Latest news with #politicalrepresentation
Telegraph
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
If Reform wins, they will need Tory support to defeat the institutional intifada
Nigel Farage is right. Every political party in Great Britain willing to nominate peers is represented in the House of Lords. The Green Party and Plaid Cymru have four MPs and two peers each. Reform too has four MPs. So it would be reasonable for Farage's party, given the representation of Plaid Cymru and the Green Party in the Commons, to be granted a couple of peerages when the next tranche of appointments are made. This is the case, more or less, that Farage recently made. It goes without saying that Sir Keir Starmer shows no sign of recognising Reform's claim: why would he help to build up the party he currently sees as Labour's foremost rival? He could argue correctly that there is no formal relationship, under the terms of our constitution, between the number of MPs and the number of peers that a party has in Parliament. And point out that there is a smattering of peers, of whom the most active is Baroness Fox, that were members either of the Brexit Party or of Ukip. But there is an injustice about Sir Keir's stonewalling – one might call it two-tier appointments – that many voters will intuitively grasp. And if it's unfair to exclude Reform altogether from the Lords now, how much more will it be if they win, say, 50 seats in the Commons after the next election? What would the position be – thinking on – were the party to win outright? Or to form a government with the support of other parties? I don't believe that such a result is likely. In a hung Parliament, Sir Keir has more potential partners to approach than Farage: the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Welsh nationalists, the Irish ones, the Left-wing independents. It may also be that the public mood changes, Kemi Badenoch seizes voters' imagination and that, in this age of fissile politics, my own party, the Conservatives, recover. But the prospect of a Reform government – either with a majority or perhaps supported by the Tories – is no longer so absurd as to be laughed off. How would such a government approach the Lords? At the last general election, Reform proposed to replace the Upper House with an elected chamber. But that was then, before the party's opinion poll and local election take-off, and tomorrow is another day. Farage will presumably want a Reform government to, for example, leave the ECHR, scrap the Climate Change Act, abolish the Equality Act, reform the civil service and sack activist judges. He may well conclude that a protracted constitutional struggle with the Upper House would be one confrontation too many, since it would hold up all his other plans. Furthermore, Farage, if hunkered down in No 10, would hold the power of patronage. And prime ministers, once they have it, are reluctant to give it up. So were Reform to form a government, either solely or with others, Farage would gain the peers he is demanding today – and more. How many could reasonably be appointed? A hundred? More? How swiftly could they be approved, given the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission? Or might such a government simply abolish the commission outright? Even so, there would be a trade-off between the speedy introduction of new peers and efficient passage of the new government's business. Would scores of new Reform peers – conceivably hundreds – have the skills, know-how, and determination to legislate and govern competently? What would happen to the present balance of the chamber, in which no party has a majority? These are deep waters in which not just the Upper House but our constitution itself could flounder. Conservative peers would have a responsibility to help to navigate them. I have no confidence in Reform. The party is a one-man band. There is no sign of it making serious preparations for government – for the institutional intifada of resistance it would meet from elements of the state. Coalition with such a force would be in no-one's interest, neither the parties nor the voters'. Nonetheless, Tory peers, in such circumstances, can learn lessons from the past. (And what's conservatism all about, if not learning lessons from the past?) In 1924, the first Labour government had no peers in the Lords at all. So Liberal ones, for a mix of political reasons, helped the new government to pass its legislation. The Upper House has changed radically since the introduction of life peers – of which I'm one. In the event of Reform leading a government, Conservative peers would have a responsibility – whatever our own party's relationship with it in the Commons might be – to help the new government get legislation through the Lords in good order. All this may never happen. And these are early days. But not too early to think ahead.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Farage urges Starmer to appoint Reform peers to House of Lords
Nigel Farage has called for the right to nominate Reform UK supporters to the House of Lords, claiming this would address a 'democratic disparity'. In a letter to Keir Starmer, the Reform leader said it was unfair that other smaller parties, including the Greens, had peers in the upper chamber but his party did not, despite attracting more votes in the general election last year. In what Farage described as a 'modest request', he said it was time that Reform was represented in the House of Lords. He wrote: 'Reform UK wishes to appoint life peers to the upper house at the earliest possible opportunity.' Political appointments to the Lords are made at the discretion of the prime minister, who is under no constitutional obligation to elevate opposition figures to the Lords. But under political convention, No 10 invites opposition leaders to nominate candidates for peerages. Downing Street has yet to respond to Farage's demand. His letter, first reported in the Times, said: 'My party received over 4.1m votes at the general election in July 2024. We have since won a large number of seats in local government, led in the national opinion polls for many months and won the only byelection of this parliament.' Farage's demand has renewed calls to replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber – something Starmer promised when he was elected Labour leader in 2020. Farage wrote: 'While Reform UK believes in a reformed House of Lords, the time has come to address the democratic disparity that exists in the upper house.' His letter added: 'The Greens, DUP, Plaid Cymru, and UUP have 13 peers between them but Reform UK has none. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats now have 76 peers but received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform UK in July last year. 'None of this holds water any longer, given the seismic shifts that have taken place in British politics.' Natalie Bennett, a former Green party leader who was made a life peer in 2019, tweeted: 'Sir Keir could respond by going for a fully elected upper house, as @TheGreenParty long calling for.' Labour's manifesto promised 'immediate reforms' of the Lords in advance of a longer-term ambition to replace the Lords with an alternative second chamber. So far, the government has only legislated to abolish hereditary peers. Starmer has backed away from a Labour commission led by Gordon Brown to replace the Lords with an elected assembly of the nations and regions.
