House of Lords votes to block expulsion of hereditary peers
The amendment, put forward by shadow culture minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, would abolish the aristocratic by-elections, meaning the number of hereditary peers would decrease as individuals die or retire.
There are currently 92 seats reserved for members of the Lords who are there by right of birth, but there are only 86 currently sitting.
This is because by-elections were suspended after Labour won the election last year and six hereditary peers have left the House since then by death, retirement or moving on.
Lord Parkinson argued that current sitting hereditary peers have 'served here with distinction and, in many cases, with more conspicuous industry than those who have been appointed'.
He told peers: 'I hope, through this modest amendment, we can applaud their diligence and their public service and seek to harness it for the benefit of the nation for a while longer.'
There have been numerous attempts to end the hereditary by-elections since their inception 26 years ago, including from Labour peer Lord Grocott.
Lord Parkinson said: 'The formulation he (Lord Grocott) has proposed in every parliamentary session since 2016, apart from this one, is exactly the same as the one we advance today.
'Just as with peers who proposed private bills under the last Labour government, he has found it difficult to make progress with his bills under Conservative governments.'
However, he said: 'On this, we give in… We yield to the mandate that they've won at the ballot box and take it at their word that further reform will follow.'
The Tory frontbencher concluded that, in return, he asks for 'clemency and generosity' to those hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords to allow them to remain for the rest of their life if they wish.
Meanwhile, Lord Groccot said: 'I'm finding it difficult to compute exactly what's going on today because Friday after Friday, bill after bill, to a three-quarters empty House, I have been faced with substantial opposition, not just from individual members – not exclusively from the Tory Party, but overwhelmingly – but also from the Government, and the bill's got no further.
'And here we are now with a pretty full House all agreed that these by-elections are farcical.'
He said his motive in bringing forward his bills were to 'stop this absurdity' and lamented that 'time and time again' his bills were rejected and filibustered.
Lord Grocott said he had thought that no-one in the upper chamber could think a by-election to get into the House should be exclusively for men, or that it is feasible to have 'an electorate of three when you've got seven candidates'.
The Labour peer added: 'I'm flattered, I suppose, to find that suddenly everyone seems to be agreed on this. We could have saved ourselves so much time when I brought this in first in 2016.'
However, he said he prefers plans to expel the hereditary peers over ending the by-elections because it's 'better' and 'does the job more effectively', allowing the conversation to move on to further reform.
Lord Grocott concluded: 'Thank heavens that we are removing the hereditary principle as a mechanism for membership of this House. It's long, long, long overdue.
'It could have been dealt with much earlier, but let's not cry over spilt milk, let's just get on with this and get on with it quickly.'
Leader of the House of Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said she is sure the Tories 'regret' not taking up her offer to ensure Lord Grocott's bill passed through the House.
She said: 'We could have done that and that opportunity was lost. It's a shame it was lost, but that's where we are now. We now are debating a manifesto commitment from the Labour Party…
'The principle of this was established 25 years ago that the hereditary principle would not be a route into this House.
'That does not decry any individual member who's arrived by that route, but the time has come to an end.'
It is expected that the House of Commons will reject this amendment to the Bill.
Before the vote, former senior diplomat Lord Kerr of Kinlochard warned that ping-pong between the two Houses would be 'poison' and 'disastrous' for the image of the Lords.
Later, peers rejected a move by the Liberal Democrats that would have forced the Government to bring forward proposals for an elected House of Lords.
The bid to secure 'a democratic mandate' for the upper chamber was defeated by 263 votes to 84, majority 179.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Lucy Connolly is no martyr, she's a racist. It's the truth that's being twisted
Lucy Connolly's post wasn't just a tweet and wasn't a one off - the ex-Tory councillor's wife was exposed for sending more vile messages and posts before her hateful Southport statement First, the facts. Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty in court to writing a social media post intending to stir up racial hatred. She'd called for 'mass deportation now' in a social media post to her 10,000 followers on X on the day three children were killed in a knife attack in Southport. In the expletive-ridden message she said: 'set fire to all the f*****g hotels full of the b***** for all I care' concluding: 'if that makes me racist so be it'. The post was later deleted but police established it had been available for at least three and a half hours. So, in short, the wife of a Conservative councillor called for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire. Judge Melbourne Inman KC said Connolly had been 'well aware of how volatile the situation was' at the time of the Southport attack, volatility that led to serious disorder in a number of areas. Your message was widely read – it was viewed 310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks,' he said. It wasn't just a tweet. She'd broken the law. She accepted as much, which was why she pleaded guilty. It wasn't just a tweet. Connolly had had form for xenophobic, anti-Black and anti-migrant rhetoric on social media which a glance at her timeline would show up. It clearly wasn't a one off. In fact, the court was told that the day before she was arrested, Connolly had sent a WhatsApp message saying the 'raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol'. She also said she'd 'play the mental health card' if arrested, and would deny responsibility for the post if asked. The full picture tells a different story to the one that the liars, racists and xenophobes would have you believe. And if Connolly truly believed in her innocence she would not have sought what she believed to be a lesser sentence. Nor does this have anything whatsoever to do with censorship. If Connolly wanted to write the same things again she'd be free to do so. Twitter would allow her post to remain, but the law of the land would find her guilty and she would likely go back to prison for a lot longer. Because contrary to what the thugs and bigots masquerading as people who simply care about their families won't tell you is that free speech does exist. You are free to say whatever you like. But you will also be free to accept the consequences. Free speech doesn't spare you from the consequences of shouting 'Fire' in a packed cinema when there isn't one, sparking panic and most likely serious injury. The likes of Nigel Farage, Richard Tice and the rest of Reform UK, with risible Tory leader Kemi Badenoch chasing the bandwagon, are throwing out any number of incendiary perspectives on this incident to whip up anger and division. Which is why it was so important for the Daily Mirror to take a stand on Thursday. The country is a tinderbox with a significant number of people in public life who should know better encouraging vigilante mobs, stoking fear and loathing and telling straight up lies. Now that she is out, the liars will use Connolly as a martyr. And the engagement-chasing sections of the media, happy to whip up division will indulge them. The liars will paint Connolly as a demure, childminder mum put through hell for a simple tweet. They won't mention her other tweets, among them one referring to Somalis with vomiting emojis, the one reacting to an anti-racism protest by suggesting those taking a stand should house: 'an illegal boat invader'. They won't let the truth get in the way of a carefully stage-managed bid to rehabilitate a woman whose prejudice is well documented. But we will.
The Sun
27 minutes ago
- The Sun
Interactive map reveals number of hotel migrants in each UK council as official figs show 32K currently in accommodation
A MAP has revealed the number of asylum seekers living in hotels in each UK council. Data released today showed that 32,059 migrants were living in taxpayer-funded hotels as of June this year, up eight per cent over the past year. 3 While data has not been released on the number of hotels in use, Labour says there are less than 210 being used, down from the more than 400 that were being utilised in summer 2023. The local authority housing the highest number of asylum seekers in June was Hillingdon in west London, with 2,238 people staying in hotels. Hounslow, also in west London, housed the second highest number of hotel migrants, with 1,536 staying in the area as of the end of June. Manchester had the highest number of asylum seekers outside of London, with 1,158 living in hotels. The vast majority of councils had no migrants housed in hotels. Other data published today revealed government spending on asylum in the UK fell to £4.76 billion in the year ending March 2025. This marks a 12 per cent decline from a record £5.38 billion the year prior. The totals represent Home Office costs related to asylum, including direct cash support and accommodation such as hotels but not costs relating to intercepting migrants crossing the English Channel. In all, roughly 0.37 per cent of total government spending in the year 2024-25 was related to asylum. While specific costs for hotels have not been published, a report from public spending watchdog the National Audit Office earlier this year found housing asylum seekers in hotels accounted for around 76 per cent of annual costs for asylum accommodation and support contracts. Small boat crossings under Labour are on brink of hitting 50,000 - one illegal migrant every 11 mins since the election That amounts to around £1.3 billion of an estimated £1.7 billion in 2024/25. The Home Office has a legal obligation to provide accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. So, when