House of Lords: How long can this Wounded Symbol of Elitism Endure?

Photo Courtesy: UK Parliament

“The House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.”

This statement marked the first abolition of the House of Lords in 1649, but it still rings true today: Keir Starmer’s Labour Party are vowing to abolish the unelected chamber in favour of a fully elected House, uprooting one of Britain’s most enduring, and increasingly controversial, institutions.

Emerging as a distinct chamber of Parliament in the 14th century, the House of Lords divided bishops, archbishops, and noblemen from the political “commoners” in a system that went relatively unchallenged for centuries. While entering today’s House of Commons typically demands some degree of privilege, the House of Lords has been condemned as an embodiment of entrenched British elitism. With almost 800 members, taxpayer money is funding gluttonous dining, premium champagne, and £332 a day for each peer who simply shows up.

However, there has been a steady encroachment on the powers of the Lords, culminating in 1999—under Blair’s Labour government, when 655 hereditary peers were stripped of their right to sit and vote in the chamber as their titles were merely inherited, not earned. Their places were filled by life peers, nominated by prime ministers who had served since 1958 to enjoy a lifetime position in the Lords, but unable to pass this title down to their children. Most nominees were staunch political allies, sparking scandals at both ends of the political spectrum—Blair’s “Cash-for-Honours” scheme saw four wealthy businessmen nominated for peerages after loaning £5 million to Labour, while Johnson sent 86 new recruits to the already-bloated chamber, including business moguls, loyal columnists, and his younger brother. Today, 669 life peers and 91 hereditary peers revise bills and fulfil functions of scrutiny and accountability of the government, secure in their positions as aristocratic privilege is preserved in the name of British tradition.

Now, Starmer seems determined to purge Parliament of its elitism, rebuilding trust in a damaged political system. Peers don’t have a democratic mandate, and are grossly disconnected from the general public they claim to serve. Promising “the biggest ever transfer of power,” the new chamber would be democratically elected and undoubtedly more representative. With an average age of 71, the House of Lords is 71% male, 92.7% white and 57% privately-educated, creating a seemingly impenetrable inner circle of elites that make decisions on behalf of the country.

The reformed chamber would have to be constructed in a way that avoids gridlock with the House of Commons, echoing the US-style system, notorious for stalling and stubbornness. Instead, former prime minister Gordon Brown has advised a further devolution of power to local areas through a significantly smaller chamber. Envisioned as a constitutional guardian, the workings of the new chamber have yet to be described in detail, but the hoarding of political power in Whitehall and Westminster would be eradicated in favour of “300 emerging clusters of the new economy.”

Abolishing the House of Lords would also remove the Lords Spiritual, with 26 archbishops and bishops sitting in the chamber as one of its most archaic traditions. This absurd conflation of church and state is particularly controversial in a nation where—for the first time ever—less than half the population claim to be Christian, cementing the chamber’s reputation as an irrelevant relic of religious monolithism.

While a Labour government is not likely until 2025, the party’s plans send a refreshing message that tradition can be triumphed in the name of true democracy, though the question remains of whether this will be a radical turning point in British politics, or yet another unfulfilled promise.