Member News
By Ned Simons - 1st December 2010
Former UK Independence Party leader Lord Pearson has demanded to know why David Cameron refused to create more peers from his party.
Speaking in the House of Lords this afternoon, Lord Pearson said it was inconsistent for the coalition to ignore his party when choosing new members of the upper House.
"If it were true that the government is appointing new peers in proportion to vote casts at last general election, then why does Ukip not have 24 peers?" he asked.
He added: "Why did prime minister refuse a single extra peer?"
Last month the government created 54 new peers.
Of those 27 were Conservatives, 15 were Liberal Democrats, ten were Labour and one was a member of Plaid Cymru.
Former chief of the general staff General Sir Richard Dannatt was also elevated to the Lords as a crossbencher.
Lord Pearson, who stood down as Ukip leader after a poor personal performance during the general election, was responding to comments by justice minister Lord McNally.
"The new appointments since general election are entirely consistent with the coalition programme for government which set the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote of the parties in the last general election," the Liberal Democrat peer said.
The Liberal Democrat peer told Lord Pearson he did not know the reason why the prime minister had not elevated more members of Ukip.
"I do not know, it's not in my brief, I will go back and find out," he said.
Ukip currently has two peers, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Lord Pearson was elevated to the House of Lords as a Tory peer, but defected to Ukip in 2007.
Lord Willoughby de Broke is a hereditary peer who survived the cull of inherited peers in 1999.
Ukip secured 3.1 per cent of the vote at the May general election and has 12 MEPs.
Article Comments
Seats in the Commons has no bearing on seats in the Lords, UKIP came second in the European elections in 2009 the first time in living memory that a sitting government has been beaten out of sight. Is that not a fair representation of the electorates opinion?
arkwright
2nd Dec 2010 at 2:22 pm
The cabal of crooks in the main three parties have it all stitched up.
Representing the will of the people means nothing to the Tories, Labour or the horrendous Lib Dems in this post democratic age.
Labour and the Lib Dems can be understood - deep down they loath, despise Great Britain, our history, our culture, our language & heritage - but the Tories?
Chameleon Dave is a committed Euro federalist - like all the main three party leaders - UKIP are the only alternative political party in the Uk to further integration into the socialist superstate.
Righty Right Wing (Mrs)
2nd Dec 2010 at 12:13 pm
Well 'Super Blue' if the voting system wasn't such a shambles then we (UKIP) would certainly have MPs in the House of Commons. Nearly 1 million votes, yet 0 seats. Green party had what, something like 300k votes and it got a seat. FPTP is unfair, it does not truly represent each individual, like PR would.
Quite frankly FPTP suits the bigger parties, as PR would see them with less votes. I do not believe that is fair at all.
Tom
1st Dec 2010 at 9:30 pm
'They could, of course, try winning seats in the House of Commons first.'
Herman Van Rumpy Pumpy and Baroness Ashweighsaton could, of course, try first!
ioewhiguwh
1st Dec 2010 at 7:15 pm
They could, of course, try winning seats in the House of Commons first.
Super Blue
1st Dec 2010 at 4:30 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.