Somebody should tip off the Labour Party in Britain about the law of unintended consequences.
There are 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords. There were a lot more, but Tony Blair as PM trimmed that back to 92 in 1999; now this present British Labour Party under Keir Starmer plans to flush out the last 92 as well. Peers appointed by the government: OK. Peers there because they inherited their title: not OK.
Labour Party people feel strongly on this.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, minister for the constitution, said this was “a landmark reform”.
“The hereditary principle in law-making has lasted for too long and is out of step with modern Britain. The second chamber plays a vital role in our constitution and people should not be voting on our laws in parliament by an accident of birth.”
Angela Smith, the (elected) leader of the Lords, said “It is right that this reform is being brought forward now – completing work we began 25 years ago.”
All very convincing. Why should you have a major position in a modern democracy because of who your da was, and his da before him, and on back to the original robber baron?
Alas, this stirring line of argument hits the wall when it comes to the British monarchy. Why is King Charles the King of England? Because of who his ma was. How was Queen Elizabeth given the gig in her time? Because of who her da was. The hereditary monarchy is based on exactly the same flimsy ground that hereditary peers stood on: an accident of birth.
So if I was one of the 92 Lords ( and yes, Virginia, at this news they may well be a-leaping) , I’d be pointing my finger at King C and shouting “Well, what about him, then?”
Britain has some crazy traditions, but this one tops the lot.
Comments are closed.