A plea to our new Prime Minister – abolish me!

It has been a big week for me, personally. On Thursday 16 July, the government announced 26 new members of the House of Lords – and I am one of them: I am to be Lord Leunig. Since it is His Majesty’s Government, the official announcement read “The King has been graciously pleased to signify His intention of conferring Peerages of the United Kingdom for Life upon the undermentioned:

Sixteen new peers will be Labour, five Liberal Democrat (including me), and three Conservative. These twenty four were nominated by their political parties. The remaining two will be “crossbenchers”, that is, not taking the whip from any political party.

Those numbers: sixteen, five, three and two are entirely, as I understand it, the choice of the PM. He could have created no peers at all, or had a completely different ratio. He could have created peers for other parties, and he could have offered Count Binface a peerage. It really is up to him. (For those wondering why the Conservatives got only three new peers, they have more peers than other parties already: to be honest I am surprised that they were given any.) But either way, it is the PM’s choice. There are currently no Reform Lords, and only two Greens.

The House of Lords is indefensible in so many ways. Once appointed, peers have been appointed for life, although a retirement age of 80 is planned. That means I could be a legislator for almost 25 years – in which time my views could change spectacularly, or my principles lose support in the country. In neither case would I be removed. A side effect is that peers are typically rather old – the majority are over 70, and well over a third are over 80.

Nor is the Lords representative. Whether they win or lose general elections, the Conservative party always has more peers than Labour. No other democracy gives one party the biggest share of legislators, no matter how badly that party does in elections. That is offensive to anyone who calls themselves a democrat.

The Lords are unrepresentative in other ways. Fewer than a third of peers are women. Some political parties do better: 45% of Labour and 43% of Liberal Democrat peers are women, similar to their Commons mix (46% and 44% respectively). In contrast only 29% of Conservative peers are women. More than half of peers attended private schools.

I will work hard in my new role. But neither I, nor anyone else, should be made a legislator without the consent of the people. People say “Ah, but the Lords contains such experts”, forgetting that experts can be elected. Among the LibDem MPs, at least 4 have PhDs: Mike Martin a PhD in war studies from King’s College London, Manuela Perteghella a PhD in theatre and translation from UEA, Al Pinkerton a PhD in geopolitics at Royal Holloway and Ian Sollom has a PhD in cosmology from Cambridge. Many others are experts in their own fields.

Where experts do not want to stand, they can be consulted by parliamentarians – I have been summoned to appear before parliamentary committees from time to time.

Today the UK gets a new Prime Minister. He has shown a consistent interest in constitutional reform. The 2024 Labour manifesto says that “Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations.”

All I can say is “Go for it”.

Fulfill your manifesto promise and abolish me.

 

 

* Tim Leunig is an economist, and has just been appointed to the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat peer.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

2 Comments

  • “ Whether they win or lose general elections, the Conservative party always has more peers than Labour.”

    That need not be true – any incoming Labour Government could easily create sufficient Labour-sporting Lords to give Labour a majority.

  • Catherine Royce 24th Jul '26 - 1:44pm

    Congratulations Tim, I’m sure you deserve it, (to be one rather than to be abolished) but its an interesting point. Can you lead a revolt from the inside? -do we know how many peers would like to be abolished, or at any rate accept it graciously ? It might at least get us afew headlines.
    Definitely a case for retirement at 80yrs and I would like to add a maximum tenure of 10years on the basis that if one hasn’t made a significant contribution in that time, its unlikely to happen at all and would provide a useful ‘refresh’ button.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Allen
    "According to the headline in yesterday’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ (28 August) : “Ed Davey refuses to rule out Tory pact”." More deafening silence! Well,...
  • Peter Hirst
    If the political make up of the eu changes significantly would we be better to have stayed in? It probably depends whether you are more interested in global or ...
  • Mrs Rita Baker
    I agree with everything in this post. We need a national message as well as local ones. As I am currently disabled, waiting for a hip replacement and knee opera...
  • Peter Hirst
    An agreement with other countries to coordinate action when their interests collide would be a useful addition to the array of groups, organisations and bodies ...
  • Peter Hirst
    Our political strategy as I understand it does not make it easy for us to have a single message that gives us the publicity we need. We can talk about empowerme...