The reverberations from Boris Johnson’s resignation peerages and honours list have not died down. They are likely to continue, especially if the former culture secretary Nadine Dorries, who was spurned for a Johnson peerage, has anything to do with it. But even the political stink surrounding the Johnson list may soon be outdone by Liz Truss’s outrageous proposed resignation honours. Rishi Sunak will deserve every piece of opprobrium that he gets if he nods this latest list through.
From what is known about the names submitted by Ms Truss, which are now being vetted by the House of Lords appointments commission and by the Cabinet Office, her list is a disgrace on two quite separate grounds. The first is that she has submitted a list at all, having been bundled out of No 10 last October after a mere 49 days. The very existence of her list is shameless and shaming, both to Ms Truss and to those who are on it. Mr Sunak and the House of Lords appointment commission should put a stop to it right now.
The second ground is the length of her list of shame. It is said to have 14 names on it (two original nominees turned down the humiliation of being on the list). Even so, this is one gong for every three and a half days Ms Truss spent as prime minister. If Tony Blair had handed out honours at that rate, his resignation list after more than 10 years would have contained more than 1,000 names. In fact, Mr Blair chose not to submit a list at all; nor did Gordon Brown.
The Truss nominees include aides, cronies, ideologues and big donors. Mr Sunak has a strong moral case for blocking the lot of them. He would win much-needed public prestige if he does so. In particular, he ought to block all peerages for Ms Truss’s donors and cronies.
It is long past time to draw a line under the packing of the House of Lords. It is now a preposterously large chamber of 784, for whom there would not be room if they all turned up. The way peerages are handed out is a mark of the degradation of British public life. It is in Mr Sunak’s overwhelming interest to drive a stake through the system’s entitled heart. He should do so.
The Labour party will inevitably denounce all this as further proof of Tory sleaze. The charge is justified; the Conservatives have systematically abused the system. But the stuffing of the House of Lords is a Labour problem too. It will become a much more salient one if Labour wins the general election. The heat would then turn on to Sir Keir Starmer, and rightly so.
Labour is committed to reform of the House of Lords. The Institute for Government and the UCL Constitution Unit have recently set out sensible options for doing this. Not all of these require major time-consuming legislation. But Labour is reportedly also preparing to appoint dozens of Labour peers, to reverse the Tories’ Lords majority and get the new government’s bills through. These policies are not inherently incompatible. But it is obvious which one would get priority in practice. Labour therefore needs to make an unambiguous pledge before the election. It should make explicit manifesto commitments to enact the far-reaching reforms that the upper house so urgently requires in its first 12 months. It cannot afford to be, or to be seen as, an upholder of a corrupted system. But that is exactly what will happen if Labour fails to grasp the nettle.
