The matter of the House of Lords has come up with the resignation honours list of Boris Johnson. Too many honours went to those who helped him lie over PartyGate, but not all the honours relate to those who support and supported him over his lies.
There have been calls for an elected second chamber. I disagree with this. The House of Lords is there to scrutinise bills. Amongst its members it has judges, doctors, priests, artists and the like. These people have a lot to offer our nation and I want them to be able to serve our country by offering us their expertise.
I do think that reform is needed. I think that new peers should be picked based on the vote share of parties, that is above a certain threshold and also based on the nations. Also, I think that experts, such as Baron Winston, should continue to be appointed. In order to be accepted, each peer should be accepted by representatives of the parties, the voting power being based on the vote share.
So based on the last General Election, that would mean that the Conservatives would have around a 43% say in choosing experts, but that a 50% threshold would need to be met for a candidate to be accepted. Lords appointed on a party political basis would be done so by the vote share in each nation. This would mean that based on the latest division, England would have roughly 84% of lords being chosen, Scotland 8%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%. Of those from Scotland, the SNP would have about 45% of appointees, Labour 19% etc.
As for the resignation honours list, I would keep it, but limit the numbers to, at the most, ten members to the House of Lords.
I suspect that I will refine my views on this as time passes, but that is my view for now.
