Hereditary peerages will be abolished before the next king's speech after a deal was struck granting life peerages to some Conservatives and cross-benchers losing their seats.
On Tuesday evening the upper chamber accepted a final draft of the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, marking the end of its passage through parliament and clearing the way for it to be added to the statute book.
The Lords leader, Angela Smith, confirmed the government would offer life peerages to some of those who would otherwise lose their seats. As a result, the Tories withdrew their opposition to the bill.
They also explained:
Since 1999, up to 92 hereditary peers have been able to sit in the upper house and cast their votes in the lobbies but the bill effectively reduces this quota to zero.
Hereditary peers who have not been made life peers will no longer have a right to sit in the Lords once the current parliamentary session ends, expected later this spring.
So reform was 'bought' with what I think to be a corrupt offer of life peerages. That, in itself, spells out why the remaining Lords have to go. The Lords are a giant rotten borough which democracy cannot reach, and where votes can be bought.
Total abolition is required, alongside proportional representation for the Commons. If we wish to live in a democracy, nothing less will do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
I’m glad that the hereditary Lords are going. I agree there is a whiff of corruption about offering life peerages. But, if that is the cost then, in the government’s position, I would hold my nose and do the deal.
It brings to mind the deal to end slavery in the UK, where slave owners were paid off. That deal stank. It still stinks centuries later. But it was, IMO, the right thing to do.
@Tim Kent
Agree with you 100%.
This is deal when one must hold one’s nose and proceed through the swamp in order to get the swamp cleaned-up in the long term.
I also think they need to immediately limit the number of life peers sitting in the House of Lords to 200 with the long term goal of getting rid of the House of Lords completely and replacing it with a “Senate”.
Elected members of the Senate would serve 8 year terms and would be allowed to serve a total of two terms or 16 years. In other words, Senators could only be elected twice. If a Senator resigns for any reason, the Senator could not run for re-election no matter how many years he has served or has left to serve.
FYI: I am well aware of the need for change and support changes for members (House and Senate) of the US congress.
It is far too easy to bribe donors and bench warmers with silly robes and silly titles. Only the SNP seem to have stuck to principle on refusing to have anything to do with the Ruritanian nonsense, despite rumours that Westminster tried waving baubles at them.
The advantage of the House of Lords is that it is a repository of experience and wisdom that may not be found in the elected Commons at any given time. I have no problem with abolishing the hereditary element, and it is a great shame that peerages have often been awarded for quite the wrong reasons, but don’t we need a recognised system to use the experience and wisdom of people who may not have been mere career politicians?
We could have a Senate for that purpose. The Irish seemed to have affected this quite well.
I can’t see that the remaining hereditary peers have added much since 1999. It is time for them to go.
But that leaves undone wider reform of both houses. We still have one house elected entirely by first-past-the-post and the second wholly reliant on political patronage for their life tenure.
Total abolition? You support a unicameral legislature, Richard? Or would you replace it with something else?
I can see some advantage in a slower, more deliberative process, with a second chamber constituted on a different democratic basis, with the ability to make the first chamber think again.
I support proportional representation for a lower house. I think there is an advantage to having a second chamber. I think the members should be elected for a a single long term of up to 15 years, although ten is possible. They should not be capable of holding government positions. Their role should be advisory and not anything more than that.
We live in a country where if you are a job-seeker and you fail to to attend a job interview, your benefit is cut but where also if you are in a position of prestige or fealty, you are paid or rewarded well in some way to accept reasonable change even though what you do is not subject to any form of democracy or review of performance or gained by anything other than what exactly?
I say again, in all seriousness this is not a democratic system. Democracy in the United kingdom does not actually exist. It is actually parliament that is the figurative head of state – not the king.
Let’s hope its sequential change, bit by bit, agree the dead stoat society has gotta go.
Demos Kratos – People Rule.
Not patricians, patriarchs, or plutocrats.
Labour’s surefire recipe for government – take any Starmer pledge (manifesto commitments may be substituted) and dilute with unlimited quantities of lukewarm water. Discard the original pledge/commitment. Whisk water to a froth with large helping of PR cream-substitute, and decorate with icing. Store for several years. Serve, once everyone has forgotten about the original pledge/commitment.
Pierage – they should be taken to the end of one! You are absolutely correct the deal is a sordid one and again gives the lie that we live in a democracy, Typical LINO politics.
In principle and in practice, the House of Lords is undemocratic. It needs to go. Despite the decline and insignificance of the Tory Party, they are still the largest party in the Lords. That cannot be allowed to continue.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/house-of-lords-data-dashboard-membership-of-the-house/
There is also the question of what might happen after the next election.
What if Reform were the Government? I assume they would create hundreds of peers to get their legislation through. Given how they have backtracked on PR, I can easily imagine Reform creating several hundred peers to dominate the undemocratic House of Lords.
What then, if five years later, Reform are voted out? What would Labour do – assuming they got back in (I know its unlikely given the current trajectory of Labour, but this is hypothetical). Faced with a Reform/Tory dominated House of Lords? Would Labour then create a thousand peers, so they can govern?
It’s farcical and undemocratic.
The Greens have said they would abolish it, and replace it with a democratically elected chamber. Another reason why they are a better vote than Labour right now.
Time to be rid of the House of Lords. If the Lords themselves think they have something to offer, they can stand for election to a second chamber.
Much to agree with