Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxg76rgdp7o

Hereditary peers to be removed from Lords as bill passes

Dozens of hereditary peers are set to lose their seats in the House of Lords, after the passage of a bill that will end a parliamentary role dating back hundreds of years.

Peers passed the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill after ministers offered a compromise to end a long-running dispute with opponents of the reform.

The majority of hereditary peers, who inherit their titles through their families, were abolished in 1999 under the last Labour government and this bill gets rid of the last remaining 92.

Lords Leader Baroness Smith said the "historic legislation" realised Labour's manifesto pledge to remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper house.

"This has never been about the contribution of individuals but the underlying principle that was agreed by Parliament over 25 years ago that no-one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title," Baroness Smith said.

"Over a quarter of a century later, hereditary peers remain whilst meaningful reform has stagnated.

"We have a duty to find a way forward."

Baroness Smith confirmed the government would offer life peerages to the Conservatives and crossbenchers, meaning some hereditaries are likely to remain in the Lords.

As a result, the Conservatives withdrew their opposition to the bill.

The BBC understands ministers have offered the Conservatives the chance to retain 15 hereditary members of the House of Lords as life peers.

A Lords source said the agreement involves the Conservatives delivering a number of retirements from among their life peers.

The final number of life peerages offered to the Conservatives or any other parties will be decided and announced by the prime minister.

Up to 92 hereditary peers will leave the Lords when the current session of Parliament ends, which is expected to be in May.

The Conservative leader in the Lords, Lord True, said he accepted the government's mandate to end hereditary membership of the upper house.

Confirming the Tories would no longer fight the bill, he said he had always believed there was a need to dial down "eternal [parliamentary] ping-pong" even though the compromise would be a bitter pill for some on his side to swallow.

In another compromise, the government also plans to increase the number of paid ministers in the Lords - some have worked without a salary due to restrictions in the current law.

Baroness Smith said interim measures had been in place for 25 years since the first hereditaries were removed under former Prime Minister Tony Blair's government.

Ministers are looking at further reforms with a possible retirement age and minimum participation rates.

For hundreds of years, hereditary peers had the right to make and debate laws in Parliament, a right they generally inherited from their fathers and passed on to their sons.

Throughout history most hereditary peers have been male, although some titles have been passed to women including the Countess of Mar who retired in 2020.

In 1999, Blair described their presence in the House of Lords as an "anachronism" and got rid of more than 600 of them but, following what was supposed to be a temporary compromise, 92 were saved.

One of the departing hereditaries, the Earl of Devon, said the bill was regrettable.

He said his family had been in the Lords for 900 years - and complained the notice period was less than required in employment law.

"I think this House, Parliament, and the public more widely will miss us," the Earl of Devon said.

He said hereditary peers should be "proud to sit here as embodiments of the hereditary principle dating back a millennium".

He added: "I will miss this place and would of course love to return, but only on merit and not by dint of my hereditary privilege."

The Lord Speaker thanked hereditary peers for their service in the upper chamber.

"Whatever views people may have of this constitutional change, it is sad to say goodbye to friends, who in many cases have contributed significantly to debate and scrutiny and to our institutional memory," Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said.

"Recognising their contribution is not about party politics but acknowledging the value of service and commitment, and I am proud to do so and to thank them."

Dr Jess Garland, director of policy and research for the Electoral Reform Society, said there was "no place in a modern democracy for people influencing our laws due to an accident of birth".

She said removing peers who were "gifted a job for life legislating in the House of Lords purely due to who their parents were is a long-overdue reform".

She added: "No part of Parliament should be a gated community from which the public are excluded."

That level of self-delusion is amazing given that I think you could find near identical statements made back when Blair was first purging hereditaries.

[The Brain]

What will they do now?

[Richard Hakluyt]

"Dr Jess Garland, director of policy and research for the Electoral Reform Society, said there was "no place in a modern democracy for people influencing our laws due to an accident of birth"."

Absolutely, get rid of them and replace them with people from the caste of political cronies; such luminaries as Mandelson, Mone and Lebedev come to mind. A very underbaked "reform" in my view, pretty much no reform at all.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Just another gang of pigs wanting their turn at the trough

[Tamas]

So we don't have a navy worth the name? Utterly infuriating and depressing.

We get a Green government and we lose our nukes as well, which will quickly turn the island status from an asset to a liability.

[Sheilbh]

We get a Green government and we lose our nukes as well, which will quickly turn the island status from an asset to a liability.

I'll be voting for them in the locals. But I also see that Zack Polanski has said that while he absolutely doesn't trust Putin, he would want talks with him

Seeing lots of the old Corbyn canard (which is untrue) that all wars end in negotiation so why don't we just skip the war and get straight to the negotiation phase.

Edit: I do just fee like all of our political class are just not serious/dealing with the actual world. Their political positions just adjusts which issues they're least serious about.

[Richard Hakluyt]

We have a pretty feckless electorate as well. The whole country is deeply unserious and, to be frank, I find the left here to be just as stupid as the right.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I have no love for the hereditary peers, but now that they are totally removed from Parliament I question too the "trappings" of the upper house. My understanding is the whole purpose of "Life Peerages" is the House of Lords had to be made up of, well, Lords. Except the desire was to not continue creating more hereditary lords, so life peerages were introduced.

But now that being a hereditary lord essentially is a pure honorarium, aside from a few that have specific ceremonial duties related to the royal family, one has to question why the upper house should even be called the "House of Lords."

A Lord is, in every honest sense of the word, intrinsically a concept related to hereditary nobility. While the life peers aren't hereditary, they essentially ape the concept.

Makes me wonder why not just call it a Senate? I understand in Britain obsession with tradition is typically impossible to underestimate, but this body is now functionally identical to the Canadian Senate (other than that the Canadian Senate went from life tenure to mandatory retirement at age 75--which is frankly a good idea.)

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think the concern is that if it ceases to be "The House of Lords" then the people will want the second chamber to be elected; possibly using some sort of PR to act as a balance to the first-past-the-post elections for the Commons. This would remove patronage from the government and also give the second chamber more validity and, in the long run, probably more power.

[The Brain]

What kind of person would elect the Bishop of Bath and Wells?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Someone with a religious devotion to water?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the concern is that if it ceases to be "The House of Lords" then the people will want the second chamber to be elected; possibly using some sort of PR to act as a balance to the first-past-the-post elections for the Commons. This would remove patronage from the government and also give the second chamber more validity and, in the long run, probably more power.

I think the Canucks have a good system for this.

Their Senate is fixed size, which IMO is a good idea for the House of Lords. The practice of letting out going PMs promote a bunch of cronies to it seems bad and almost like legalized corruption.

The Canadians their Senators are appointed by the PM, but have to retire at 75. They also have a provision to use an emergency power to appoint 8 Senators over the "cap" (which was used once, to insure the Senate couldn't block a specific piece of legislation.) Those 8 Senators do not raise the permanent cap of 105, they just exist as extra for the duration of their tenure.

[Richard Hakluyt]

So I guess that when a Canadian  senator retires the PM of the day chooses their replacement.

Oddly enough the House of Lords here has been a better performing part of UK governance than the other parts in recent years. A low bar though.

[Grey Fox]

So I guess that when a Canadian  senator retires the PM of the day chooses their replacement.

Oddly enough the House of Lords here has been a better performing part of UK governance than the other parts in recent years. A low bar though.

Yes, altho our constitution includes regional divisions for appointing senators.

Also, true here.

[Valmy]

Shouldn't be too hard for those hereditary Lords to use their connections to just be appointed by the PM if they work hard enough and are desperate to serve the nation