Talk:Richard Haldane, 1st Viscount Haldane

Life or hereditary peerage?
Was the Viscount Haldane a life peerage or a hereditary peerage? I thought it was a hereditary peerage that just wasn't given to anyone else, but now that I think about it, that makes no sense... cryptfiend64 23:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

It was a hereditary peerage - there are no life Viscounts. Presumably, Lord Haldane had no sons, so his title died with him. john k 06:56, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

There were no life peers at that time anyway - life peerages were revived (not invented as there had been some in earlier eras) in the late 1950s.Paulturtle (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Labour Cabinet Ministers with experience
Haldane was a vital member of the Cabinet as he was one of only three members who had sat in a cabinet before; the other two had sat only briefly and for junior posts.

I know the second was Arthur Henderson but who was the third? Timrollpickering 15:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably J. R. Clynes who was a Minister in 1918, looking at Labour Government 1924 (though others had been undersecretaries) PS: could someone fix the box, with extra brackets?? though the spelling looks OK Hugo999 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Haldane quote he probably didn't want to be reminded off.
"We do not consider that aeroplanes will be of any possible use for war purposes"


 * Lots of people thought that initially, including (allegedly) Foch. Technology came on a lot in a few years, but even at the start of the war they were still largely used for reconnaissance.Paulturtle (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He moved to the "left"?
In this context, I'm frankly unsure what the author meant by writing that Haldane moved to the "left"? Left in the meaning of the era, or left in our contemporary understanding of it? Left socially? Fiscally? Authoritatively? Can someone shed some light on this? (A citation would also be quite helpful on this point, as it may be a subjective claim).--Rumplefurskin 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to mean something like 'closer to the Labour Party'. There's no need to make it so problematical. Norvo 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, since the usage of "left" and "right" varies with region, this usage is nearly useless to someone unfamiliar in detail with the present or historical politics of the U.K.. Something more needs to be provided. "Closer to the Labour Party", for instance, is far more illuminating! --Rumplefurskin 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the phrase, as suggested. Norvo (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of reference
Under the Canada section there is no reference for the criticism of Lord Haldane by Bora Laskin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.46.125 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes there is: see the last two sentences of the section:  "Haldane's approach to the division of powers was heavily criticised by some academics and lawyers in Canada, such as F.R. Scott[21] and Chief Justice Bora Laskin, as unduly favouring the provinces over the federal government and depriving the federal government of the powers needed to deal with modern economic issues. More recently, one major study has characterised him as "the wicked stepfather" of the Canadian Constitution."  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Constitutional Crisis of 1909-11
I made some dramatic excisions to this section, as it reads as though it was written by someone who hadn't quite grasped it. (It's discussed accurately in the biogs of Edward VII and Asquith, which I wrote up about 2 years ago). The dates weren't even right, for a start.

''It was the last occasion a monarch would challenge a Prime Minister's status, but not without precedent. Haldane told the King in December 1909 that Asquith "wished to obtain a promise...before the General Election" that he would not interfere with the result by creating many new peers.''


 * The Monarch's role as Head of State (deciding whom to "invite to form a government" if there was no clear choice, giving permission for a General Election to be held, etc) was a lot more actively exercised then than now. The passage as written suggests that Royal opposition was the problem in the crisis; it wasn't - both Edward VII and his son George V eventually backed off rather than be seen to "take sides", even though the Liberal mandate was actually quite thin (two hung Parliaments in 1910, with the Libs kept in by the Irish Nats). It also suggests that the King might have tried to block the Liberals by creating peers, which is the opposite of what happened - the Tories had a huge majority in the Lords (as a result of the Liberal split of 1886); it was Asquith who wanted to create peers and the King was reluctant to do so as it would be such a constitutional upheaval and would open the way to Irish Home Rule.


 * Edward VII didn't make that much objection to there being an election in Jan 1910, as the sodding budget wouldn't pass despite his efforts to urge the Tory peers to compromise (the Tories passed it in April, as it now had a mandate of sorts), but neither monarch would agree to a mass creation of peers until Asquith had "won" a second election later in the year.


 * Once the Parliament Act had passed (1911), under threat of mass creation of peers, the issue then switched to the Third Home Rule Bill (1912), which the Lords had now lost the power to block and for which Asquith had no UK-wide mandate as he had been studiously ambiguous on the issue during the Dec 1910 election - King George V took legal advice that he would still be within his rights to veto legislation for which there was no clear mandate, or to order a General Election contrary to the PM's wishes, or simply to dismiss the Prime Minister. The answer was that he was (indeed, technically the Monarch still is entitled to do any of those things to this day), but he backed off rather than exacerbate the crisis. Home Rule was due to become law by 1914, as the Lords now had the power to delay for two years, and by the time the First World War broke out the government were trying to negotiate a settlement about the Six Counties which now make up Northern Ireland, having been faced with the threat of mass resignations of Army officers (the so-called "Curragh Incident") when they tried to deploy force against Ulster.

became Leader in the Lords, responsible for steering the Parliament Act past the Tories.


 * he wasn't really in any position to do so, as the Tories had a massive majority in the Upper House. It hinged on the potential creation of hundreds of Liberal peers. Faced with that threat, the Tory peers split three ways - a few Tory peers under Lord Curzon voted in favour, and many more abstained - so it passed.Paulturtle (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Provocative ?
What ? He was a Scottish politician etc. ? --2001:A61:2B86:9801:183A:FF33:7861:4676 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)