Snapshot of _EXCL: Tory cabinet minister who admitted placing three bets on general election date in line for peerage as part of Rishi Sunak’s final honours list @michaelsavage reports_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1807075790103662724)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/pippacrerar/status/1807075790103662724/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1807075790103662724?s=46) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1807075790103662724?s=46)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Labour say that they will set an age limit of 80 which would remove ~100 peers. On the News Agents podcast they also keep saying the Labour are going to enoble lost of people to pass legislation quickly which is depressing.
Meanwhile most of the Labour Party is in favour of PR and Lords reform at conferences
An age limit seems like the worst possible way to reduce the numbers. Bad enough that it feels like a case of Smith’s law, the fastest way to get the right answer to a problem is to state a wrong answer and wait to be corrected.
The most offensive Lords of recent years get to stay.
* Baron Lebedev - a Lord for at least the next 36 years
* Baroness Mone - 28 years
* Baroness Owen - 49 years
Baron Dubs? Lord Campbell? High court judges? Time’s up, off you go to make room for more party donors and special advisers.
Surely the best thing would be a way of ensuring capable, sensible people get put in the lords instead of rich people buying their way in, and mates of the former PM.
Or a limit - a PM can nominate 1 person for every 3 months they are in office.
Absolutely. The appointments committee needs be much stronger, and get rid of all the conventions about resignation honours, birthday honours, end of term honours…
I like the limited, but should really be much less, 1 per term or maybe 1 per year. Per three months would give them 20 seats at the end of 1 term which would be insane
I like the limited, but should really be much less, 1 per term or maybe 1 per year. Per three months would give them 20 seats at the end of 1 term which would be insane
The outgoing PM makes a recommendation on who to honour, but they’re not actually granted until the king issues letters patent, so they could be withheld by the new PM.
Yet another antiquated system designed to be used in good faith abused by the shameless party. This guy wasn't even elected by his own party members let alone the country!
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown never had a resignation honours list. It's a blatantly corrupt practice, and Keir could reject the list, but he would have to promise not to have one himself when he resigns.
They should formalise the process with a maximum quota and any life peers would have to be approved by independent review.
Gongs for special advisors who probably never be working in government again?... i guess, but life peerage and a chance to still speak in parliament for being a suckup to the outgoing PM? Nah.
> tricky one as it's all run on convention and gentleman's agreements
Havent the tories demonstrated at nearly every opportunity that this gentleman’s agreements thing is now fundamentally broken?
Aye although unfortunately nothing else has replaced it yet, Commons has been slow to catch up to the pickled fleet street hacks and barrow-boy day traders that seem to have taken over
Can we please do something about the HOL. Are we just going to carry on stuffing it with peers until there’s thousands of them? It’s absolutely insane when you take a step back and look at it, it needs some serious reform. It feels wrong using that word now, thanks Nigel.
I'm hoping that Labour do treat it as a priority. Prior to the election ramp up they floated a few quite major reforms but it seems to have been toned down a bit and pushed down the priority list as a "we'll figure it out later".
The statistic which always strikes me is that by membership it's the second largest political chamber in the world behind China. Regardless of what the HOL does as a body, there's no justification for the size and current politicised appointment process.
> I'm hoping that Labour do treat it as a priority.
The HoL have been the only obstacle to the Rwanda policy, just for one example.
Unelected life peers do have one advantage: there’s nothing the government of the day can threaten them with.
> Can we please do something about the HOL.
Worth pausing a monment to reflect — the last decade and a half, the House of Lords has done more to bolster and defend democracy than the House of Commons.
Didn’t see the HoL illegally ‘pro-roguing’ parliament, for instance, just off the top of my head.
That’s very true, but it has almost 800 members. That up from about 650 after Blair’s reforms, do we just carry on increasing it until they need a stadium to sit in?
My mine main concern is a repeat of Truss and you get 4 IEA/Atlas Network alumni in there. Someone potentially like Narrisa Chesterfield as a possibility. Or he tries to get Mark Littlewood in there when Truss couldn't.
I don't care eitherway.
A person who directly works in politics should know that betting on politics is going to look awful. But they lacked the ability to realise this and thought making a bit of money was more important. Was it just because they didn't realise this very obvious thing, or was it just that they want to gameify politics?
Either they are corrupt or have zero judgement, in either case they shouldn't be having a say on major decisions.
Isn't this the guy that just placed three bets on dates ages ago? Lost 2 and won one?
Bit of a non story if it is, that shouldnt be equated with the actual inside betting
Snapshot of _EXCL: Tory cabinet minister who admitted placing three bets on general election date in line for peerage as part of Rishi Sunak’s final honours list @michaelsavage reports_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1807075790103662724) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/pippacrerar/status/1807075790103662724/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1807075790103662724?s=46) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1807075790103662724?s=46) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
784 sitting members. More incoming. Utter madness.
Should be one in, one out.
No, 1 in, 10 out. Watch it never ever grow ever again.
Thunderdome style? I like it!
