Hereditary peer compares Starmer to China's Xi as MPs vote to abolish bloodline members

A hereditary peer has compared Keir Starmer to Chinese President Xi after Labor pushed House of Lords reform through the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister is already facing allegations that he is waging class warfare by adding VAT to independent school tuition fees and imposing the new tax on family farms by changing inheritance tax rules.

And his government's victory in the second reading of the Lords Reform Act aimed at absolving hereditary peers provoked further negative reactions.

Conservative hereditary peer Lord Mancroft claimed Sir Keir Starmer was trying to give himself powers comparable to those of authoritarian Chinese leader Xi Jinping, which would mean Britain's Parliament was on track to resemble the toothless farce that is Congress popular Chinese.

Conservative shadow minister Alex Burghart has accused the government of trying to gerrymander the composition of the House of Lords. We think this nervous little Bill is ill-conceived and perhaps, at worst, dishonest, he said. He added: “What we see here today is in reality an attempt to restructure the composition of the House of Lords under the guise of reform.

open image in gallery

Conservative peer Lord Dobbs, known for writing the House Of Cards trilogy, called the removal of hereditary House of Lords peers “constitutional bait” and said Labor appeared “narrow-minded and vindictive”.

But Lord Grocott, a former Labor MP who had long campaigned to scrap hereditary by-elections, argued that comprehensive reform of the Upper House would “slowly and inexorably sink into the sand”.

Welcoming legislation to abolish bloodlines, he said: “Unfinished business is a powerful reason for me to be excited about this bill.

“The other reason for me is that it means the end, the return of these ridiculous, farcical and indefensible hereditary by-elections.”

He believed the path to reform was not “a grandiose project”, he added: “The overwhelming evidence of the last 100 years is that any attempt at comprehensive reform in one go will slowly collapse and inexorably into the sand.

“The reforms that will succeed are those that are short, simple and targeted.”

Meanwhile, elements of the unelected Lords that Sir Keir wanted to retain meant that the vast majority of Labor were able to prevent a Lib Dem amendment turning the Upper House into an elected chamber by 355 votes to 93 and another attempting to impeach the bishops, which attracted the support of only 41 MPs.

open image in gallery

Conservative MP Andrew Murrison told the House of Commons: “I don't particularly want to see our legislature populated with people who are there because they represent a particular religious community in this country.”

He added: “I'm a practicing Anglican and I appreciate the views of the bishops, of course, but it's just not right that they are dog-collar politicians, I would say, generally propagating a vision of left-liberal world.

“I would much rather they were in their diocese engaged in the healing of souls. That's where I want to see them as Anglicans.”

MPs also voted by 376 to 98, with a majority of 278, to reject a Conservative amendment to the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill which would have delayed changes to the upper house until the publication of 'a joint report on wider reforms to the House of Lords.

SNP MP Pete Wishart branded Parliament's second chamber an absurd embarrassment and criticized the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill for not going far enough.

Speaking during the committee stage of the bills, Mr Wishart also criticized the Labor government for not being prepared to kick out the damn bishops.

The Perth and Kinross-shire MP called the bill, which proposes to remove the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords, a pathetic, small and tiny bill that should have been passed ago centuries.

He told the Commons: “I'm just someone who inherently believes that if you represent the people, you should be elected by the people.

That to legislate requires the consent, through some sort of electoral mandate, of a group of people who vote for you to go into a legislature and represent them, and allow you to make the laws of this country.