Watch: House of Lords hit by leaflet protest
Protesters campaigning for the abolition of the House of Lords forced a temporary shutdown of the upper chamber on Thursday and disrupted proceedings by throwing leaflets.
Peers were interrupted just before noon as a group of six people in the public gallery started shouting: 'Lords out, people in.'
They threw leaflets into the air and down into the chamber. The sitting was suspended for just under five minutes as they were escorted out and calm was restored.
Peers had been discussing the 80th anniversaries of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan when they were disrupted.
The leaflets thrown by the small group said: 'Never mind the Lords here's the House of People.'
The other side of the leaflets said: ' Aristocrats and oligarchs: Out. Posties, mums, nurses and neighbours: In. Replace the House of Lords to save the UK.'
The protesters said they were acting on behalf of Assemble, an organisation that campaigns for the House of Lords to be abolished and replaced by a citizens' assembly.
Citizens' assemblies are selected by sortition, which means members of the public are picked at random via a lottery.
Supporters of this mechanism argue it means a more representative sample of the population are able to come together and debate important issues.
Protester Lucy Porter, 50, a primary school teacher from Leeds, said she was 'campaigning for a House of the people'.
On the Lords, she said: 'It's a symbol of everything that's outdated. We don't have a functioning democracy in this country.'
One protester, who wished to be known only as Christina, said: 'We did this action on behalf of Assemble and the ask is that, instead of a House of Lords, which is a house of unelected wealthy elites, we have a house of the people.
'So, we have citizens' assemblies where people can participate in real democracy, instead of having everything handed to them from up high.'
A spokesman for Assemble said: 'Today's action has been taken in support of the abolition of the House of Lords in favour of a House of the People – a new institution where any adult in the UK may be selected to serve, like a jury, to set the political agenda and balance the House of Commons.
'This action mirrors one undertaken by Suffragettes on October 28th 1908, where they took direct action by raining handbills onto the House of Commons, demanding suffrage for women in the UK.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Telegraph
House of Lords removes ‘provocative' Pride flags from canteen
The House of Lords has removed Pride flags from its canteen following a complaint by a peer. At the start of June, the River Restaurant was decked out in the banners to celebrate the beginning of Pride month. However, among the banners used was the ' Progress Pride ' flag, which includes the colours of the trans movement and is seen by many as indicative of support for gender ideology – the idea that sex is a spectrum and that people can change their identity. Baroness Nicholson, a Tory peer, complained to the Lord Speaker, Lord McFall, and officials agreed that they should be taken down as they had not been sanctioned by the authorities. Similar flags were not displayed in the House of Commons canteen. Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at the Sex Matters charity, said the decision to display the flags was 'provocative and inappropriate', and that it was 'reassuring' they had been taken down. 'The baby blue and pink of trans activism, which features in the flag, signals support for a harmful fringe ideology that justifies a wide range of human rights abuses, including puberty blockers for minors, surgeries that leave people sterile, the placement of rapists in women's prisons, and the destruction of single-sex services and spaces,' she said. Critics advocate separating trans and gay rights The Progress Pride flag, designed in 2021, is replacing the traditional rainbow Pride flag in many venues. It includes an extra triangle of colour on the left hand side, made up of stripes including white, pink and light blue – the colours of the trans movement. But many critics say the trans rights movement should be decoupled entirely from the gay rights movement, using the phrase 'LGB without the T'. The flag also includes a yellow triangle with a purple circle to represent 'intersex' people – a classification which is rejected by many. On Wednesday, Lady Nicholson tweeted pictures of the flags in the River Restaurant, which were displayed over the cooked breakfast items on sale, on the social media platform X. When one user replied to say that they supported 'LGB without the T', she tweeted: 'Exactly.' The flags had been removed by Friday lunchtime, following Lady Nicholson's complaint to the Lord Speaker's Office. On Friday, she tweeted: 'The superb River Restaurant in the House of Lords has had the decorations that I pictured removed. 'The food remains as stunning as before. I am most grateful to the Lord Speaker for his swift and thoughtful response to my request. I respect all people in all walks of life always.' Lady Nicholson was a Conservative MP between 1987 and 1995, when she made a high-profile defection to the Liberal Democrats in protest at John Major's policies. She was made a peer in 1997 and later served as a member of the European Parliament for the Lib Dems. She returned to the Tory fold in 2016. During her time in Parliament, she voted in favour of Section 28, which banned the 'promotion of homosexuality' by local authorities, and against gay marriage. 'Do pronouns get you a bigger plate of beans?' A number of users on X responded to her picture of the flags. Sean Ako said: 'As a gay man I find this to be incredibly dehumanising. Can't I have my breakfast in peace without having a flag waved in my face? I don't need to be celebrated first thing in the morning. I need to be caffeinated.' Clean City Bird wrote: 'Honestly, what has the progress flag or same-sex attraction got to do with having breakfast? Do you get a bigger portion if you state your pronouns while they plate your beans?' Margaret Kearney said: 'Think about the flags as you eat breakfast or have tea and toast. For some it could be a turn-off to eat anything. These flags have taken over everything. Thanks Emma for letting us know about this.' A spokesman for the House of Lords said it had not been the Lord Speaker who had personally intervened. 'Informal decorations were put up locally to mark the beginning of Pride month,' he said. 'These were taken down at an appropriate point due to their unofficial nature.'
