House of lords

The House of Lords is very old, but not quite continuous. In 1649, shortly after the execution of King Charles I, the Cromwellian House of Commons passed an act which said: The Commons of England assembled in parliament, finding by too long experience, that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the People of England… have thought fit to Ordain and Enact… That from henceforth the House of Lords in parliament, shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away. This measure was nullified, however, by the Restoration in 1660. The parliaments of King Charles II, and all parliaments since, have included the House of Lords. The

Is Labour really going to reform the House of Lords? The party has ended up in a bit of a pickle over abolishing a chamber that it also wants to stuff with its own peers. The party’s spokesman yesterday told journalists that there was still a plan to create a Labour majority in the Lords because it was ‘essential’ for the party to be able to get its business through the Upper Chamber. The party’s leader in the Lords, Angela Smith, also told Times Radio that ‘there are 90 more Conservatives than Labour. The priority for Keir will be ensuring he gets the Labour programme through.’ It isn’t mutually exclusive

It’s not easy being a Lord. No, really, it isn’t, judging by the latest poll of the Upper House. Mr S has obtained a copy of the most recent Members’ Survey – conducted in March of this year – and it shows that dissatisfaction in the House of Lords is at record levels. Responses from 355 peers reveal concerns over internal governance, working spaces and catering, with just half of peers under-65 giving it a ‘positive’ satisfaction rating. Overall opinion of the facilities and services provided by the House of Lords Administration has slumped from 80 per cent reporting it as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ in 2008 to just 63 per

When it comes to technology, it’s no secret that our ruling masters in Westminster and Whitehall have had their issues. From the NHS ‘supercomputer’ to disk files being regularly lost; gross mismanagement of resources to poor cyber security, problems with computers, software and equipment have bedeviled the inhabitants of SW1 for years. And now another venerable name can be added to the list of long-suffering institutions facing such difficulties: the House of Lords. But this being the Upper House – where the average age of membership is 69 –  the technology is decidedly more old school than the newfangled kind of kit coming out of Silicon Valley these days. For the

They’re the by-elections all of Westminster is talking about. No, not the race for Tiverton and Wakefield in the Commons but the battle to replace two vacant seats in Lords. For, following the retirement of Lord Brabazon of Tara and the death of Lord Swinfen, hereditary peers who take the Tory whip are gearing up to decide who among their number shall take their place. These contests are held every time one of the 92 hereditary peers still in the Upper House die or choose to leave the chamber. Some 42 places are reserved for Conservative members. Each candidate submits a brief manifesto statement with previous highlights include the Earl of

War in Ukraine, soaring inflation, spiralling energy bills and the shadow of the bomb – things are all looking pretty grim in Westminster at present. So what better place to find solace and a quiet moment to reflect than the rarified atmosphere of the House of Lords? Unfortunately for one septuagenarian, meditative contemplation went slightly too far yesterday after the ageing peer accidentally drifted off to sleep. The offender in question was the ironically named Anthony Young, who at 79, is by no means the oldest member of their noble lords’ chamber. Popping up last night in the genetically modified organisms debate, Lord Young, a trade unionist and Labour party peer, was slapped down by

War, what is it good for? So asked The Temptations about Vietnam. But now a maverick independent peer appears to be answering that question quite seriously. As Westminster works itself into a frenzy over possible conflict with Russia, Lord Truscott – a non-affiliated member of the Upper House – has used the subject to ask the British government for its stance on nuclear oblivion. For Truscott, who was one of the first peers suspended from the House of Lords since the 17th century, has raised eyebrows with his latest inquiries to defence minister Baroness Goldie. The former MEP recently tabled the following question: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Goldie

Labour has been making much hay out of the government’s £8.7 billion spend on personal protective equipment (PPE), much of it bought at the height of the Covid pandemic. The shadow Treasury minister Pat McFadden claimed the figure would be ‘galling to hard-working households’ while his colleagues have made much of the government’s VIP lane to secure kit that was in desperately short supply throughout much of 2020 and 2021.  Mr S abhors waste as much as the next man. But it’s worth asking as to what Labour’s own alternatives would have been if they were running the country when millions of items were suddenly required for frontline NHS staff.