Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
The House of Lords is used to getting bad press. Naturally, many would disagree.
After all, it is not entirely elected by the people, and the average age of its members is is 71less than one-third of which I’m a woman92 is Hereditary Companion And respected independent policy experts continue to be forced to sit next to more friends, no matter who becomes prime minister.
No matter how important and dedicated work my colleagues were doing late at night to scrutinize the bill, 4:16 am They know this is not good for British politics, as is the case with this month’s illegal immigration bill.
But the past two weeks may have been a new low for the lords, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s resignation list gave fresh ammunition to those wanting a thorough reform or replacement of the upper house.
Anger at the former prime minister who raises “”carousel of entourage”- including his loyal but inexperienced adviser Ross Kempsel And anger over reports of Charlotte Owens and his personal lobbying for the addition of Nadine Dries further fueled the frustration of the irresponsible Westminster elite.
Perhaps most loathsome is how the Counts, Baronesses, Marchionesses and Viscounts themselves feel about the matter.
The Labor Party said “our peers are embarrassed by the propaganda”. Angela SmithBaroness Basildon and House of Lords opposition leader said: I. “It’s a big frustration.”
She argues that many of her existing peers are seasoned people trying to do the job of checking House-sponsored bills, so they don’t deserve the blame in the current controversy. She rather said, “It should be the Prime Minister who appoints.”
“We can control what we do and how we work, but we can’t control the appointment system, which is our biggest criticism as an organization,” said Baroness Smith. “That’s a well-deserved criticism. I’m very critical. It needs a major overhaul.”
She believes the situation has deteriorated so badly that her colleagues are now calling for stronger rules about who can be appointed more enthusiastically than many MPs, especially Conservative MPs. “This must be the first time in history that the House of Lords itself wants reform and the government is blocking it,” she said.
Constitutional experts agree that there is an increasing need for reform. Hannah White, director of the Institute of Government think tanks, said: wrote this month“Mr Johnson’s final alteration of the House of Lords is the starkest reminder why ex-Prime Ministers are no longer allowed to appoint friends, allies and benefactors to tenure in the UK’s Second Legislative House. ing.”
Complaints from opponents of the House of Lords
expense
Most parliamentarians do not receive parliamentary salaries, but are eligible for parliamentary salaries. £342 per day, plus transportation costs. 1 crossbench pier, Baron Khalid Hamedwas recently reported to have charged £18,000 a year for not speaking or casting a single vote, while the former Scottish Conservative leader said: Baroness Ruth Davidson She charged around £25,000 for the year she gave four speeches.
Hereditary Companion
There are 806 hereditary nobles in England, 92 of them Aristocrats are still allowed seats and votes, and many argue that this entrenches the privilege of the upper classes in British politics. They are elected by a by-election. In this by-election, only aristocrats can vote, only hereditary aristocrats can stand, and a quota of people can be represented for each political party.
bishop
Twenty-six Anglican bishops, known as Lords of the Holy Spirit, hold seats in the Senate, a privilege not conferred on other faiths. Humanist Britain said that thisA highly unusual and anti-democratic regimeBritain, along with Iran, became the only two countries in the world to give their official clerics a vote in parliament.
Dr. Jess Garland, Director of Research Policy Election Reform AssociationThe company, which has long lobbied for modernization, believes the public will find talk of a “horse deal” over who to appoint more “awful” than ever.
“Boris’ list has revealed to the public how these titles are determined behind the scenes,” she says. I. “It’s not a club membership, but some people probably treat it as such. It’s really a seat in parliament that has a say in the rules that affect people.”
She argues that the search for the perfect solution has led to paralysis. “People get so caught up in the ‘this has to be this, this has to be this’ thinking that they can’t move forward,” she said. There are many ways to produce something that is justified in
Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer pledged last year to abolish the “” system.indefensibleHouse of Peers when he becomes prime minister. It will back former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s proposal to replace it with an elected “national and regional parliament”, pending consultation on the “exact composition and method” of voting.
But some are skeptical that Mr Sturmer will invest time and energy into it, when there are so many other big issues to deal with in the UK and internationally.
Labor heavyweights Lord Mandelson and Lord Blanket were also skeptical, the latter calling Mr Brown “obsessionLord Adonis, who supports an elected lordship, but considering its feasibility, wrote last week:I wouldn’t bet on that“
Such doubts may be further heightened by reports that Labor is planning to: appoint dozens more in-house colleagues If I win the next election.
