I was pleased to accept the offer of a seat in the Lords. I will continue this website as I did whilst I was serving as an MP. Being a member of the Lords will allow me to participate more in the work of Parliament and in the national debates about our direction.
Today I invite your thoughts on the Lords, its composition, role and future. I believe in the supremacy of the elected House of Commons with the Lords as a revising Chamber which can ask the Commons to think again.I do not favour an elected second chamber. If elected at the same time as the Commons it would likely have a similar composition politically so what would it add? If elected mid term for the Commons it would likely become a block on the Commons governing.
The Lords can bring more expertise to bear on legislation and may have more relevant experience to undertake a more detailed and less partisan examination of a Bill.
The Lords can sometimes open up new and wider topics for national discussion than the more politically focused agenda of the Commons may cover.
The Lords can reveal bad problems with implementing legislation triggering government amendments. It may reveal substantial public displeasure with a measure, asking the government to think again.
Members of the Lords can help their parties in the Commons and can provide additional Ministers and Shadow Ministers
Reforms have removed the hereditaries , introduced a right to retire and a low minimum attendance to keep the seat.
I went to Parliament yesterday to make arrangements. I have asked for a date when I can be introduced to the Lords to swear in, and have been given an appointment next week to sort that out. I look forward to getting to work on completion of the formalities to become a peer.
As readers know I did not change the name or approach of the site when I received a knighthood and will not be changing it now.
December 12, 2025
You say of a second chamber ‘If elected at the same time as the Commons it would likely have a similar composition politically’. This might not be so if it is elected by PR.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations John
A voice of reason in the House of Frauds. It’s a pity the chancer in No.10 has stuffed the house with labour no marks. He’ll be able to ram his destructive policies through without dissent.
I see he failed to Recognise Reform by denying the a Peerage. Never mind they can sort that out as part of their general housekeeping when in power.
Be off and get measured for your ermine and keep sticking up for the proles.
December 12, 2025
Good to see gas and nuclear providing 60% of demand this morning. A pity most of it will reach the end of life unvthe next few years well be able to look back nostalgically as we sit in candle light unable to make a cup of tea . All thanks to the cretins in Westminster.
December 12, 2025
God bless fossil fuels …..more people die of the cold in the UK than of the heat in the Mediterranean
December 13, 2025
Far more!
December 12, 2025
Reform has won the West Lothian by-election today with the Scottish Green coming last by party …so why are doing the net-zero thingy when no one votes for it ? SirJ please get yourself on the lords Environment & Climate Change committee
December 13, 2025
+1 …. with an honorary mention for the Prize Hypocrite in Buckingham Palace.
December 12, 2025
Sir John, the unelected model appears to have worked for many centuries. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
That said, we need far fewer Lords (and MPs). If the USA can manage with 100 Senators why do we have 825 Lords? Rationalise and find a better way to propose new members – perhaps a 1 out 1 in basis?
December 12, 2025
Each state has its own senate, setting local laws, adding 1,946 politicians. You could add the membership of Holyrood and the Senedd to comparre, but US states have more autonomy..
December 12, 2025
That’s a sensible idea. If PR was used in the second chamber people would be more inclined to vote for who they really want rather than the restrictions imposed by FPTP.
December 12, 2025
Well the composition of the Lords leaves a lot to be desired. The list of people to be elevated by the dire Sir Keir is nearly all dire, time server state sector lefties. How many people in the Lords are doing a good job I wonder. Matt Ridley was but has left alas, Lord Young, Sir J R obviously will be good, Simon Heffer is sound (but admits he knows virtually no science which often shows in his thinking) Sharron Davies should be OK and perhaps 20 more good ones at best. Then we have the generally moronic left religious nutters and those who have bought entry by party donation
As to expertise – when I listen to a Lords debate on any subject I know a bit about like energy, engineering, physics, maths, statistics, taxation, business, property… I am appalled by their ignorance, lack of understanding or lies and the level of the debate.
December 12, 2025
I assume there must be a few decent people working behind the scenes in the Lords but so many dire people in the list and look at the endless insane and damaging laws that get passed.
Adonis, Amos, May, almost all the Lords Spiritual… I shall stop as it is rather too depressing. Almost as bad as the appalling MPs we suffer under. Let us hope JR can help explain some reality to them!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_House_of_Lords
December 12, 2025
The rather depressing breakdown of Professional Backgrounds members of the House of Lords from WIKI:-
While a high proportion (around 95%) of members have a university degree, most come from political, legal, and business backgrounds. The House of Lords Library and independent research groups provide general breakdowns that show low representation for specific science-related fields:
Medical and healthcare: 2% (17 peers)
Architecture, engineering and construction: 1% (8 peers)
Higher Education (academia in general): 5% (43 peers), covering all disciplines
These figures indicate a significant underrepresentation of members with formal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees or professional backgrounds compared to other fields.
One of the many reasons we are so poorly governed those that can do and those that cannot get in their way!
December 12, 2025
I agree with your last paragraph ….and most of the time they’re quoting the party line …they’re not free thinkers
December 12, 2025
Indeed as with “Gell Mann’s amnesia”!
December 12, 2025
Or is elected at a different time say two year after the last General Election. I assume if that we the cast in a few months time Reform would have a majority (if elected by FPTP) in the Lords rather than zero representation as now!
One of the catch 22s of politics is that the power incontrol can rig and Gerrymander the system to try to benefit their own party retaining power. Many can see vast improvements to the system but these never happen unless they are in the interest of the powers that be.
One advantage of the Lords is they are at least old and hopefully have aquired some wisdom. Also they cannot easily be removed and so are free to act without party pressures.
