Why UK is reforming the House of Lords and what risks it carries

16.03.2026, 16:03 eurointegration.com.ua

A British reform that began more than 25 years ago may finally be coming to an end. It concerns a fundamental change in how the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK Parliament, operates.

Read more about the reform and its potential impact on the British aristocracy in the column by Volodymyr Kurennoy of the Winston Churchill School of Real Politics: British revolution: why Starmer’s government wants parliamentary reform and what consequences it may mave.

The House of Lords is the upper chamber of Britain’s parliamentary system. Like many things British, it has traditionally had little in common with upper chambers in other European countries such as Germany, France or Italy.

"Moreover, there is simply no equivalent to such an institution anywhere in the world," the author stresses.

According to him, the House of Lords has very limited legislative powers. Its function is to scrutinise legislation adopted by the lower chamber, the House of Commons, and to perform certain judicial and monitoring roles.

Today the House of Lords is largely an appointed chamber that performs a revising and advisory role regarding bills coming from the House of Commons. Its purpose is not to block legislation but to review, edit and improve its content.

Unlike, the House of Commons, which is elected by the public, the House of Lords was historically formed from three sources: hereditary peers; spiritual lords (senior bishops of the Church of England); and life peers – barons and baronesses appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the government.

Kurennoy recalls that when the socialists known in Britain as the Labour Party came to power in London in 1999 under the young Tony Blair, he decided to get rid of what he saw as an aristocratic anachronism by abolishing hereditary peers in the upper chamber.

The main argument was that in the 21st century such a system is undemocratic.

"Perhaps he was right. But appointing members of the chamber by the government is also undemocratic. Especially since, alongside distinguished retirees, the chamber often included obvious friends of party leaders, and sometimes their relatives and sponsors," the founder of the Winston Churchill School of Real Politics writes.

Thus, the author argues, Blair sought electoral gains from supporters of his political camp. The aim was to remove aristocrats who historically have not been particularly fond of socialism.

Back in 1999, the Conservative Party opposed the reform. They managed, in effect, to secure a so-called transitional period.

Today history is repeating itself. The Labour Party is once again in power. At the same time, Prime Minister Keir Starmer cannot boast major achievements.

"To mobilise his electorate, Starmer needs something strongly ideologically left-wing some successful fight against symbols of conservatism. The target was found: the 92 aristocrats in the House of Lords," the author writes.

The reform has now been completed: Parliament has approved a law that finally removes hereditary peers from the House of Lords, thereby ending a centuries-old system of inherited seats.

Most Britons do not strongly oppose the reform. However, the problem is that many also dislike the idea of a House of Lords that will be entirely appointed by governments.

In other words, the public wants elections but London’s political class does not.

Starmer’s Labour government and its supporters believe that, for now, it is enough simply to remove the aristocrats.

The proposed reform also has critics – so-called traditionalists. They defend the right of hereditary representatives of historic families to sit in the House of Lords, arguing that hereditary peers are independent of political expediency.

Yet, no matter how much Labour tries to eliminate the anachronisms of the past, Britain remains a class-based society. And the aristocracy is part of the country’s genetic makeup, without it, Britain would simply cease to be itself.