'Working' for whom?
Tt seems it is no longer enough for 'political parties to use their patronage to give peerages to their leading supporters – these appointees are now described as `working' peers, and their appointment is justified by politicians who are hostile to the House of Lords on the grounds that, so long as the Lords exists, every party must have its representatives to do its 'work' there. This sounds very fine, but in fact the 'working' peer is a cant term designed to conceal an attempt by political parties to control the Upper House still further. When a peerage was hereditary, it could not guarantee party loyalty in the long term. Even a normal life peerage carries with it no obligation to remain loyal to the party who arranged it; but a `working' peer is specifically appointed to do party work (though of course there is nothing which compels him to stick to it). It is a virtue of the House of Lords that its party ties are weak. It should resist 'working' peels
Previous page
