Main Edition
US
FR
July 24, 2024 - 5:45pm
The abolition of hereditary peerages in the House of Lords will destroy Britain’s link with the “greatness and drama of our national past”, historian Andrew Roberts has claimed.
Speaking in the chamber as Lord Roberts of Belgravia on Tuesday, the biographer of Winston Churchill and Napoleon criticised the new Labour government’s policy to reform the Lords. Suggesting that the country would suffer from “breaking this living link that we presently have with Britain’s past”, Roberts quoted the 18th-century conservative philosopher Edmund Burke to make his point. “Society is indeed a contract,” he said. “It becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Roberts added: “The hereditary element in this place represents — I hope hereditary peers in this debate will not mind this characterisation — the ‘dead’ part of that contract, for they […] represent their ancestors, whose often glorious deeds have made Britain the country that she is today.”
The historian yesterday referred to the family achievements of several present lords. Of the Labour peer Lord Ponsonby, who has just been made a Parliamentary under-secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Roberts said: “[W]e see the shade of his great-great-great-grandfather, Major General Sir Frederick Ponsonby, whose charge of the 12th Light Dragoons helped save the Union Brigade at a critical moment of the Battle of Waterloo — which, of course, was won by the ancestor of another of our present-day Members of this House, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.”
He spoke of Lord Thurso’s grandfather, the Liberal politician Sir Archibald Sinclair, who in May 1940 put aside party differences to elect Winston Churchill as prime minister. The eighth Duke of Montrose was also in attendance; the first Duke, James Graham, was crucial to the signing of the Act of Union in 1707. “We are surrounded by ghosts in this chamber,” Roberts said. “But they are the ghosts of the great.”
Keir Starmer has made no secret of his wish to reform the Lords, although he has moderated his position over time: as recently as 2022, he promised to abolish the institution to “restore trust in politics”. His criticism was that the Conservative Party used the Lords to reward “lackeys and donors”. There is no such process for hereditary peers, even though they are often associated with particular political parties.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWait, so the Hereditary Nobility still has a role shaping policy in the UK?
I thought they were mere figureheads.
They allowed some (supposedly the more active, interested, smart ones) to stay – about 1 in 8. The Lords alltogether are not that powerful in comparison with US Senators. They are more editors than writers.
Was The Lords more effective 30 or 40 years ago? Hard to judge effectively.
Have the changes since the Blair reforms made The Lords “more democratic” or more “accountable”, I doubt this.
It seems to me that each governing party stuffs the place with embarrassing old MP’s and various other hangers on. It appears to be simply another way of gaining party political advantage.
At least with the hereditary membership there was a reduced amount of toeing the party line, even with supposedly old school “conservative” Lords and Bishops there was a decent amount of amending legislation in a non-partisan fashion.
I can see little benefit in a fully elected second chamber with a Parliamentary system of governance. Probably less scrutiny as the party whip would come into play more frequently. Plus, of course, the cost of this extra democracy would be significant!
“I can see little benefit in a fully elected second chamber …”
I’m not necessarily recommending this, but, you could elect the second chamber in a different way, e.g. proportional representation. That way you wouldn’t get just the one ‘house of government’ with two parties with roughly the same vote share where one party gets 5 seats, and the other 70. The Commons first-past-the-post vote would still provide simpler government, rather than complex coalitions, but the Lords would represent a wider spectrum of the voice of the people. Put together, your two Houses would be more democratic, at least as far as peoples’ voices being heard.
Alternatively, you could have the Commons elected by the alternative vote system, and your Lords composed of people who each would need to be nominated by both the PM and the Leader of the Opposition – that might keep the partisan hacks & donors out.
And which would be more legitimate, the House of Commons or the ‘PR elected’ House of Lords? No this doesn’t work at all.
The House of Lords should, alongside the ‘past sell by date’ politicians, be filled with Quangocrats, retired Sir Humpheys, former directors of National Parks, failed bankers, directors of disgraced charities and progressive former bishops. I’m sure that’s what the admirable Sir Keir has in mind.
