Starmer’s House of Lords reform only scratches the surface of its problems | Simon Jenkins

As the prime minister said himself in 2020, what it really requires is proper representation from the regions and nations. Where’s that conviction now?

Nothing reveals Britain’s aversion to change quite like its failure to reform the House of Lords. Since the turn of the 21st century, almost everyone in politics has agreed that this should take place. The Lords may be quaint and historic, but it is constitutionally indefensible. It is one of only two parliaments in the world, along with Lesotho, to have hereditary members: there are 92 sitting by inherited right, 26 as leaders of a religious sect and dozens who have paid large sums to be members, often just for the title.

When Keir Starmer became Labour leader in 2020 he pledged to abolish the Lords in favour of a new elected second chamber in his first term. It was proof of his radical credentials. Within three years he had dropped the “first term”, and by this year all mention of “abolishing” the Lords had vanished from Labour’s manifesto. This week a bill is reportedly to go through parliament that merely abolishes the 92 hereditaries. There is no mention of bishops and donors, let alone Downing Street’s clothing suppliers and former secretaries. For its hordes of retired politicians, the place will remain a luxurious club that makes the Garrick look like a greasy spoon.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Continue reading…

Please follow and like us: