What is the point of a House of Lords that rewards failure? | Martin Kettle

David Cameron’s new peerages don’t rebalance but only further bloat an institution in need of radical reform

Eighteen summers ago, in the early weeks of the newly elected Labour government, I had lunch with Tony Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. Powell arrived late at the restaurant, apologising that he had just been finalising the largest new list of appointments to the House of Lords of modern times, 57 in all and mainly Labour, which was published a few days later.

I asked him if any of those whom he had approached had refused a peerage, or had asked for time to reflect on the offer. Powell laughed out loud at the naivete of my questions. Not even one of them, he replied. It would not be an exaggeration, he added, to say that practically all of them bit his hand off in their hurry to say yes.

Related: Radical reform of the House of Lords is vital – that’s why I’m glad to be a member | Peter Hain

Most new peers, now as in 1997, take little persuading – even if they were once vociferous critics

Continue reading...