I think removing hereditary peers is the least controversial policy that any uk government could do.
The House of Lords, like the monarchy, is an anachronism in the 21stC … time to move on to an elected 2nd Chamber, if indeed a 2nd Chamber is perceived as necessary.
The anachronism argument is a very weak one. It presupposes that any alternative will be an improvement.
We live in an age when people consider Parliamentary Sovreignty itself an anachronism.
Thank the good Lord for anachronisms. Modern reality is so ineffably boring. By the way, if you think that some resplendent meritocracy will arise in the place of the current Lord’s you are sorely mistaken.
Labour has always hated the House of Lords for the simple fact that it is an institution it has never been able to fully control.
Tony Blair entrenched his followers into every NGO, civil service dept and minor institution he could get his hands on – they still remain there today. The only place he could not do this was the Lords and the Lords repeatedly offered resistance towards his more insane policies, particularly when he wanted to be able to lock up suspected terrorists for two months without trial.
Labour will eventually destroy the House of Lords, just like it has slowly destroyed every good institution in this country. Labour learned a long time ago that you destroy a country not through revolution, but brick-by-brick. Before people know it they’re pitching a tent in the front garden where a house used to be and, as far as they’re aware, nothing had changed at all, it is as it always had been, they always lived in a tent.
People who romantically cling to notion of “democracy” as an argument for a second elected house have a naïve view of democracy and have, unfortunately, swallowed the lies. The beauty of the House of Lords lies in the fact it is not democratic and by extension is free from pressures of electoral politics. Members are free to disobey their whips, they can disobey the public, they can say unpopular things, all without having to worry their careers will end. This is more democratic than a simple duplication of the Commons where MPs constantly walk on egg shells, lean whichever way the wind blows, are held over barrels by their parties that control all the levers of electoral success and are beholden to public opinion. Why you would want a mere duplication of this is beyond me – since when as twice the level of incompetence ever been of benefit? It blows me away that in one breath so many can proclaim the House of Commons as a rabble of imbeciles elected by “turkeys voting for Christmas” and in the same declare we need another chamber just like it.
Ultimately the House of Lords can’t even block Acts of Parliament and it hasn’t been able to for over a century. There is zero reason to abolish or reform the House of Lords beyond Labour wishing to monopolise power – even when it is not in government. Labour’s long term goal has always been to march its ideology through the institutions so that no matter who is in government they will have actual power – I can assure you, their insistence on devolution, decentralisation, mayors and NGOs is not done out of some sense of good will. You want a glimpse at what this future looks like? Look no further than the junior doctors who have spent the better part of two years protesting only to abruptly end all of that, even seemingly no longer caring about their deadest demand for 35% pay rise, the moment Labour get into government. That’s the future Labour wants, one when the government machines only ever flow smoothly when they’re in government and grind to an absolute halt the moment they’re not in government, thereby assuring any future government is only ever keeping the seat warm for when Labour comeback. Part of the reason the Tories achieved nothing in 14 years was because they had to deal with NGOs and institutions absolute filled to the rafters with Tony Blaire’s pawns that immediately caused scandal the moment the government tried to steer the boat off the Blairite course.
But, I suspect the people who support this are the same sort of people who would also like us to have a triband flag, a president, a congress, a senate, a written constitution and replace all of our lovely architecture with wood laminate, glass and steel beams. The sorts of people who tut and regurgitate banal musings about “getting with the times” or other such drivel.
Britain is, politically, constitutionally and legally, the most successful nation on the planet with an almost wholly unbroken contiguous millennia history. We have had one civil war in a millennia and what ‘revolution’ we did have was one of peaceful transfer of power. So why we should insist upon being more like the rest of the world or “modernising” is, again, beyond me. I look across the pond or the channel and all I see are relatively new nations largely born out of chaos, wars and revolutions. These are not nations we ought to aspire to emulate, even now as the USA and the continent increasingly polarise the UK remains, relatively, a bulwark for stability.
Well said. I don’t understand why anyone would want a second elected chamber.