December 12, 2025
It is regrettable that we voted to retain FPTP and yet all over the place the blob is bringing in PR. They can’t honour a vote.
December 12, 2025
congratulations on your appointment to the Lords.
December 12, 2025
I join you in congratulations. As this blog demonstrates daily, we will have a wise and knowledgeable representation.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations. I’m sure you will make a valuable contribution in the Lords as you did
as an MP.
December 12, 2025
+1.
December 12, 2025
Anne C
+1
December 12, 2025
I most certainly hope that he’ll ruffle some feathers
December 12, 2025
Agreed !
December 12, 2025
Congratulations. Very well deserved.
Its great that we will still be able to put forward our views.
December 12, 2025
+1
December 12, 2025
Gatwick car drop off charge to rise to £10 yet another rigging of the Market tax against cars and taxis which
given all the luggage and need for door to door transport and often family groups and early hours are the most efficient way to get to the airport. Yet more inflation from the tax grab from let’s kill all growth Rachael Reeves.
Gatwick faces a bill in excess of £80m by the 2028-29 financial year, the second-highest for any business in the UK, after its rateable value was increased by 280pc.
December 12, 2025
What type of business can get away with charging you £10 just to drop their customers off at the business? Clearly a monopoly or near monopoly. One that is not in a free and fair market. Rather like the huge utility standing charges for supplying you with no water, no gas and no electricity or their new connection charges!
December 12, 2025
Sheriff of Nottingham springs to mind
December 12, 2025
Lifelogic
They do it because they can, if you travel by railway you have a long walk, so need to be reasonably fit, likewise you can be stranded at the airport if your flight is delayed, just made the last train a few years ago by a couple in minutes !
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on your peerage Sir John.
Personally I am delighted that you will have the great platform available to you and I know you will continue fighting for Britain with all your wit and wisdom. The Lords will gain an ornament and they are few and far between in that place.
I don’t think any ex-elected politician who has been defeated by the People should ever be eligible for a seat in the Lords and that goes for PMs too both individually in their constituency and as the leader of their party nationally. No employed State official should ever be eligible for a seat in the Lords.
The list of those available to be raised to The Lords should be short indeed. Their contribution in life must be outstanding and rare.
I don’t believe peers should belong to parties, all should be ‘independents’ and any elected government should be able to draw on the experience of any Lord in their government. This would differentiate the Lords from the Commons and there needs to be a differentiation because duplication is no addition. Perhaps this is made easier because of the new system of Committees which can ask to question Lords and commoners alike. Possibly if a Lord is appointed to a senior role in the Government he should have a pass to the floor of the House of Commons, address the Commons and be questioned by it. There must be a limit on the number of Lords serving in any government at any one time.
The Lords must never be elected and the threshold of attendance and contribution must be raised considerably. I’m am not sure whether peers who no longer serve should retain their titles. Perhaps the titles should indicate a person active in Parliament.
No convicted criminal should ever be offered or retain their seat in the Lords (or indeed the Commons), any individual who admits breaking the law, for instance by not paying all required taxes or obtaining all required state licences, or taking banned substances, even if they had remained undiscovered, should immediately be stripped of their place in Parliament forever, and of employment by the State in all it’s forms.
December 12, 2025
You state “I don’t believe peers should belong to parties…”
How would you stop members of the Lords having an allegiance to a political party? Of course they will.
Members of a chamber will naturally form alliances and the party system is already there for that purpose.
December 12, 2025
A huge number of Lords do sit as independents by preference, even those that I know are party aligned, especially the lawyers who believe in impartiality. They don’t take the whip, or example the late Lord Neill.
If there is no whip allowed in the Lords they will all be independent, their voting might well reflect their politics but it will be THEIRS and not whipped.
December 12, 2025
Fully agree ….Peers should belong to the people and only the people
They should, as a body of scrutiny be allowed to vote on ‘amendments’ ….but nothing else, no voting on policy position, no voting on interest nor debates, they should restrict themselves to the business of the day i.e review & passage of law
December 12, 2025
Indeed so how many sound peers will they have now at least 1 more? 2% of the total perhaps at best? Even the dire socialist Ken Clarke must be in the top 10% of the good ones given the appalling list.
No reform members and the appalling Two Tier Kier did not even bother reply to the letter from Farage on this topic!
December 12, 2025
Congratulations, what a great addition you will make. Well deserved.
You’re right, electing the Lords would just mirror the Commons. One issue is Party affiliation, though. This too brings in one of the worst features of the Commons, albeit in more polite form in the upper chamber. Scrapping it might force a less partisan approach, even though clearly loose affiliations would form. Perhaps Lords would have to not be a member of any political Party?
December 12, 2025
The numbers need to be drastically reduced and there should be no Life Peers. The Bishops should be removed.
The Establishment Parties have been appointing young political Gofers (like Gavin Barwell) who have achieved very little in their lives except act as bag carrier for the PM and they then have a taxpayer funded gravy train for life. That has to end. Those appointed should be Experts in their field or have achieved something really significant in their lives.
They should be appointed to serve for a maximum period – say 15 years (3 Parliaments) and if they do not participate in the business of the House to a set minimum standard, they should be required to stand down.
December 12, 2025
@Donna
If there is one thing I too would like to see it’s the complete elimination of the religious fanatics known as the “Lords Spiritual”, including the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, plus the Bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester. The remaining 21 seats – which are filled by senior English diocesan bishops – should be scrapped.
The Church of England should finally deal with their harrowing and never ending child abuse cases. This, they manifestly cannot do. The bishops must be dis-established.
Along with the hereditary peers who trace their ancestry back to the Norman conquest. As of October 2025, there are 799 hereditary peers; 29 dukes (including five royal dukes, of which the Duke of Edinburgh is a life peerage, the holder being a hereditary earl), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 108 viscounts, and 439 barons (not counting subsidiary titles)
December 12, 2025
Islam would love to have the CofE disestablished. Therefore I am against it. We need better Archbishops and Bishops, Christian ones perhaps?
December 13, 2025
In my opinion the best way of keeping militant Islam out of the Lords is to get rid of the lefty Bishops.
December 13, 2025
Only CofE can go to the Lords.
December 12, 2025
Agree – keep religion out of politics
December 13, 2025
There is a rising number of MPs who are putting religion back into politics. We are threatened with a new blasphemy law in favour of Islam, for instance.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations John, so well deserved for all you have done for the Conservative Party and your local constituents.
December 12, 2025
The House of Lords has far too many members.
A compulsory retirement age should be introduced which will also reduce the financial burden on the taxpayer of elderly members turning up to claim payment for doing nothing.
December 12, 2025
My congratulations on an honour most well deserved. Now I shall need to learn how to address you!
December 12, 2025
Maybe; ”lord John of Wokingham” …..suitable suggestions here
December 12, 2025
There are too many Lords. It’s another form of political patronage.
I do not like the practice of signing on simply to collect a generous daily attendance allowance.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on your election to the House of Lords Sir John. I shall continue to read your observations with interest. I guess that your first challenge is to work out a Job Description ! Having raised expectations of raising national productivity prior to the budget the chancellor avoided the topic in her budget speech so productivity seems to be a necessary vacant space to fill.
December 12, 2025
“election”. Yeah right
December 12, 2025
It should be elected by PR, otherwise it’s just an arms race by whoever the government is to stuff the Lords with supporters as Starmer is doing now. Some non-aligned subject experts could also be members.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations Sir J, I think….
Please keep up the anti Net-Zero work, we need more and louder voices to reverse this policy.
December 12, 2025
Agree +1
December 12, 2025
I’ve just realised that the deadly deeds been done …there’s currently no new legistation on net-zero going through the lords
Hopefully, when ‘Reform’ are in government, they’ll just repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 …and that should be rubber stamped by the lords
December 12, 2025
Congratulations John, I am sure your speeches/influence/comments will make for interesting listening/discussion.
Thank you also for continuing with your daily postings on this site, usually my first read in the mornings after a quick view at the media headlines.
December 12, 2025
SJR’s appointment is a signal of higher standards. If the total number of members allowed to be Lords were halved and half of the remainder achieved half the quality that SJR maintains, the improved House of Lords would be fit for hundreds of years ahead.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on Sir John’s elevation to the peerage.
Lord Redwood of Wokingham?
December 12, 2025
That title would certainly get up the nose of the current member of Parliament for Wokingham !!!!!!!!!
December 12, 2025
Why?
December 13, 2025
The LibDems virtually did character assassination during the last government and run up to the last GE.
December 12, 2025
Agree re the forum it gives you.
Disagree about its future. Abolish it. Bishops, party funders who have ‘bought’ their seats, often failed Civil Servants/public sector figures as a reward for long service, occasionally used as a reward to keep people quiet, move MPs to get their seat for a favourite and so it goes on.
Lib Dims opposed part(s) of the Employment Bill. Literally a day later Ed Davey is given some Lords to promote, the Dims turned 180 degrees voted for it. It’s ‘corruption’
Why should these people get a vote on ‘my’ future? It’s an affront to democracy. Unaccountable unsackable perpetuation of the liberal elite establishment who look down on us as populist.
December 12, 2025
I think the days of the lords and the monarchy are numbered.
The whole way the white working class are no longer represented by the party setup to do just that, and they have been let down spectacularly by all the main parties is yet to ripple through into change, but it will and it must.
we need a proper meritocracy from top to bottom.
December 12, 2025
ig,
‘ I think the days of the lords and the monarchy are numbered.’
That is certainly desirable, but I cannot see politicians bringing this about. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
As for monarchs, King Charles is no mute figurehead. Prince William then brings idleness and little sense of duty to the equation.
December 12, 2025
I doubt William will be mute. He is already very politically active on green issues, nurtured by his father and Mr Attenborough.
December 12, 2025
Indeed William needs to copy his sensible grandmother and keep out of politics, this especially the net zero climate alarmist issue where he like Charles is profoundly misguided and grade 1 hypocrites too.
December 12, 2025
I agree.
December 12, 2025
Spot On
December 12, 2025
The big problem I see with the Lords is the regular stuffing it with members by Prime Ministers to simply get a majority to support their thoughts, ideas, and policies.
Starmer it is reported put in another 25 at the latest count, does Labour have that many experts over an above all those present ?
December 12, 2025
Congratulations to our host for his elevation.
There would be a case for a future enlightened government to turn the clock back on Blair’s constitutional vandalism, restore the hereditary peers’ rights in full, and make every Lord elevated since that era re-apply for their seats in the Upper House and explain why they would be fit and proper members. In the case of our host, Sharron Davies and Simon Heffer, they would all sail through this with flying colours.
December 12, 2025
The 3 named are not equal. Only one deserves the ermine.
December 12, 2025
Simon Heffer is OK as is the swimmer lass the quality of people in the Lords is rather dire so that all three will be in the top 10% and JR in the top 1% or higher.
I enjoyed Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell by Simon Heffer and most of his other books and he likes Vaughan Williams so is obviously sound – despite his self confessed lack of science!
December 13, 2025
@David Cooper – Sharron, a former constituent of Sir J’s. All the same a hardworking diligent human being
December 12, 2025
Much like the Monarchy I prefer an unelected second chamber. More elections, more patronage are not needed.
However membership of the House of Lords should be limited to the same period as an MP (i.e. between elections) and the membership should be no more than 300 members who can guarantee 75% attendance.
The parties should be invited to fill the vacancies as a proportion of the vote they received in the last general election.
December 12, 2025
Duplication, we would have a Commons and Lords stuffed with Labour atm. Why? If based on election we don’t need the Lords at all.
December 12, 2025
They ‘need’ the lords; to reward their friends
December 12, 2025
To keep them in line with the often vile party lies & propaganda and lies! Sir JR has done well to make it without such compromises. Ann Widecombe did not make – it far too honest on certain topics!
December 12, 2025
I think we would do better with mainly part time specialists who turn out when their topics of specialisation are on the agenda in the House or its committees. Hereditary peers tended to turn up on precisely such a basis. Waffle from those purely supporting a party agenda adds nothing to debate and allows bad law to get through.
Limit sitting political peers to 100-200, with the job of introducing and opposing government business. Give a very small majority to the government of the day among political peers.
December 12, 2025
And on the day a report shredded the Building Safety Regulator, its ‘failed’ CEO gets a Labour peerage.
Says it all. Now where are those tumbrils?
December 12, 2025
@NigL – .. and now he is untouchable, unaccountable, unsackable, up there with the former UK ambassador to the USA.
December 12, 2025
Archer went to jail.
December 13, 2025
And he is still a Lord. He may have been appointed, but he cant be removed.
December 12, 2025
Yeah …its all dirty
December 12, 2025
Congratulations.
For reforms – I am fine with an appointed HoL. Limit the numbers, then one in / one out, perhaps a fixed term. Canadian Senate is not a bad example. Remove the Bishops. Appointments perhaps proportional to HoC seats at the time of the appointment – for example so that Reform (or indeed Independent Free Palestine candidates !!!) could get a nominee. The current round, as those before it under Cameron etc, were bench stuffing exercises.
December 12, 2025
Restore the Bishops. Britain has lost sight of Christianity. I understand not all Bishops are Christian but at least it would bring Christianity back into the public and parliamentary debate. Better do it before we are all converted to Islam and the Lords is stuffed with ayotollahs.
December 12, 2025
The first job is to restore the bishops’ own faith in place of their fashionable adherence to woke ideologies and alternative green religions.
December 12, 2025
PG,
I disagree. When you get Giles Fraser types on ‘Thought for the Day’ it is like a Lib Dem social worker under clerical cover.
I might listen to old school pre Vatican 2 Catholic bishops – but they are never going to be in The House of Lords !
December 12, 2025
African protestant bishops too! They are not like the current Church of England crowd. They will probably go their own way. I don’t blame them.
December 13, 2025
Have done, did you not know? The church has split in short order.
December 12, 2025
Thought for the day = sanctimonious drivel
BBC won’t let anyone on who will say anything challenging.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations My Lord Redwood- well deserved (for a change)
Yes, I would keep the Lords as a revising chamber, heaven knows the current mob in the lower house needs it. However, the system also clearly needs major reform. Start with mandating a maximum number of Lords (200?) who actually sit. Then remove the power of appointment fron the PM. The selection criteria should be demonstrable skill and experience in a wide range of areas from candidates who have a long track record of success and service in both private & public sectors. I would also suggest a minimum age of 50 would help to ensure the required experience, with retirement either on health grounds or failing to meet some simple attendance or contribution criteria.
December 12, 2025
…. and selected by region, as its becoming the ‘House of London’
December 12, 2025
Yes, absolutely Glen!
December 12, 2025
An advantage of the hereditary system was that peers were educated to the job from childhood (like a concert pianist) but then awaited inheriting before they could sit, so they gained other experience. Sitting peers had the benefit of experience, until health winnowed them.
December 12, 2025
I have difficulty with comparing peers to the likes of Pollini, Argerich, Girls.
Many of them would be closer to Les Dawson. At least he was doing it deliberately – for laughs.
December 12, 2025
Gilels not girls!
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on your appointment to the peerage;You are just the sort of person who needs to be in the Lords after many years in politics, business and with the knowledge you have.
I can’t say the same for most of the recent appointees who may have championed one cause which seems to give them the right to a peerage but have no general knowledge or experience of politics, business,law or anything else.
The Lords shouldn’t be used as rewards for those involved in sport,art or acting but by those who have related experience in law making and politics.
Blair abolished hereditary peers because it enabled anyone to be appointed and in his case it was mostly Labour supporters.
I have nothing against Sharon Davies the olympic swimmer but I have no idea why she has been appointed and maybe she doesn’t either.
The Lords are an important regulator of the ‘law making’ process in the UK and should be filled with those with relevant knowledge and are willing to actually turn up and debate the issues.
I was pleased to see that the Lords were opposing the Chagos deal but what impact this will have when it returns to the Commons is anyone’s guess.
December 12, 2025
Huge congratulations Sir John. So richly deserved.
December 12, 2025
Richly deserved indeed. If only the fairly dire standard of circa 90% of the other members of the Lords did not drag the standard down so appallingly.
The list of members – see wiki is hugely depressing – even Net Zero loons Theresa May, twice kicked out Blunkett, Gummer (Debden), Warsi… God help us!
December 12, 2025
Many, many congratulations!
December 12, 2025
Congratulations. I would keep the House of Lords largely as it is. I had no objection to the rump of hereditaries (the only elected element, and we have a hereditary monarch). I think an age bar is wrong as many people are perfectly rational later in life.
December 12, 2025
Indeed and many others were never rational at any age! Circa 80% of the Lords members that I have heard speeking in debates.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations. May we still call you John, seeing as for many of us we consider you a good friend?
Appointments to the Lords could be by vote. There doesn’t need to be an election for the whole lot, as they retain their seat for life (or a fixed period under my scheme), just have a vote when seats become available.
It could be arranged like members of the board of directors. They are required to retire in rotation and may then stand for re-election.
The present system where the government chooses their cronies doesn’t go down well with the British people.
I’d like to see members of the Lords selected from people who have made a real contribution the UK society. That could still be past PMs and senior ministers of state, it can include bishops and certainly senior members of the judiciary. We should also consider past presidents of our great institutions, leading sportsmen and women, leading
industrialists and senior police officers. Let the people decide.
Reply I am not changing my name or the name of this site.
December 12, 2025
DA,
I hope I never see Lord David Beckham or Lord Mick Jagger.
December 12, 2025
Well they would still both be well above average for the Lords. A relative of mine worked a bit with Beckham back in his Man U. days in marketing and said he was excellent to work with, kind and very helpful indeed.
December 12, 2025
Blair, with his constitutional wrecking ball started the process of removal of the hereditary peers. We now see the inevitable result of that as they chip away at the Royal Family.
If there are to be no hereditary peers, then the only solution is a wholly elected second chamber. Appointed peers are worse than the hereditary peers; it is too often a reward for failure or favours given. It is open to corruption and abuse as we have just seen.
The upper chamber should be elected on a rolling basis for fixed terms of six years with elections every two years of a third. I would prefer geographical representation rather than party lists, which is open to the same abuse as appointment. Then we would only be voting once every 6 years for our peers not every two years.
December 12, 2025
Hereditary peers were a geographic representation of their lands. They often hired MPs (or at least PPCs) either for their brilliance or support. William Huskisson MP who was run over by Stevenson’s Rocket represented Morpeth, Liskeard, Harwich, Chichester and Liverpool, but lost in Dover, covering the extremities of England in his career.
December 12, 2025
The Lords has become highly political yet is not subject to any democratic accountability. If this is not corrected calls for its abolition will increase. Either it must become less political by diminishing its ability to act politically or it must be made accountable to the voters. The Commons can be extreme yet have no democratic mandate because of the FPTP two party system, as is the case now. The Tories argue FPTP gives us strong government as if thatt is always a good thing. Strong is not always good. In Labour it has given us extremely destructive strong government which the Lords are incapable of correcting and on a democratic vote of only 33%.
One of the obvious problems is the abillity of a party leader to stuff the Lords full of their cronies. Surely something better can be devised.
December 12, 2025
You prefer the parties after the election toon and behind closed doors to decide
1 who won (the coalition)
2 what the manifesto is
Why vote at all, just give the political class full power as in the EU and China.
December 12, 2025
PR is no solution to that. Germans complain their CDU led coalition implements extreme left wing measures they would never have voted for. Dissatisfaction sees the AfD as the largest party in polling, yet the others conspire to ban it. Of course Labour might try to impose a permanent dictatorship as they have shown a willingness to cancel elections to bypass democracy, which would be a test of constitutional prerogative. They would subsequently be eliminated as a party under FPTP.
December 12, 2025
I vote for the person, not the party. FPTP suits me fine.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations. Re Lords reform consideration should be given to a fixed term such as the 9 years applied to company directors. If Reform win the next GE and implement their “restoration to pre97” project that would signal the opportunity for a more fundamental rethink about it’s composition.
December 12, 2025
It would be a better place to start from. I could see sitting political peers being elected by a constituency of nominated peers, in much the same way as hereditary peers select who sits. They would know who are the able effective hard working ones who would best represent them. 92 political peers has a certain appeal as a limitation on seats…
December 12, 2025
Congratulations Sir John
For what it’s worth. I would like to see the Commons remain as it is with MPs representing geographical areas and elected with the first-past-the-post system.
I would suggest the Lords make-up should be based areas of expertise. A Lords committee from the outgoing parliament would effectively create “vacancies” based on subjects such as IT, farming, economics etc , with subsets of those subjects making up the numbers.
When there is a general election there will be a separate box on the ballot paper for your favourite political party to go into the Lords and the Lords vacancies will be filled by the political parties in numbers that reflect that vote.
This would make Lords representation distinct from representation in the commons (on several counts) and would provide more of the expertise and wise counsel that we often need.
The Lords’ role should be mainly be revision of legislation as is currently the case but with more expertise.
The constitution should be clear that MPs represent the People. That should be where power lies.
With my idea, the Lords, by contrast, will represent expertise defined according to current popular political ideology.
I cannot see any chance of a power struggle since the power (if one discounts the monarch) would firmly be in the hands of the Commons.
December 12, 2025
Many congratulations and your summing up is spot on as usual. Merry Christmas.
December 12, 2025
I am delighted to have your important voice in the House of Lords!!!
December 12, 2025
Me too, alas his vote will be rather drowned out – but perhaps some peers will listen and think.
December 12, 2025
Even I can see that when the Lords functions well it becomes a vital part of the regulatory process, but I don’t believe it should be an elected house – far from it because that would greatly reduce it’s value.
Nothing at all.
It does need some changes though. An independent body should put people forward as candidates for the Lords, Too many PMs have filled the House with their cronies when it is questionable what merit they had.
