As has been widely reported, Liz Truss is apparently planning to appoint Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs, as well as other far-right libertarian allies, to the House of Lords in her resignation honours list to which she thinks she is entitled following her disastrous seven weeks as prime minister.
I know Mark, a bit. We have done radio together for more than a decade. I spoke at the IEA once, a long time ago, although the BBC arranged it. I know a little bit about him as a result, beyond that which you might pick up from the press.
I have to say that I have seen no evidence, at all, that he would add value to the House of Lords.
He is dedicated to secrecy.
His organisation has published papers promoting tax havens and the abuse they allow.
He quite literally opposes the public interest because he denies it exists. Only the individual matters.
And the economics of the IEA (if it is possible to describe their ethos with that term) is motivated solely by selfishness and contempt for anyone but winners.
Those economics crashed the economy.
It also led to Brexit, which has been a total disaster.
There is no room for another person with such sentiments in the Lords where the requirement is that a person legislates for the benefit of others and not solely for those who might fund them, which is how the IEA has been run.
I have long called Mark Littelwood 'comrade'. I will never call him 'Lord'. I sincerely hope I never have reason to do so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It is a total nonsense that Truss is allowed to have any sort of honours list. The whole system has fallen into total disrepute.
Agree 100%
In my opinion the Crown -or any other Head of state- should be able to refuse. Otherwise what is the point of having one? Far from being interference in politics it would be safeguarding the dignity and credibility of the Upper House.
I can only hope the next government do away with the Lords as constituted and create a Chamber with a clear mandate and purpose. I
It should be chosen on a regional basis by proportional representation (STV if possible as it gives a chance to individuals ) so would more accurately reflect the breadth of opinion in the country. I would be happy to have a number of Senators who are appointed by an independent commission for a fixed term but not by a Prime Minister especially one who had to resign for lack of integrity or incompetence and moreover, forced to do so by the ministers they appointed.
Agreed. This system is blatantly open to manipulation as well – if 7 pms resign within one voting cycle, you will get 7 sets of their Lords in Parliament as it is! What a joke…
With Johnson and Truss choosing people to award titles and the possibility of a Labour Government the prospects for finally replacing the House of Lords have never been better.
That Johnson’s list is taking so long to happen suggests that it is the exercise in arrogant contempt for Britain and the British people that we all expect it to be and even the idea of a Truss List is a huge offence against honesty and decency in public life.
So it all depends on Starmer and new New Labour. What are the odds?
How a failed administration can be allowed to appoint its fellow architects in failure is quite frankly all you need about this rotten borough of a country.
It’s the tory spring conference this weekend. Press and public are not allowed to go, only those specifically invited.
I bet Mark Littlewood is there.
🙂
I think the problem with the ‘so and so doesn’t belong in the House of Lords’ takes is that it inherently legitimatises the institution itself. As if they sully the good name of this bastion of anti-democracy.
As if whoever prompts such outcry is any worse than most of the other awful people in the HOL.
Appointments such as this can be useful to make the case for reform, but I don’t like the framing that anyone ‘doesn’t deserve it’. None of them do.
Prem Sikka deserves his place in the lords, if only because he wants to abolish it.
This is quite good on showing Mark Littlewood’s thinking
https://iea.org.uk/blog/house-of-lords-reform-%E2%80%93-what-do-we-want-from-a-second-chamber
Seems like a lot of considered and reasonable points.
On the basis of Prem being in, then so should Littlewood.
You make a category error.
I know both men.
Prem Sikka cares.
Mark Littlewood does not.
That is why Prem deserves his position and Mark Littlewood does not.
If Keir Starmer becomes PM, the HOL should be abolished. End of.
There may well be some decent folk amongst them, but come on.
Does anyone remember the HOL vote on the poll tax? Several hundred peers, many of them in wheelchairs, turning up to vote it through after quite a few of those new fangled life peers were in danger of blocking Thatcher’s bill?
I know the membership is different now, but the whole edifice needs torn down.
On current form Starmer will keep it – he is nothing if not an establishment cipher.
On a related & hopefully amusing note: Eurotunnel address me as “Lord Parr” – when booking a crossing they ask for my title & offer options – including “Lord” makes me laugh when the ticket booth at the entrance shows “Welcome Lord Parr” – if we all did it the title would lose all meaning (not that it has much now).
George Parr?
Thanks for calling this out Richard. The audacity of these fallen leaders is hard to swallow. The HoL is riddled with cronies and sponsors and, to take the farce to a new level, a close relative is now proposed. Some members work hard to defend public interest but the current tally of 781 members entitled to £305 a day plus business class flights to London just for showing up is money that could be better used elsewhere. Critics say ‘the chamber is bloated, anachronistic and inefficient.’ I totally agree, but am not so sure on how to get the turkeys to vote for Xmas.
At the risk of being shot down in flames … there have been moments (since 2019/20 – spot the connection) when I have been glad the HoL has been there, if only to put the brakes on some of the worst legislation in my lifetime. If only there were more like Jenny Jones, Prem Sikka (already mentioned) and others of their ilk, who take the job seriously, scrutinise, research and deliver balanced, well reasoned arguments – prompting those in the other house to think twice; the trouble is they are hugely outnumbered. It is the selection process that is wrong.
I do agree with most of the other comments, just not total abolition. Reform? Yes, definitely.
£332, daily attendance fee + travel expenses + subsidised restaurant facilities. Some ‘lords’ just turn up, sign the book and leave – a nice little earner.