The problem with elections is that you can only vote for the sort of people who put themselves up as candidates.
You put it splendidly.
It does seem strange that, given the myriad failings of the current political settlement, the first institution to be trageted for evisceration and abolition should be the inoffensive rump which constitutes the hereditary peers – as the very first order of business.
Not even the House of Lords itself mind you – that menagerie of oleaginous placemen, toadies, appointees and cronies gets a stay of execution – but the harmless and eccentric outliers in the coronets. They must go first.
Perhaps because they represent the last human component of our state and nation. The last fleshly, corporeal, irritatingly real, awkwardly, undeniably, beautifully, inimitably British part of our political life. The last remnant of the idea of the nation as a great family, with a sprawling history full of eccentric uncles and mad traditions – which somehow seems to work.
Extremely well put. Orwell stated that Britain has enabled social change to occur with very little violence and it has been far more peaceful than other countries. The aristocracy has largely had the wisdom to bow to the will of the Commons and accept change without the need for violence. Perhaps the best example of wisdom was Peel, a Conservative repealing the corn Laws which benefited the bottom 90% to the detriment of the top 10%.
Corn Laws – Wikipedia
What examples are there of the left wing middle class politicians accepting financial loss for the benefit of the nation ?
In January 2009 Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, tabled a motion which would exempt MPs’ expenses from being disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, in order to prevent any further disclosure of information.[22] Labour MPs were placed under a three line whip in order to force the motion through the Commons.
The highest repayment by an MP was £42,458.21 by Barbara Follett.
Denis MacShane on 5 November 2012, announced his resignation as an MP, forcing a by-election to be held in his Rotherham constituency, following a recommendation from the Standards and Privileges Committee that he be suspended for 12 months for submitting false expenses invoices.[138] He was later jailed.
‘Starmer continues the legacy of former prime minister Tony Blair, whose eponymous institute is deeply influential among Labour politicians and special advisors. In 1999, Blair passed the House of Lords Act which almost halved the membership from 1,330 in October 1999 to 669 in March 2000, leaving just 92 hereditary peers.’
Starmer, continuing the destruction started by blair, I dread to think how many self entitled, middle England blairites are salivating over the prospect of destroying a very old and important part of Britain.
And here was me thinking that the hereditary peers were there to protect their interests, but no, it was all for the common good. We need fresh thinking about how our democracy works and engages people. Note the rather poor turnout at recent general election and that for too many people, their prime motivation in placing a vote preference was not for who they supported but who they opposed.
I didn’t say it was for the common good.
The poor turnout was I think partly because there is very little difference between the major parties at the moment and their hands are tied anyway with everything else going on ie. The war in Ukraine, the war in gaza, tensions with China, the energy market going haywire, the US banks crashing and the west under pressure in general, fallout from covid, the British people aren’t stupid, I imagine they understand they aren’t voting for change but more of the same let’s desperately try to keep the boat afloat type policy.
Don’t you think hereditary peers at least provide a balance to the people that are elected there from parliament?
If you believe we need ‘fresh thinking’ surely hereditary peers are a way of ensuring that some fresh thinking happens, if the house of Lords is filled with yes men lackeys shipped straight in from parliament it would surely end up just an echo chamber of Westminster political thinking?
Why do you beleive that hereditary peers are less likely to work for the common good than any other MP or person in public services?
“And here was me thinking that the hereditary peers were there to protect their interests”
Such aspersions can be cast at any group with power however they came by it. It can therefore contribute nothing to a debate about ‘who should rule’.
If the hereditary peers represent the “ghosts” of their great ancestors that begs the question as to what the criterion for being a sitting peer is then?
A descendant of the Duke of Wellington, and therefore by some sort of transferred genetic memory the modern avatar of the man himself, well, Ok then. It is a bit Assassin’s Creed, maybe even reminiscent of “ghoula” from the Dune novels, but no more splendidly daft an idea than that of hereditary peers per se.
However, what about the ones whose ancestors were ennobled because of being the offspring of a royal side-piece? That seems like rather less strong grounds to make a claim of important genetic representation from beyond the grave.