Even those who advocate long-term reform are skeptical of short-term reform to prevent Labor’s immediate legislative priorities from being delayed by their Conservative peers while precise plans to replace the aristocracy are developed. one might accept that this is necessary. Until you can change the game, you have to play by the existing rules.
But this may be the first sign that the issue is gradually being pushed to the agenda, one party official said. Times: “Abolishing the aristocracy was by no means a key mission in the first three years of Labor government.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reportedly keen on reforming House of Lords to prevent starmers from deprecating it (Especially when the Conservative Party is by far the largest party).
There is also widespread concern across Congress that an elected second house will threaten the power of the House of Representatives and usurp the expertise of cross-ventures appointed for non-political work.
Baroness Smith, a former member of parliament who was granted a life peerage in 2010, agrees that it is “very important” that aristocrats should never rule the House of Commons.
She remains in favor of full election in the Second House, and is confident that it can be achieved. But she recognizes that reaching agreement on new formats will inevitably take time. In that case, immediate action is required to restore trust and ensure that the load works properly. She advocates for smaller interim changes to be made while more drastic long-term changes are decided.
“I don’t think we can wait until we understand exactly how elected lords work before urgently reforming the appointment system,” she says.
“If you ask me, ‘Will Mr. Keir focus on the House of Lords and constitutional issues from day one?’ No, he should focus on the cost of living and helping the people. Does that mean there’s no room to make changes?
She added: “We shouldn’t make resignation lists that put people in the House of Lords as a goodbye gesture. Neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown made a list, but now we have three Conservative prime ministers. I did. Keep using it. I heard Liz Truss has one too, but I don’t know if I’ll ever actually see it.”
“There’s still a lot we can do to make sure everyone who comes here takes this issue seriously,” she said, noting that Boris Johnson, as a particular example, voted to vote to support Brexit in 2020. He cited the title he bestowed on former England cricket captain Ian Botham. .
“There are other kinds of recognition, such as writing him a letter of thanks, but it seems to me that giving him a position in parliament is an unfair abuse of the system.”
The Liberal Democrats are also in favor of sweeping change. But Baron Richard Newby, the leader of their lordship, says: I: “I’m pessimistic about sweeping reforms because I don’t think Labor’s heart is there.”
He said Johnson’s peerage was an example of a “ridiculous system” but, horrifyingly, compared to a string of recent appointments, it was “not a terrible level,” adding: “Fortunately, this time it’s a political party. There are no donors,” he added. Lord Newby fears that this renewed “ridicule” will not put the final nail in his coffin, even if Truss turns in his resignation list after just 44 days in office.
“It turned out to be very difficult to do anything with the lord,” he says. “The preamble to the 1911 law which reduced its powers said it would do this temporarily until the House of Lords was democratically rebuilt. Nothing happened about it for 112 years. ”
Lord Newby agreed with Baroness Smith’s opinion that there was an appetite for change among her peers, and many people read Lord Burns’ 2017 report, which officially recommended that the size of the nobility be phased out. supported by up to about 600 By creating appointments on a two-out, one-in basis.government failed to act.
He said a replacement of Mr Burns “will not yet address the problems that Labor may face, the problems it may face if there is a change of government”. [in the Commons]needs a rebalance [in the Lords] Otherwise, the government will be in a very weak position. “
For now, parties that disagree with how lords are appointed have no choice but to accept it if they want their voices to be heard, he added. “It’s like saying to a striker in football: ‘Are you tired of the offside rule?'” Until we change the rules, either play by the rules or play the game. is. “
The situation was exemplified last week by an internal by-election to choose which hereditary MP will represent the Liberal Democrats after their predecessors retire. (The winner was Earl Russell, great-great-grandson of the last Whig Prime MinisterDefeated Earl Lloyd George, great-grandson of the last Liberal Prime Minister. )
However, some aristocrats may hope for smaller reforms to keep the lord as the designated seat of parliament. The main speaker, former Labor MP John McFaul, said he wanted to avoid “an impasse and rivalry between the fully elected bicameral chambers” and “independent expertise”.
In his speech in December, he said: “I don’t want to predict the outcome of the referendum on the nobility. But I remember in 2013 the Irish government tried to abolish the non-directly elected upper house of parliament and put the proposal to a referendum. Ireland The public voted to keep the Senate in place, 52 percent to 48 percent.”
twitter: @robhastings