Forum Topic

As reported in the Guardian today: ..."Reacting to the unveiling of the nominations, the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords, Lord Fowler, said: “This list of new peers marks a lost opportunity to reduce numbers in the House of Lords. The result will be that the house will soon be nearly 830 strong – almost 200 greater than the House of Commons. That is a massive policy U-turn. It was only two years ago that the then prime minister, Mrs May, pledged herself to a policy of restraint in the number of new appointments. It was the first time that any prime minister had made such a pledge. “This followed a report by a special Lord Speaker’s committee chaired by Lord (Terry) Burns proposing that numbers should be reduced to 600. This was debated by the Lords itself with over 90 speakers, commanding overwhelming support. The big opportunity was for the present government to take forward this movement for reform. I emphasise that this is not a matter of personalities. It is a question of numbers and the abandonment of an established policy to reduce the size of the house. “It is also a vast pity that the list has been announced within the first few days of the summer recess when neither house is sitting, and the government cannot be challenged in Parliament.” ......  ....."Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said: “Based on the average claim of a peer, the 36 new peers are likely to cost £1.1m a year in expenses from the taxpayer. “By appointing a host of ex-MPs, party loyalists and his own brother, the PM is inviting total derision. That he can get away with it shows what a private member’s club this house is. “The Lords was already the largest second chamber in the world. There are now over 800 unelected peers, voting on our laws for life. Is packing the Lords with party loyalists really a priority, as a pandemic rages across the world? This move is an absolute insult to voters. This is making a mockery of democracy.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/31/evgeny-lebedev-jo-johnson-and-ian-botham-among-36-peerage-nominations-boris

Ivonne Holliday ● 1335d

Hello Ed, It is not a question of fixing the process, it is a question of forbidding people taking advantage of it.  Dishonest, nepotistic (if the word exists), cronyism and under-hand people should be forbidden from the process.  Cummings for starters. I believe in democracy wholeheartedly.  Give people a say for the upper house, but beware.  We do have the example of PMs in the HoC for the last 4 years! You must think of the USA because it is the most blinding example we have.  And no, I am not against reform by any stretch of the imagination and am not peddling bad examples to further my argument — it is there for all to see!  I am against ill-thought out, impetuous and PC (personal gain?) reform.  There are very many lovely and positive aspects of democracy in this country — or at least there were. Take, and keep, the best. You say holding those elected accountable.  I would agree with no hesitation.  The last 4 to 6 years would say that this is not happening.  And it is not because they are elected people, well, some, a non-elected adviser seems to have an extraordinary influence on everything and answerable to.... the PM....  The dishonesty is what gets to me, as do the lies.  Peddling lies is the name of the game! As for examples of "most peers were experts in their subject", Betty Boothroyd, Maggie Thatcher, Michael Heseltine, Alan Sugar come to mind. I should be able to rattle more names out but tonight I am exhausted (or suffering from the humid heat!) But I very much doubt that Ian Botham will be able to contribute to anything else than sport and support for Brexit, Kate Hoey politics and suport for Brexit, Claire Fox, politics and support for Brexit.  If you wish complete reform, please do have it.  But a word of warning, reform for reform's sake is more dangerous than ensuring continuity and change as well as change and continuity. All based on honesty, of course!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1336d