More peers than MPs? Surely some mistake

According to guardian.co.uk:

“The controversy over honours for political benefactors was reopened today with the appointment of a clutch of party donors and political apparatchiks as working peers.

The millionaire car importer Bob Edmiston, who gave £2m to the Tories, the Conservative party treasurer Stanley Fink, and the Labour donor Sir Gulam Noon were among 54 new working peers announced by Downing Street today.

Howard Flight, a former deputy chairman of the Conservative party, and Tina Stowell, a former deputy chief of staff to William Hague when he was opposition leader, were also on the list.”

The paper goes on to say:

“The inclusion of Edmiston and Noon, who were questioned under caution as part of the 2007 police inquiry into whether loans were made in return for the promise of an honour, may prove controversial. The Scottish National party MP Angus MacNeil, whose complaint to police sparked the cash-for-honours inquiry, said: “David Cameron should be mindful of the mess Tony Blair found himself in over the appointment of party donors to the Lords.

“There should be no link between donations and peerages, but we again have big donors being elevated to the Lords. This is supposed to be a democracy, but the UK parliament now has more unelected peers than it has elected MPs.”

Pro-reformers immediately attacked the details of today’s announcement, clearly illustrating that defending the current arrangements is indefensible:

“Peter Facey, the director of the pressure group Unlock Democracy, said: “If politicians and prime ministers want to reward their friends, instead of sending them to the House of Lords, what’s wrong with a gold watch?

“People who make and amend our laws should be elected by the public, not selected for good deeds done in the past by grateful politicians.

“House of Lords reform is long overdue, yet despite much talk from this government we have yet to see concrete proposals.

“We await the government’s proposals with baited breath. We don’t want this to turn into another broken promise. Until then these appointments will stick in the throat.”“

We might also add that this type of treating constiutional principles as a political plaything suggests the need for a codified constitution is needed now more than ever.

The government, however, defended the new propsed appointments thus:

“Cameron’s spokesman, asked about the donations controversy, said: “There is an established process on appointing peers, and that is that they are vetted through the House of Lords appointments commission, and there is an established process on donations, which is that they have to be declared to the Electoral Commission.”” Hardly a robust defence.

Follow comment by Grauniad readers on today’s nominations here