CBC
08-08-2025
- Politics
- CBC
How is Canada doing in its response to U.S. tariffs? Windsor Morning's political panel discusses
The byelection in Alberta is raising big questions about political representation and protest politics. Plus: how is Canada doing in response to new U.S. tariffs? Windsor Morning's political panel weighs in.
Zawya
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Zawya
Future political agreements must reflect the aspirations of all Libyans, say southern representatives in public consultation
Special Representative of the Secretary-General Hanna Tetteh met with twenty-eight representatives from the south at UNSMIL's premises in Tripoli. The meeting aimed to gather their views on the Advisory Committee's recommendations as part of the Mission's ongoing public consultations. The representatives from Sebha, Birak al-Shati', Murzuq, Ghat, Jufrah, Ubar, Gatroun and Tahala, welcomed the briefing by SRSG Tetteh on the outcomes of the Advisory Committee. They emphasized the importance of equal representation, equitable development, and fair access for all to political mechanisms. They highlighted that any future agreement must reflect the aspirations of all Libyans, especially those historically marginalized. Participants addressed the representation of cultural components in the political process, saying: '15% is not enough, Libya is ethnically diverse, and we must guarantee fair representation to all Libyans.' Many participants also expressed support for option four, viewing it as a path that would grant Libyans a greater voice in the process but highlighted concerns it could repeat previous failed political processes. Comprising of mayors, municipal council members and representatives of political parties, the meeting was also attended by Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General, Political, Stephanie Koury, who briefed the participants on the full process of the Advisory Committee's report. UNSMIL published the Executive Summary of the Advisory Committee's Report in May, including its four proposed options to move the political process forward. It also launched a public consultation and survey to ask people to put forward their recommendations and ideas and decided which of these options they would prefer: Conducting presidential and legislative elections simultaneously; Conducting parliamentary elections first, followed by the adoption of a permanent constitution; Adopting a permanent constitution before elections; or Establishing a political dialogue committee, based on the Libyan Political Agreement to finalize electoral laws, executive authority and permanent constitution. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).
Irish Times
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
UN committee calls for greater Traveller representation in Irish politics
Low levels of political representation among Traveller and Roma women in Ireland have been criticised during a Government delegation's appearance before a United Nations committee. Ireland was examined on Friday by a UN committee on women's rights with regard to its compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Ireland last faced questioning by the Geneva-based CEDAW committee in 2017. The delegation also heard calls for guarantees to protect the human rights of sex workers, an assessment of the number of victims of child trafficking, and for complete restorative justice in relation to the mother and baby home redress scheme. The marginalisation of migrant, Traveller and Roma women dominated concerns voiced by the CEDAW committee, which consists of 23 human rights experts, with employment levels and political representation among topics raised. The implementation of education strategies addressing sexism and gender stereotyping was also discussed by the delegation. READ MORE Committee vice-chairperson Marianne Mikko said that Ireland had 'not produced meaningful representation' of minority women in politics. Ms Mikko highlighted Government failure 'to adopt legislative quotas which accelerate the participation of minority women in political and public life', as called on by the last committee in 2017. ' One Traveller woman in the senate is good but not sufficient,' she said. Speaking as a representative of the Department of Children, Disability and Equality , Lisa Hughes outlined some initiatives the State has taken to increase the inclusion of Traveller and Roma women in public life. Ms Hughes said: 'A specific action to promote the participation of Traveller and Roma women in political and community participation is included in the National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy, published last year.' She added that a policy paper was discussed at the steering committee of the strategy when it met on May 21st last year 'to look at the Roma capacity to engage with policymaking'. In her opening statement, committee rapporteur Jelena Pia-Comella said the committee 'remains concerned at the lack of rights based investigations and reparations to the survivors of abuse' in mother and baby homes, Magdalene laundries, schools, residential institutions and survivors of the practice of symphysiotomy . Responding to concerns raised surrounding the scope of the mother and baby redress scheme, Carol Baxter, assistant secretary justice from the Department of Children, Disability and Equality said that payments given to date 'range in nature from €11,000-100,000, so they very much reflect the fact that people who were in Magdalene institutions often had very difficult experiences there'. Ms Baxter confirmed that the scheme is available to people living abroad 'and has always been', when asked. 'The State has been very conscious of the need for a proactive approach to make sure that the broadest number of women qualify,' said Ms Baxter, adding that it had commissioned senior counsel Mary O'Toole to look at cases where there was a dispute over the length of stay in the institutions. The committee were told that Ms O'Toole reviewed 231 cases and 'already has recommended additional payments', and in a majority of cases payments have been made. Her report has been finalised and will be published very shortly, Ms Baxter said.