Members of the Lords should not be specifically of one party, far better if they were apolitical.
A candidate would be someone who had seriously been constructive and benefitted the country, and there is no reason why parliament shouldn’t have the final yay or nay.
Congratulations to our host in being offered a seat in the Lords – Things there can only get better.
December 12, 2025
We have a similar probem in the Commons, where PPC selection is dominated by narrow party cliques who emphasise support for the clique over ability, knowledge and wisdom. The electorate is only offered the Party Lists, because the system conspires against others from being able to mount an effective campaign however good their proposals. That is perhaps even more in need of a reset than Lords reform.
December 12, 2025
Harry,
Things can only get better?
I don’t think that’s Sir John’s/Lord John’s theme tune.
December 12, 2025
The UK needs an upper revising chamber, there is no doubt. There has to be that element of ‘devils advocate’ to get our Laws right and fit for purpose. But if you need proof of it working just look at the mess UK Laws and its Legal System is in. Then add in the EU still governs the UK and its Laws, a so called upper chamber has effectively been buried in history and no longer has a purpose. It shouldn’t be that way if the UK was a Democracy
But appointed, and then not accountable, not representing the nation or its people, that is also kicking democracy in the teeth. Realistically it we have 823 individuals that have 823 personal opinions presumably with loyalty to those individuals that appointed them – that’s it. They represent and serve their own personal views and those individuals that appointed them at best – they serve no one but personal ego. I am being disingenuous as is with the HoC probably 10%, just 82 are altruistic enough to be in that place for the right reasons
Lord Mandelson, Brown, Cameron. Lord Alli and so on what legitimacy do these and others have to be part of our Legislator, overseeing UK Law? Individuals being honoured by their peers is something else, it is simple that an honour. Some of the individuals that live in that house bring the integrity of that place down into the gutter.
That last, just about, remaining working democracy, the USA with a population somewhere around 5 times the size of the UK has just 100 in its revising chamber. All elected and accountable all serving the country and its citizens.
The UK’s legislators fight democracy, fight the nation fight the people and daily the keep proving it.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on receiving the Honour
December 12, 2025
The size of the Lords should be reduced. I would also change its composition. I would introduce quotas from different professions so they could provide expert input into policy discussions. The term of the appointments should be reviewed on a regular basis, with those abusing their privilege losing their seat. Finally, I would have a people’s lottery in which vetted members of the public could apply for a seat for a five-year term.
December 12, 2025
They are all members of the public.
December 12, 2025
We need to be careful when assessing ‘professionals’, I know a great many brilliant professionals, and I mean top of their game, best in the business type of professionals ….but who are completely useless at quality assurance, useless at scurtinising the minute detail of administration …..the job, at the end of the day, is that of a revising chamber, paperwork and more paperwork
December 12, 2025
I am not in favour of appointing random members of the public with no requisite experience or ability. The party system sees far too many inadequates promoted purely because they will be nodding donkeys. You would not choose surgeons that way, so why put your life in random political hands?
December 12, 2025
The famous quote about professionals meeting is by Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.
Or in some new red tape laws to do the same!
December 12, 2025
Very Very pleased about your new appointment to the Lords
The Commons does not fill me full of confidence it lacks maturity and expertise
So I think you hit the nail on the head the Lords brings wisdom and expertise
December 12, 2025
Well a little of it!
December 12, 2025
Congratulations!
Meanwhile “UK economy shrank unexpectedly by 0.1% in October”.
Millions are not surprised.
December 12, 2025
“Rachel Reeves will today vow to go ‘further and faster’ to deliver the government’s Plan for Change to kick start economic growth and put more pounds in people’s pockets.”
Yet everything she did or proposed will further suppress or kill growth and take more pounds out off your pockets! What could go wrong?
December 12, 2025
Many congratulations Lord John.
Imagine if a mythical Party X wins the election but has no members in the HoL.
They will have to find approx 1000 people to put into HoL so that they can get their laws passed. This is crazy. This has resulted in so many journeymen politicians who have added zero to the sum of our nation and just continue to suck on the teat of private working people.
We need a much smaller HoL with excellent people like the late great Norman who know and understand and have the intellect to recognise bad laws. Not the very average, at best, people in there now.
It should be understood that the party with the majority in the commons will get their laws passed, but the HoL should send back bad laws and turn proposed laws into good law.
This continual stuffing of the HoL is a very expensive disaster.
Maybe you can fix this.
December 12, 2025
The House of Lords can’t overturn a Commons decision. It can only delay it by asking the Commons to vote again and maybe consider amendments.
Therefore any new party form8ng a government does not need representation in The Lords, much less a majority.
December 14, 2025
Thankyou Lynn, for pointing this out.
I also just saw Sir J R-M youtube video explaining the Salisbury convention – as per your summary.
Why then is there this need to keep on ever expanding the Lords?
December 12, 2025
Jazz
Used to be an excellent clothes shop in Carnaby Street in the 1960’s called Lord John, a good up to date range of mod fashionable goods at the time, still have a full length leather coat from that establishment, kept as a reminder of many great days past.
December 13, 2025
I shopped there too. London was a very different place then.
December 12, 2025
Sir John
You use the phrase ‘The Lords can…’ out of the 823 of them which ones could you name that are accountable, which ones can we get rid of when they fail. Which ones have the support of the Nation and its people, which ones represent the Nation and its people?
The House of Lords is a Democracy fail.
They are not alone, ‘the supremacy of the elected House of Commons’ all the time that club is essentially an appointed bunch of loyal subjects to a ‘gang leader’ they can keep up and maintain the fight against the people. It only has personal ego to suggest supremacy, not democracy. A democracy comes when the people choose their candidates, then elect from those chosen to represent them and not before.