Maybe the solution is to have one of those nationwide polls of the hundred greatest Britons. Then trace who are the most direct descendants of the “Great 100” and ennoble them (if not already done so) as the hereditary peers. Thus, introducing a democratic element, while also incentivizing great deeds today (imagine the future Bothams that may serve in Parliament for generations as the genetic representatives of the great man), but making sure not every royal b*****d descendant or similar can just take up a seat.
It is worth looking at WW2; left wing intellectuals fled to the USA, Isherwood and Auden, others took refuge in the BBC and other safe jobs, whereas the aristocracy and landed gentry volunteered for combat. In WW1, 20% of the aristocracy was killed, the highest of any social class.
When Ernie Bevin said there were too many public school types, especially Etonians and Harrovians , he said they did alright in the Battle of Britain. Orwell noted few middle class left wing intellectuals volunteered for combat. If one’s ancestors were knighted for gallantry , then the descendants usually have a sense of duty to fight and if needed, die for one’s country. By owning land it forces one to have a sense of responsibility to it, one is the guardian, the keeper and not just the owner. Just look at the war memorials in churches, landowner and labourer died together.
What appears fairly common is that middle class left wingers appear to have a sense of duty to themselves, not the country. A Wedgewood Benn had a sense of duty to his country but he was an aristocrat. Labour are keen to go to war but how many of the children of the left wing middle class have died in combat ?
If Tony Blair wants something, any sensible person should, at the very least, ask themselves if it’s such a good idea.
The only elected peers in the House of Lords are the hereditary ones.
I feel much more comfortable with peers whose distant ancestors enjoyed the patronage of Charles II than I do with those who have enjoyed the patronage of Blair, Cameron, May or Starmer.
“Keir Starmer has made no secret of his wish to reform the Lords, although he has moderated his position over time: as recently as 2022, he promised to abolish the institution to “restore trust in politics”.
Surely abolishing the House of Commons would be a better way of achieving that aim?
Labour proposes excluding them from the House of Lords – not exterminating them altogether! The links will still be there but, hopefully, the Second Chamber will be populated with people who can contribute something other than a name
A pragmatic view: the HL has a valuable purpose scrutinizing Bills where the HC has rushed them through. This requires Lords who have experience and specific skills. It is a ‘senate’ of wise people.
The Hereditary peers are now a minor part. Does experience of their contributions show value?
Life peers: The flaw is when they are political appointees who have nothing to add.
Elected peers: No. It will be a rival for HC rather than a complement. It will be appointed by superficial party politics, a Labour peer (say) being bound by the position of its sponsor party.
Taking these together, we may need a permanent committee to vet and approve political appointees, and ensure they have the desired qualities.
The British aristocracy was different from the Continental it was a mixture of achievement such as Salisbury( Burghley ), Wellington, royal bastards – St Albans, legal skills Murray- 1st Earl Mansfield, etc. Opinions of aristocrats varied but what they allowed from the time of the Tudors was the rise of the meritocratic craftsmen and middle class who gave us the Industrial Revolution.
Going back in time to the Middle Ages, the aristocracy allowed the development of the freeman/yeoman archer which enabled upward social mobility. The battles of Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt were won and Armada defeated because competent people were promoted into positions of authority. Sir Francis Drake and Captain Cook RN FRS were examples of upward mobility.
In continental Europe a military aristocracy prevented the rise of a middle class with any wealth, power and military skills, hence French Revolution..
In WW2 far more aristocrats volunteered for combat than middle class left wingers. For example , Stirling Brothers, Lord Lovat – Commandoes, Earl Jellico – SBS.
Growing up on their estates, the landed gentry had far more contact with rural people than many left wing Labour Peers. Too often Labour Peers are the day boys who got duffed up by local lads on the way to and from school. What the effete left wingers loathe is when the public school boys bet on like a house on fire with the toughs. Both the tough working class and school boys place far more emphasis on character than time spent in education. If one can brawl, booze, are practical, show loyalty, laugh at oneself and honest, then one will earn the respect of the tough working class.