Those opposed to the idea — which, unsurprisingly, includes most hereditary peers — complain the plan is incomplete, partisan (because most hereditary peers are Tory) and gives too much power to the prime minister.
Conservative peer Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, better known as Lord Strathclyde, is a former leader of the Lords who helped secure the 1999 deal to save a rump of hereditaries.
He is no fan of Labour’s drive to shake things up. “As a result of this, for the first time ever the House of Lords will be a creature of statute appointed by the prime minister, and I am very uncomfortable with that,” he said.
Jim Bethell, another Conservative former minister who sits in the Lords as an hereditary peer, said: “To go in studs-first from the outset in order to try to improve the electoral maths of this government is a shame, and marks a change in tone in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords.”
Even within the House of Lords itself, it’s hard to find anyone willing to defend the hereditary principle. But there are deep misgivings at the idea of a wholly-appointed chamber, particularly with a more fundamental overhaul punted into the long grass.
Bad blood
Regardless of the viscounts’ grumbling, Labour’s bill is all but guaranteed to pass, thanks to a longstanding convention that the House of Lords cannot block a government manifesto promise.
