The Lords is unsustainable in its current form
sir – The pledge by Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to abolish the House of Lords in its current form (report, November 21) is the reason why I would vote for him.
As an octogenarian I do not want my grandchildren to live in a country where descendants of ancient aristocrats, political hasbeens, chancers, friends of failed prime ministers, retired sportsmen, bishops or political relatives have any say in the government of Britain. David Johnstone
Pewsey, Wiltshire
sir – Sir Keir Starmer wants to abolish the Lords, but without a proposal for its replacement.
This is reminiscent of Tony Blair’s ill-considered devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the creation of the London mayor.
Has Sir Keir looked across the pond at what he might be signing us up to?
Ian Macgregor sir – I write as an expatriate from Canada, where problems with our Senate parallel those with the House of Lords.
On January 18 this year, you reported that the Lords had inflicted 13 defeats on a government Bill attempting to crack down on disruptive protests. To my mind, this was disgraceful. Central to the issue is not whether activist groups have a right to protest – they do – but whether they should also be seen to be acting in a just and legal cause, and therefore permitted to inflict harm on society. If the latter, the judiciary and its arms in the police become arbiters of thought.
Laws are made by governments. Governments have to govern, which can become impossible when an unrepresentative upper house twists the intent behind Bills. Civil society does, however, need an upper house to give sober second thought.
Sir Keir Starmer has said that if Labour wins the next election he will bring in a Bill to abolish the Lords, so reform is vital in order to pre-empt him. As in Canada, the current composition of the upper house is primarily dependent on political patronage. Also, the voting membership is far too large. Fortunately, the whole issue can be dealt with very simply. First, limit the size of the chamber. Secondly, elect the members who sit by universal suffrage. Thirdly, to preserve the chamber’s unique character, only ennobled candidates would be eligible (this itself might have beneficial effects on the selection of new peers). No changes to the Lords’ powers are necessary, while the precise size of the reformed Lords and frequency of election remain up for debate. Meanwhile, non-elected peers can simply enjoy their status.
A Bill like this should sit well with tradition, modernity and democracy. James Phipps