Michael Crick is right about appointments to the House of Lords
All this speculation about who might or might not be on the imminent new peers list is silly. Appointments to our legislature – FOR LIFE – ought to be an open process, subject to proper public and media scrutiny
— Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) January 5, 2018
If we are continuing with an appointed upper chamber then the process must be transparent
With Mrs. May, who lost the CON majority last June, planning to bolster CON representation in the House of Lords then there’s a fair bit of speculation about who might get the £300 a day plus expenses roles.
Let us not forget that the reason we have an appointed Lords is that Tory backbench MPs rebelled on a programme motion in 2011 effectively stopping any progress on the coalition plan for an elected upper house.
In normal times there is a convention that the Lords does not seek to impede legislation that was in the general election manifesto of a party winning a majority which did not happen last June. So no majority means no convention.
Mrs. May went to the country last June seeking a mandate for her Brexit plans which the voters did not give her.