Try as I can I cannot find arguments to justify the ennoblements by party leaders very recently committed to reducing the numbers of working peers by half and introducing elections to the House of Lords, as well as cutting the cost of politics: each new peer will cost British taxpayers £45000 a year minimum to attend the Second Chamber periodically, listen to some debates and then go home. It is hard to scrutinise and revise legislation – the purpose of the House of Lords - en masse, so why expand it?
The answer seems clear: to reward political favour and to do what may be politically popular; the suitability of the nominees for the work of the House seems the least of the considerations behind their appointment, and it is no coincidence that the changes will leave the Conservatives neatly with a majority of 1. There is an air of hypocrisy hanging over the politicians who struggle to explain why they demand reform but then connive with their opposite numbers to enlarge an already bloated Chamber, and it is not attractive.
The House of Lords performs an important role in checking and balancing the work of the House of Commons, and those peers who are involved in so doing actively, do it well. Like many onlookers they dislike, too, the blatant political appointment system and the administrative burden that comes from having a surfeit of members, often with large egos and little to contribute. Nigel Farage called the new nominations “an insult to democracy”, and many people will have some sympathy with his point of view.
[byline]]]>