The National
19 hours ago
- The National
Defence review dodges Britain's nuclear blind spot
Presented as a roadmap to 'Make Britain Safer', the review promised clarity and accountability, but it fails to confront the most pressing truths: that the UK's nuclear programme is financially unsustainable, strategically unbalanced, increasingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all. These concerns are not hypothetical. In the final months of the last Parliament, I raised them on the floor of the House of Commons, not out of party dogma, but in response to serious and public allegations from Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the then prime minister, remember him? He described Britain's nuclear infrastructure as a 'dangerous disaster', responsible for the secret 'cannibalisation' of other national security budgets and shielded from meaningful scrutiny. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Whatever one thinks of Cummings or the nuclear deterrent, the substance of these allegations is disturbingly familiar. The National Audit Office (NAO) has echoed similar concerns, reporting a projected defence funding gap of up to £29.8 billion, with nuclear and Royal Navy costs rising the most sharply. These are not partisan claims, they're structural failures. That day in the Commons, the then-shadow defence secretary, now the Secretary of State, was present to hear them and now in government, he has chosen not to challenge or investigate them, he's just sidestepped them entirely. Nuclear ringfencing: A cost we refuse to count The UK Defence Review reaffirms the nuclear deterrent as the UK's 'top defence priority' and explicitly commits to protecting its funding through ringfencing, yet it offers no detailed breakdown of those costs and barely acknowledges the impact this has on the rest of the armed forces. At one point, the review admits that nuclear spending 'might have forced savings in essential capabilities' – a remarkable understatement. Behind this phrase lies a wider truth: that the UK's defence strategy is being skewed by a deterrent whose costs are rising beyond control, shielded from accountability by MOD political taboo. There is no analysis in the review of how ringfencing distorts capability development, procurement planning or readiness in the conventional forces. In a document designed to show how Britain will 'balance' risk and resilience, this omission is fatal. Procurement dysfunction: Recognised, and untouched The review admits what every oversight body has said for years: defence procurement is broken. Projects are delayed, over budget and misaligned with modern threats. Yet beyond nodding at the problem, the review offers no structural reform. Cummings alleged that the MOD continued to fund 'legacy disasters' while gutting new capabilities. Those criticisms align with a long history of NAO reports, whether on AJAX, Type 26 delays or wider programme mismanagement. The review responds with little more than the promise of procurement 'measured in months, not years'. READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe Unsurprisingly, there's no serious roadmap, no new governance model, no mechanism to hold decision-makers in the MOD accountable and without these, the same dysfunction will continue to waste billions, no matter how polished the strategic language. Where is the democratic oversight? Perhaps most worrying is the review's treatment of oversight. Cummings claimed that key decisions about the UK's nuclear strategy were made through 'secret tunnel' processes that excluded even senior ministers. If true, this undermines the core principles of democratic governance of departments. The review's answer is to propose that a new National Security Council (Nuclear), a closed ministerial subcommittee, should meet twice a year to review progress; that is not oversight, it's entrenchment. There's a passing reference to potential 'enhanced parliamentary scrutiny under appropriate conditions' with no clarity on what that actually means, or how it would be applied, and no mention of expanding the role of Select Committees or publishing clearer data for Parliament as many nuclear Nato allies do. For an area of defence with the greatest cost and risk, the lack of democratic scrutiny is glaring and frankly a dereliction of duty. A missed opportunity Labour's Strategic Defence Review 2025 had a rare opportunity to correct course by managing it more transparently, more accountably and with greater strategic realism. Even those of us opposed to the nuclear enterprise in its entirety couldn't and shouldn't oppose increased scrutiny. That opportunity has been missed. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Instead of confronting the truth, the review restates familiar platitudes and leaves the public and Parliament no wiser about the scale cost, or consequences of the UK's nuclear commitment. The Defence Secretary, who heard these warnings first-hand from the opposition bench, is now in a position to act – he has chosen not to. So, the central questions remain for the UK Government: What is being done to stop the nuclear enterprise from distorting the wider defence budget? What safeguards ensure genuine democratic oversight of the UK's most dangerous and expensive defence programme? Until these are answered, Britain's defence policy will remain unbalanced, unaffordable, alarmingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Trade unions join forces to demand end to ban on 'sympathy strikes'
Secondary industrial action - where a trade union asks its members to take action against their employer in solidarity with workers elsewhere who are in dispute - has been banned since the early 1990s Trade unions have joined together to call for laws banning 'sympathy strikes' to be scrapped. Secondary industrial action - where a trade union asks its members to take action against their employer in solidarity with workers elsewhere who are in dispute - has been banned since the early 1990s. Now the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), the British Medical Association (BMA) and other unions have signed a joint statement in support of a proposed change to the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords. The statement reads: "For too long, the current legal restrictions have served to isolate disputes, weaken solidarity and limit workers' ability to collectively challenge unfair conditions - particularly in an increasingly fragmented and outsourced employment landscape.' Fire Brigades Union general secretary Steve Wright said: 'It's time for the government to finally overturn anti-worker laws brought in by the Conservatives to attack pay and conditions. 'The ban on workers supporting strikes across sectors is a Tory relic from the nineties. 'The aim has always been to isolate and limit workers' ability to stand up against employers threatening pay cuts and worsening conditions. 'These undemocratic restrictions are part of the UK being one of the worst countries for workers' rights in Europe. We urge all members of the House of Lords to support this amendment and restore this basic democratic right.'