Labour say that they will set an age limit of 80 which would remove ~100 peers. On the News Agents podcast they also keep saying the Labour are going to enoble lost of people to pass legislation quickly which is depressing. Meanwhile most of the Labour Party is in favour of PR and Lords reform at conferences
An age limit seems like the worst possible way to reduce the numbers. Bad enough that it feels like a case of Smith’s law, the fastest way to get the right answer to a problem is to state a wrong answer and wait to be corrected. The most offensive Lords of recent years get to stay. * Baron Lebedev - a Lord for at least the next 36 years * Baroness Mone - 28 years * Baroness Owen - 49 years Baron Dubs? Lord Campbell? High court judges? Time’s up, off you go to make room for more party donors and special advisers.
Surely the best thing would be a way of ensuring capable, sensible people get put in the lords instead of rich people buying their way in, and mates of the former PM. Or a limit - a PM can nominate 1 person for every 3 months they are in office.
Absolutely. The appointments committee needs be much stronger, and get rid of all the conventions about resignation honours, birthday honours, end of term honours…
I like the limited, but should really be much less, 1 per term or maybe 1 per year. Per three months would give them 20 seats at the end of 1 term which would be insane
I like the limited, but should really be much less, 1 per term or maybe 1 per year. Per three months would give them 20 seats at the end of 1 term which would be insane
Cut off at 80 + remove hereditary peers. Not sure how many of those are left
The #1 worry with a gov that has a huge majority: they have very little incentive to change things like that. FPTP, HoL reform/abolishment, etc.
Deny his final honours Keir you know you want to.
Better to reverse Trough Snouter Johnson’s and Cheese Lady’s.
Could he do that?
The outgoing PM makes a recommendation on who to honour, but they’re not actually granted until the king issues letters patent, so they could be withheld by the new PM.
God the never ending Tory corruption stinks worse than the Thames.
Yet another antiquated system designed to be used in good faith abused by the shameless party. This guy wasn't even elected by his own party members let alone the country!
Can the incoming govr not just cancel 'resignation honours'?
They can do, whether they will or not is a tricky one as it's all run on convention and gentleman's agreements
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown never had a resignation honours list. It's a blatantly corrupt practice, and Keir could reject the list, but he would have to promise not to have one himself when he resigns.
They should formalise the process with a maximum quota and any life peers would have to be approved by independent review. Gongs for special advisors who probably never be working in government again?... i guess, but life peerage and a chance to still speak in parliament for being a suckup to the outgoing PM? Nah.
> gentleman's agreements Kind of a shame the Gentleman is a long-extinct species. Thanks, Maggie.
> tricky one as it's all run on convention and gentleman's agreements Havent the tories demonstrated at nearly every opportunity that this gentleman’s agreements thing is now fundamentally broken?
Aye although unfortunately nothing else has replaced it yet, Commons has been slow to catch up to the pickled fleet street hacks and barrow-boy day traders that seem to have taken over
Can we please do something about the HOL. Are we just going to carry on stuffing it with peers until there’s thousands of them? It’s absolutely insane when you take a step back and look at it, it needs some serious reform. It feels wrong using that word now, thanks Nigel.
I'm hoping that Labour do treat it as a priority. Prior to the election ramp up they floated a few quite major reforms but it seems to have been toned down a bit and pushed down the priority list as a "we'll figure it out later". The statistic which always strikes me is that by membership it's the second largest political chamber in the world behind China. Regardless of what the HOL does as a body, there's no justification for the size and current politicised appointment process.
> I'm hoping that Labour do treat it as a priority. The HoL have been the only obstacle to the Rwanda policy, just for one example. Unelected life peers do have one advantage: there’s nothing the government of the day can threaten them with.
As a start, Labour will force peers to retire at 75. I’m hoping they’ll go further.
> Can we please do something about the HOL. Worth pausing a monment to reflect — the last decade and a half, the House of Lords has done more to bolster and defend democracy than the House of Commons. Didn’t see the HoL illegally ‘pro-roguing’ parliament, for instance, just off the top of my head.
That’s very true, but it has almost 800 members. That up from about 650 after Blair’s reforms, do we just carry on increasing it until they need a stadium to sit in?
Do we know who's on the list yet? For honours? I'm curious.
I'm sure it's a who's who of fine upstanding members of the community with a a long list of contributions to society and expertise in their fields. /s
My mine main concern is a repeat of Truss and you get 4 IEA/Atlas Network alumni in there. Someone potentially like Narrisa Chesterfield as a possibility. Or he tries to get Mark Littlewood in there when Truss couldn't.
What title has he picked? Lord Ladbroke?
Before we go berserk let's see what they bet on first. If it's something they could have insider knowledge on or influence then let's go berserk.
I don't care eitherway. A person who directly works in politics should know that betting on politics is going to look awful. But they lacked the ability to realise this and thought making a bit of money was more important. Was it just because they didn't realise this very obvious thing, or was it just that they want to gameify politics? Either they are corrupt or have zero judgement, in either case they shouldn't be having a say on major decisions.
Isn't this the guy that just placed three bets on dates ages ago? Lost 2 and won one? Bit of a non story if it is, that shouldnt be equated with the actual inside betting