[arista]

No sign of him shutting down
The House Of Lords. As PM Starmer said, he would.


[Keir Starmer appoints 25 Labour peers to strengthen
support in House of Lords

Labour says appointments needed
to balance upper house, and chooses
former advisers to No 10 and the chancellor]



[Labour’s list includes Michael Barber,
a Whitehall veteran who led Tony Blair’s delivery
unit and now advises Starmer,
and Len Duvall, the chair of the London assembly.
The move brings the number of peers appointed
by Starmer to 62.
This includes a tranche of 30 peers announced
Last December, and seven who have been
created so that they can
take up ministerial roles.

The decision is likely to draw criticism from
electoral reform campaigners who argue
that the appointment process is undemocratic
and used by prime ministers to reward their allies.]


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...house-of-lords

[Oliver_W]

Maybe I'm a bit of a traditionalist, but no way should the House of Lords be abolished.

Before elected officials started being invited to Parliament (to legitimise Edward I's tax rises), the "House of Lords" was all that Parliament was.

But then, I don't think hereditary peers should have been abolished either

[Parmy]

Surprised he's not added himself the weasly little twat.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Parmy

Surprised he's not added himself the weasly little twat.

Since the Peerage Act of 1963, it's been a "constituential convention" that the PM must come from the Commons, but it is still technically possible for a Lord to lead ... but it almost certainly wouldn't fly!

[bots]

i think having the hol provides an alternative to the career elected politicians. Its not a matter of better or worse because there are good and bad in every office. It's about being different