Summary:
Boris Johnson has sent seven allies and political advisers to Britain’s House of Lords, reigniting the debate on the second chamber reform dossier. With nearly 800 members, the House of Lords is the world’s second-largest legislative chamber after the Chinese National People’s Congress. Johnson used his prerogative as the incumbent British Prime Minister to send candidates to sit on the crowded Red Benches of Parliament, allowing them to make laws for the rest of their lives without needing to win an election. His resignation list has shed light on the process by which people find themselves appointed lawmakers, tasked with a review of legislation transmitted by the elected House of Commons. Many prime ministers have pushed the issue down their priority list, fearing legislative trench warfare with a House of Lords fighting for its own survival. Liberal Democrat peers will hold a ‘by-election’ to choose a blue-blooded successor to Viscount Falkland, who is retiring after nearly 40 years in politics.
Additional Piece:
The recent controversy surrounding the appointment of Johnson’s allies and political advisers to the House of Lords highlights the urgent need for reform of the second chamber. While the House of Lords has its merits, such as the ability to scrutinize legislation meticulously, there are several issues with its present composition and functioning that raise concerns.
Firstly, the fact that members are appointed based on patronage rather than merit is problematic. As a result, many members lack the expertise and skills necessary to contribute meaningfully to the legislative process. This has led to accusations of political cronyism, and some have suggested that the House of Lords is little more than a retirement home for politicians and their allies.
Secondly, the sheer size of the House of Lords is a concern. With nearly 800 members, it is difficult to see how they can all contribute meaningfully to the work of the chamber. Furthermore, the cost of maintaining such a large institution is significant, and this has raised questions about the use of taxpayer funds to support the House of Lords.
Finally, the issue of hereditary peers is another major concern. While many hereditary peers contribute positively to the work of the House of Lords, the fact that they are appointed based solely on the circumstances of their birth is undemocratic and unfair. Furthermore, it perpetuates a system of privilege and elitism that runs counter to the principles of a modern democracy.
Some have called for the abolition of the House of Lords altogether, while others have proposed more measured reforms, such as an elected second chamber. Whatever the solution, it is clear that the status quo is no longer tenable, and there is an urgent need for change. Otherwise, the House of Lords risks becoming a relic of a bygone era, out of touch with the realities of modern democracy and no longer fit for purpose.
In conclusion, reform of the House of Lords is long overdue. The recent controversy surrounding the appointment of Johnson’s allies and political advisers highlights the urgent need for change. Whether through abolition, reform, or some other means, it is time to address the issues that have plagued the second chamber for too long and to create a more representative, democratic institution that can effectively scrutinize and hold accountable the work of the government and the House of Commons.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Boris Johnson has sent seven other allies and political advisers to Britain’s bloated House of Lords, a parting gift to the nation that has reignited debate on the second chamber reform dossier.
Johnson used his prerogative as incumbent British Prime Minister to send candidates to sit on the crowded Red Benches of Parliament, allowing them to make laws for the rest of their lives without needing to win an election.
With nearly 800 members, the House of Lords is the second largest legislative chamber in the world, behind the Chinese National People’s Congress. Neither is exactly an advertisement for democracy.
Johnson’s peer list includes Charlotte Owen, a former special adviser and now Britain’s youngest member of the Lords, who was born in 1993 and whose only work experience has been a series of behind-the-scenes political jobs.
Ross Kempsell, a former Times Radio reporter and spokesperson for Johnson, becomes a peer at 31. Other former Downing Street advisers including Ben Gascoigne and Dan Rosenfield are also on the list.
It could have been more; the House of Lords Nominations Committee, which reviews nominations, rejected eight of Johnson’s nominees, to the ex-prime minister’s fury.
“The carousel of cronies he tried to push through completely undermines the House of Lords,” said Angela Rayner, deputy leader of the Labor Party.
Once appointed to the upper house – where the average age is 71 – peers help draft Britain’s laws until they retire or die, enjoying the titles of ‘Lord’ or ‘Baroness’, which still enjoy of a cachet in British society.
Showing up for work in the Second House has some big upsides: the spectacular Palace of Westminster is one of London’s best clubs with cheap food and wine. Peers can claim £322 a day just for attending.
Johnson’s resignation list has again shed light on the process by which people find themselves appointed lawmakers, tasked with review of legislation transmitted by the elected House of Commons.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Labor leader, has vowed to abolish the Lords and replace it with an elected ‘Assembly of Nations and Regions’, reducing it to perhaps just 200 members, but he has not pledged to do so. do during his first term.
Indeed, many prime ministers – including Tory David Cameron – quickly pushed the issue down their priority list, fearing legislative trench warfare with a House of Lords fighting for its own survival.
Downing Street said Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had “no intention of changing the long-standing custom of former prime ministers having honor rolls of dismissal or resignation”. Constitutional immobility has become the norm.
Life peers eligible to sit in the House of Lords number just over 650, but at least they are nominated by elected political leaders. Some even have skills and knowledge that could be useful to the nation; red benches include diplomats, business leaders, doctors, diplomats, athletes, etc.
However, 26 members are Church of England archbishops and bishops, which amounts to an unusual mix of church and state. For example, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, used his political chair to denounce the government’s “illegal migration” bill.
Then there are the approximately 90 hereditary peers, who owe their presence in the lords solely to the circumstances of their birth, many of whom can trace their lineage back centuries.
Tony Blair, the former Labor Prime Minister, tried to eliminate the hereditary peers but he too was thwarted by opposition in the upper house, whose members persuaded him to retain 92 of them on a “temporary”.
This week, in one of the most extraordinary aspects of British democracy, Liberal Democrat peers will hold a ‘by-election’ to choose a blue-blooded successor to Viscount Falkland, who is retiring after nearly 40 years in politics.
The candidates are the descendants of great statesmen Lord John Russell and David Lloyd George, later Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, who hope to come off a waiting list for hereditary peers on the Red Benches.
Baroness Olly Grender, a Lib Dem counterpart, voted in the contest even though her party has campaigned for Lords reform for generations: ‘Reform can’t come soon enough, but the system is what it is right now.”
Jess Sargeant, associate director of the Institute for Government, said the House of Lords is doing “a very good job of what you might call the boring parts of parliament”, such as line-by-line scrutiny of legislation.
She argued that unlike the House of Commons, where bills can be rushed through with a large parliamentary majority, peers take their time. Bills on Brexit and ‘illegal migration’ issues have come under scrutiny.
But Sargeant said the composition of the Lords is “quite difficult to defend”. She added: “Are people being appointed because we think they’re going to do a good job or is that just political patronage?”
https://www.ft.com/content/242b91cb-f4be-4a28-91c3-8347048bbb5b
—————————————————-