Having to choose the ‘least worse’ doesn’t legitimise those that steal office.
December 12, 2025
So choose your candidates and defy the party list. We were never bound by the party list and some constituencies still are not. Bridgen was NOT on the party list.
December 12, 2025
@LA. That will work if the money for campaigns is restricted to only coming from within the community to be represented. They(Parliament) would fight that as it puts all candidates on a similar footing.
December 12, 2025
Spot on, the house of lords was never set up to be democratic, it was setup in the 11th century ….and so it will remain until a party writes in their manifesto that they will abolish it
December 12, 2025
Congratulations Sir John, that’s the first CORRECT decision by Mr Starmer since he became Prime Minister…
My only though is to paraphrase Jean-Claude Juncker – “When entering the Lords you should leave your Party hat at the door”…
December 12, 2025
Badenoch’s decision, nothing to do with Starmer.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations – about time
December 12, 2025
The House of Lords should be an independent, time-limited, expertise-driven revising chamber that cannot be captured by government, cannot block democracy, and cannot be ignored without consequence.
Reform of the House of Lords
1. Appointments and Composition
Problem: Prime Ministerial patronage allows governments to stack the Lords.
Change: Remove PM control over appointments entirely.
Appointments made by an independent statutory body, not politicians.
Fixed caps by discipline (law, engineering, medicine, economics, defence, education, etc.), not by party.
No automatic seats for former MPs or Ministers.
Outcome: The Lords becomes a chamber of expertise rather than a political retirement home.
2. Term Limits and Tenure
Problem: Lifetime appointments create loyalty, complacency, and institutional capture.
Change: Single, non-renewable term (e.g. 8–12 years).
No extensions, no reappointments.
Mandatory retirement at term end.
Outcome: Members act independently, knowing they owe nothing to future favour.
3. Political Neutrality
Problem: Party whipping undermines the revising role.
Change: Ban party whips in the Lords.
No formal party voting blocs.
Ministers and Shadow Ministers limited or excluded entirely.
Outcome: Debate driven by judgement and evidence, not party strategy.
4. Voting Scope and Weighting
Problem: All peers vote on all legislation, regardless of competence.
Change: Subject-based participation.
Only Lords with relevant expertise vote on specific Bills.
Voting weight reflects relevance and experience.
Example: Constitutional lawyers on constitutional Bills.
Engineers on infrastructure and safety legislation.
Clinicians on health Bills.
Outcome: The Commons receives informed signals, not noise.
5. Legislative Function and Limits
Problem: Risk of Lords obstructing elected government.
Change: Lords retain no permanent veto.
Delay powers only.
Structured “reasoned objection” reports required for disputed Bills.
Outcome: Commons supremacy preserved, but with accountability for overruling expert warnings.
6. Implementation and Risk Review
Problem: Poorly implemented legislation passes too easily.
Change: Mandatory implementation stress-testing for major Bills.
Analysis of: Practical delivery. Cost escalation. Regulatory burden.
Second- and third-order consequences.
Outcome: Bad law is exposed early, before damage is done.
7. Transparency and Public Accountability
Problem: Lords’ influence is opaque and poorly understood.
Change:
All objections published in a standardised, accessible format.
Clear explanation of why a Bill is flawed, risky, or impractical.
Commons must explicitly state when and why it overrides Lords’ advice.
Outcome: Political responsibility becomes visible, not hidden.
8. Size and Attendance
Problem: An oversized chamber dilutes effectiveness.
Change:
Hard cap on total membership.
Attendance linked to active participation, not minimal presence.
Automatic removal for sustained non-engagement.
Outcome: A working chamber, not an honorary one.
9. Long-Term National Perspective
Problem: Short electoral cycles dominate lawmaking.
Change:
Lords tasked explicitly with long-term impact review (10–30 year horizon).
Focus on national resilience, institutional stability, and systemic risk.
Outcome: The Lords acts as a constitutional stabiliser, not a political actor.
December 12, 2025
Very thorough. A lot to think on. Thank you
December 12, 2025
While I agree with most of your comments, I would rather have someone good with QA scrutiny that an heart surgeon, and I’d rather they only ‘vote’ on the amendments of law and not general politics ….they’re not writing laws, they’re revising it (if needed)
December 12, 2025
In summary …their job is ‘editorial’
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on your ennoblement.
With the abandonment of Green Papers, prior to the publication of White Papers, the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising and revising proposed legislation is more necessary than ever.
Hereditary peers provided a strength to the House untied to political party, abolishing them is a mistake.
Life peerages for elder statemen or people who were very successful in other aspects of public life seems fair enough, many have knowledge that they can draw on that would otherwise be lost to the legislature. However, to appointment of political apparatchiks serves only to debase the institution.
December 12, 2025
Hereditary peers also provided a sensitive understanding of our national history, and gave national survival a high rank in their thinking. Many modern appointee would abolish that, and therefore the nation.
December 12, 2025
The Lords is a witness to past social stratification in society. Its recent role acting as the conscience of Parliament on the premise it will stay the hand of over zealous government policies seems to have run out of steam.
The present system of granting Peerages to political allies is bringing the whole of Westminster into disrepute.
The HoL’s could and perhaps should become a balancing chamber reflecting the national vote. I would like to see it be the chamber that is elected every five years in sync with the HoC but with a role. Maybe its elected members being there by merit, as the balancing chamber taking into Parliament the proportional vote of the election.
