It’s time for end of the peer show
ONE of the most exclusive elections in the world is taking place today. There is a “by-election” among the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
If that sounds like a contradiction in terms, it is.
A few years ago, the UK government promised to reform the Lords. They chickened out again. The Lords is still unelected but most peers are “appointed”, often as a reward for supporting one particular political party (sometimes financially).
In addition, 90 “hereditary” peers who pass the title down through birthright have stayed in place. Because there are many more toffs than there are places, by-elections among their lordships occasionally take place.
The candidates are a select bunch – the Duke of Wellington took up his seat as a result of a previous by-election.
The concerns of most of these chaps – there is only one female hereditary peer – are just as antediluvian as their names. The Electoral Reform Society have helpfully reprinted some of the statements produced by the privileged prospective candidates tomorrow. L Somerleyton said: “I think the hereditary peerage is worth preserving. In a time of great uncertainty, its principle creates an underrated sense of commitment to the welfare of the nation.”
This commitment will be exercised by about 25 peers who will participate in this vote. The aristocrat they choose will remain in Parliament to vote on our laws – for the rest of his life.
I don’t call that an under-rated service to the welfare of the nation. I call it an undemocratic abomination.