Why removing the remaining hereditary peers from Parliament isn’t ‘constitutional wrangling’.
Thoughts on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, announced in the King’s Speech.
I haven’t posted on here since the UK General Election was called: spare time over that period better spent on campaigning for a Labour government than posting here.
But we now have a Labour government, as securely in place for five years as is possible in a democracy. So I will start posting - and in a much happier climate, where reactionary attempts to roll back the constitutional achievements of the last Labour government are off the table and progressive reforms are now conceivable - though for reasons both good and bad not likely to be the main focus.
First, a cross-post: a piece for Labour List on the proposed, and overdue, removal of the nearly 100 places in Parliament reserved for hereditary peers.
See https://labourlist.org/2024/07/labour-house-of-lords-peers-reform-2024/.
Or, as Tony Benn, having renounced his peerage, said:
I don't believe in the hereditary principle in the House of Lords. Imagine going to the dentist, sitting in the chair and he says, 'I'm not a dentist myself, but my father was a dentist and his father before him. Now, open wide!