This morning, I published the second in my series on what Labour might do now that it is in office for almost no cost at all. In it, I argue that the 92 remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords are a historical anachronism that preserves privilege for the aristocracy when that should have been gone long ago. It is time for them to go.
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
Labour needs to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
It does, of course, need to abolish the House of Lords as a whole, and it has said it will do that. But I do recall that this was on the agenda of Tony Blair's government in 1997 and nothing happened, and I fear that Keir Starmer is going to be in much the same place. There's always going to be something better to do than abolish the House of Lords.
However, he could get rid of the hereditary peers. There are 92 peers - Lords or Baronesses - who sit in the House of Lords because their fathers were peers. They are there purely because of family privilege passed down the line from some predecessor of theirs who was appointed probably a very long time ago to sit in the House of Lords for reasons that, well, let's be totally honest, we might best want to forget.
Why should they still have a part to play in the creation of legislation in this country?
Why should such privilege be respected still when there is no reason to presume that they are any better than any other person in any other street in the UK to sit in that place? Because frankly, they're probably not.
So, if Keir Starmer wants to send out a clear message to this country, that he believes that everyone is equal, that everyone should have a chance, that everyone should take their place in society without fear of being prejudiced by privilege, which is what is happening now, then he should abolish those hereditary peers, and do so as soon as possible.
We don't need them. There are already too many peers in the House of Lords anyway, and he will be creating more - he has already done so - to try to rebalance the Labour minority against the Tory majority that already sits in that place. Best to do that by getting rid of those hereditary peers.
Let's abolish privilege for good. Let's get rid of this idea that being born into the aristocracy does somehow give you the right to govern. It doesn't.
Come on Labour, let's do it.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
There is a very easy way to start weeding out the most dead wood in the HOL based on performance. There will be metrics of attendance (not just signing in for the grift, and then off to the club), speeches, contributions and voting volumes.
Anyone who hasn’t contributed (allowing for illness etc and other official STATE duties which benefit the demos) ‘X’ amount over the previous 2 years is out. No ifs, no buts (assuming fair selection on the criteria). That should cull about 50%.
These people need to understand that this isn’t a sinecure for their personal / corporate interests enrichment.
Introduce a serving term for the rest – with the possibility of renewal, again based on contribution, people being invited to join because of the contributions their expertise could bring, rather than back scratching and cronyism.
Until a more democratic system of revising house can be instituted.
Frankly, I’ve lost count how many times the Labour Party has promised to abolish the House of Lords. I believe the first time it was aired in Parliament was in 1892, when the newly elected M.P for West Ham South, one Keir Hardie, advocated this course of action. Still waiting.
And in a multi-faith and secular society the Lords Spritual could go as well?
True
I should have added that
While one is going about it, why not get rid of the Royal Family?
It is 100% possible to have a constitutional monarch without having a Royal Family.
The Royal Family bothers me more than 99 hereditary peers and 300 “professional hanger on” life peers.
I know Labour would not go near that, so I will not bother
@Richard
Where is Tony Benn when he is needed! LOL! LOL!
IMAO, a House of Lords ( a nominated Senate for life) is not a bad idea but there is no reason for 774 sitting Lords for the purpose of playing a crucial role in examining bills, questioning government action and investigating public policy .
It would work better with 300-400 sitting Lords. Make the current 774 sitting members of the house undergo an election via rank choice voting by the public for 350 seats. Then as one peer dies or retires have a rank choice election for a replacement. This may be complicated but a simpler scenario, along this lien, could easily be devised.
In reality nothing like all 774 take part on a regiualr basis
Which is why over half of theses peers need to be shown the door and put out to pasture.
Thank you, Richard.
Between the wars, only about twenty peers, all hereditary, bothered to take part in deliberations. They usually turned up when something that threatened their privileges, whether political or land, was proposed.
Lords Spiritual should be kept cos they do contribute thoughtfully. But I wish the legislative purpose of the House of Lords wasn’t confused with a desire to acknowledge achievement in unrelated fields such as sports.
Just disconnect the two; Just because one is awarded a lifetime peerage should not mean you have a right to sit in the House of Lords or should I more correctly state “Reformed House of Lords”
I don’t think the ‘Lords Spiritual’ have any business at all being included by right of office alone in the upper house.
How contentious is that as an opinion? Not very in this day and age, I suggest.
I don’t think the fact, if indeed it is a fact, that some of the Lords Spiritual make thoughtful contributions is a very good reason for keeping them. The same applies to hereditary peers.
As for the legislative purpose of the HOL being confused with a desire to acknowledge achievement, if, for instance, a sports personality is elevated to the Lords then he/she becomes part of the legislature. I don’t see how anyone would find that confusing.
The House of Lords sets a standard for elderly care in this country. It should emulated across the social scale rather than abolished.
I’m not entirely joking.
Apparently they will have to retire at the age of 80. That won’t get rid of many, or will it?
They have just appointed Margaret Beckett and Margaret Hodge – both at last 80 – so I don’t think they have the slightest intention of making people retire at that age
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/10/reduce-lords-retirement-age-80-not-about-joe-biden-keir-starmer
The Guardian seems to think it is happening. They obviously don’t know what they are doing!
Hodge is not 80, I just found out. She’s 79.5. It’s not happening…..
From The Guardian a Keir Starmer quote;
“That is the primary driver of the retirement at 80. You can see why that needs to be done. We’ve got 800-plus members of the Lords, it’s simply too big. We need to reduce it.”
Noe Schitt Sherlock!
With regards to sports figures in the House of Lords, I can see David Beckham bringing more valuable input than the Bra Baroness. At least David Beckham has lived on “both sides of the fence” in England. Mr. Beckham has also lived all over the Western World. I cannot come up with anything positive to say about the Bra Baroness person.
Beckham is apparently considered unsuitable by HMRC….
@Richard –
Neither Beckham or the Bra Baroness have any business in the House of Lords. I just use these two “achievers” as examples of how ridiculous the “The Honours List” seems to be if receiving a life peerages entitles one to sit in the House of Lords.
[…] Labour needs to abolish the hereditary peers Funding the Future […]