there is not enough housing, the department moves asylum seekers from temporary accommodation to alternatives such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases. This comes after Home Office data released this morning showed 111,000 people claimed asylum in the year ending June 2025, up 14 per cent on last year. It is higher than the previous recorded peak of 103,000 which was set in 2002. The number of people claiming asylum in the UK has almost doubled since 2021. And just under half of all those applying for protection in the UK are granted it at the initial decision stage - 48 per cent. It is lower than in 2022 when 77 per cent of those applying were given the green light. It comes just after Epping Forest District Council this week won its bid to block asylum seekers being housed there. The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, has been at the centre of anti-immigration demonstrations after one of its guests was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The owners of the hotel have now been ordered to remove migrants from the site before September 12, inspiring other councils to say they will pursue similar legal challenges. Labour's plan must show results... and fast By JACK ELSOM, Political Editor LABOUR Ministers can insist they are getting a grip on illegal migration until they are blue in the face - but the numbers speak for themselves. We already knew that Channel crossings are up around 50 per cent since Sir Keir Starmer came into power last year on a promise to 'smash the gangs'. Today's damning statistics will only add to public fury over the small boats crisis, with asylum claims at a record high and hotel use up 8 per cent. Even the PM's flagship boast to have ramped up deportations seems hollow when you drill into the numbers. Yes, removals have increased, but the vast majority are migrants leaving this country voluntarily, often with a sum of taxpayer cash to send them on their way. Returns of small boat migrants have actually DECREASED by seven per cent in the past year. Inside Yvette Cooper's Home Office there is fury that the Tories are seizing on their migration woes having left them with a right old mess. The Conservatives are far from blameless, especially given the mind-bending figure that just 4 per cent of small boat arrivals have been returned since 2018. But frenzied Labour attempts to point the finger at the last lot will not wash with voters demanding action. Sir Keir and his ministers knew the problem they would be inheriting, and told Brits they had a plan to fix it. That plan needs to start showing some results, and fast. 3 3
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The age of unpopularity
Illustration by Dom McKenzie / Ikon Images Last September, just two months after Labour's election, Keir Starmer declared that his government was 'going to have to be unpopular'. That has proved to be one of the Prime Minister's safer predictions. Earlier this week Labour achieved another unwelcome milestone: its net approval rating fell to -56, matching the level recorded by the Conservatives just before the 2024 election. Some will conclude from this that the government can simply do no right in the eyes of a disillusioned electorate. But this isn't quite true. Polling by More in Common shows that policies such as the Ukraine negotiations, the minimum wage increase, the Renters' Rights Bill and the sewage bill are both popular and salient. For the public, however, these are far eclipsed by failures such as the winter fuel payment cuts, an excessively gloomy narrative and a lack of clear purpose. Yet it isn't only Labour's descent into unpopularity that is striking – British politics is defined by it. Not one of the current party leaders enjoys a positive approval rating according to YouGov. Nigel Farage, the man cast as an electoral pied piper, is almost as unpopular as the becalmed Kemi Badenoch. Jeremy Corbyn, the insurgent eyeing a second coming, is still more unpopular than both. Ed Davey emerges as the most popular leader but he is flattered by his greater obscurity: 38 per cent of voters don't have an opinion on him. Though Reform now comfortably leads among every pollster, this is some way short of a truly popular revolt. Back in 1981, the SDP-Liberal Alliance, invoked again in recent months, once achieved a rating of 50.5 per cent; Reform is currently averaging 29 per cent. What we are witnessing, in short, is a war of the weak. Labour is an unpopular incumbent and the Tories an unforgiven opposition. Farage and Corbyn are daring but divisive (both, with telling symmetry, are disliked by 61 per cent of the electorate). Who wins in this strange new universe? Pollsters and commentators have traditionally defined British elections as a battle for the 'centre ground'. Swing voters – who would oscillate between the Conservatives and Labour – were prized above all. But this conventional fight, some in Westminster argue, has now been supplanted by another. A private polling presentation by Stack Data Strategy – co-founded by Ameet Gill, a former strategist to David Cameron – instead frames British politics as a struggle between left and right coalitions. In an era when the winning post is closer to 30 per cent than 40 per cent, the side which triumphs will be that which best preserves its base. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The risk for Labour is that while the right-wing vote consolidates around Reform, the left-wing vote fragments. Since the general election, Farage has won over almost a third of 2024 Tories (29 per cent). Labour, meanwhile, has shed votes to the Lib Dems (13 per cent) and the Greens (9 per cent). A new left party, already polling as high as 15 per cent in some surveys, threatens only to maximise this disunity. How does Labour prevent this trend giving Farage an electoral shortcut to No 10? It's a question Starmer will soon need to show his party he has an answer to. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: What the Bell Hotel closure reveals about the asylum housing stalemate] Related
