Michael Crick is right about appointments to the House of Lords

January 5th, 2018

If we are continuing with an appointed upper chamber then the process must be transparent

With Mrs. May, who lost the CON majority last June, planning to bolster CON representation in the House of Lords then there’s a fair bit of speculation about who might get the £300 a day plus expenses roles.

Let us not forget that the reason we have an appointed Lords is that Tory backbench MPs rebelled on a programme motion in 2011 effectively stopping any progress on the coalition plan for an elected upper house.

In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.

Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her.

Mike Smithson