legitimate changes to the article. Unfortunately, as I was doing so, idiots were vandalising the article. In trying to undo the vandalism, Fedallah accidentally undid some of the changes I made. That's fine, mistakes are made, and he was gracious enough to apologise for it. So I redid the edits I had made. But now Centrx has taken it upon himself to undo my changes, which are clearly not vandalism. I do not want to get into a revert war here. Please redo the changes - which I made in good faith. Salim555 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

errr, featured article!?!?

There is barely any referencing! What has happened to the featured article standards? They seem to be getting more slack. Brentt 10:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

'Representation'

The current text suggests that MPs 'represent' their constituencies. My constitutional understanding was that they represent only themselves. Of course they might well wish to 'represent' their consituents' interests (especially if they fancied re-election some day, or if their 'Party' were pressing...) but the reason they are not called 'Representatives' (or 'Deputies') is an interesting formal one. I'd suggest "...effectively represent" to cover the point, except that that carries the implication that they do so 'effectively', which might be going too far.