This may sound complex but it isn’t. The Chamber would be filled by those who were proportionally higher than the first past the post elected members returned. As an example, after the last election Reform polled more than LibDem but held only 5 seats while the LibDem acquired 72 seats. That difference could be corrected/reflected by the HoLs intake being reflective of the votes cast. Thus, those Reform PPCs that came second to the first Past the Post elected MP, would be invited to the HoLs. Similarly the count of LibDems invited to the HoLs would reflect their vote count and again the PPCs coming second would be invited in and so on. That would then give the HoLs legitimacy and the number of seats would equal the HoC. The work handed to the HoLs would be functional chairing select committees and so on. The supremacy/seniority of the HoC would not be compromised, while the fairness of representatives in Westminster reflecting voter preference would be honoured.
The detail of this idea is too involved to go into here, but please think about it Sir/Lord John.
I am more than happy to provide working details of how this would be operated.
December 12, 2025
So the House of Lords would be the Losers House.
Candidates would not be competing for one place but 2?
December 12, 2025
I like some of your thinking, ….but with a smaller HoLs, maybe by county x2 circa 200 peers
December 12, 2025
Yes the actual number can be less than the 650 in the HoC. The key point is a sense of acceptance of the publics voting preference would be in place. A threshold of say 5% would be needed to avoid the nonsense party votes like monster raving loonies gaining a seat again the threshold of that percentage would be up for discussion.
December 13, 2025
There have been times when some ORLMP policies have been more sensible than government ones. A number have actually been implemented, some of them quite sensible e.g. Pet passports.
They often lampoon the stupidity of party policies. A necessary antidote to some wild manifesto claims.
December 12, 2025
Congrats Mr Redwood
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on your appointment, I hope you will keep them on their toes, keep up the good work you did as our MP for so long. I’m glad you will keep your diary going, some days only piece of sanity on the iPad. Again very well done you deserve it.
December 12, 2025
Hear Hear
December 12, 2025
As the quality of members of the HoC has deteriorated the role of the HoL is ever more important. I am really pleased you will be there and able to add your considerable expertise to debates and public life.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations, Sir John, & Kemi Badenoch has shown good sense and judgement in appointing you. Maybe there is hope for the future of the UK.
Bring back the hereditary Peers, who in many cases were experts in their field, farming, for example. Others should be appointed to the Lords, never elected, but the total number should be limited to 500. The appointment should be limited to 10 years, with an option for a further 5, for a total of 15 years. Significantly fewer MPs should be added to the Lords so that it is properly independent. The big problem is who appoints them, so that the Lords can be a proper revising chamber rather than a rubber stamp for the Government of the day.
December 12, 2025
There is widespread ignorance of what the Lords actually does, in particular of the weary but essential line-by-line inspection of Bills which MPs now seem to find beneath them.
Perhaps Lord Redwood – he will have to get used to being called names in his old age – could address the topic in due course.
Meanwhile Lords reform has been on the political agenda for the best part of two centuries, with every stab making it worse. Odd that no MP ever mentions Commons reform. I wonder why.
December 12, 2025
2x fully elected peers by old UK county regions, so circa 200 peers (half elected mid-term)
Employed with a single function to scrutinise the passage of law …no visits, no jollies, no interest groups, no party lines, no debate outside that of the scrutiny of new proposed law , no no ….just a job of quality assurance
Employed under the same terms as an MP but for 4-6 years with an office supplied free by local council
December 12, 2025
Hmmm.. turkeys voting for Christmas?, Trump pardons a couple of the birds but UK government keeps breeding more.
December 12, 2025
The turkey’s don’t get to vote …..the farmers do
December 12, 2025
Congratulations to your elevation to the Lords, well deserved!
O/T George Monaghan 29 November 2025 The English have begun to hate (New Statesman).
Is it possible that the powers that be, Government, Commons, Lords, do anything to flatten the wave of anger and discord being unrelentingly pushed from America.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations, Sir John, to your appointment to the HoL. Your presence will bring some sense to many debates. I have no wish to see an elected HoL as this would produce the same terrible result as we have with the HoC. I am happy to accept political parties nominating members of the HoL, particularly if those selected have never entered politics or worked for the public sector and can bring experience and knowledge to the debates. But I think there should be a fixed number of voting members of the HoL selected by each party, and these voting members should be allocated in a ratio representative of each party’s vote share at the last GE.
December 12, 2025
I believe in the Chamber as a revising element but it must be filled with people who are not elected for political purposes only (making the numbers up etc). We want quality people with long experience of life in there and people who have seen politics run over many years and seen the types of leaders this country has provided the electorate with. Whether this will be possible I doubt it as the type of humans we seem to have in this country now are not what I expected to end my long life with. Christian ethics must be supreme as we can see where we are headed at present with this miss match of religions which we all have to adhere to. Strong Christian leadership is required now to turn this country round and put it back on the road to civility.
December 12, 2025
Well deserved and overdue. A major upgrade to the quality of contribution to the House of Lords and Parliament as a whole, and in impact we can hope, all in just one appointment. Congratulations.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations on your appointment.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations! Wonderful news, Sir. A well-earned honour in my view. I wish more of the seats were held by high-calibre people such as yourself with a proven patriotic record. There are several others of all parties, but some truly woeful (IMVHO) appointments. Wonder if there can be a change in standards so only the best are given seats?
I regret the loss of hereditary seats, for a number of (to me) obvious reasons, and the lowering of attendance requirements to keep the seat, but the right to retire makes sense.
December 12, 2025
A second Parliamentary chamber performs a vital function for all the reasons you set out: there would just not be time for a single chamber to give legislation the scrutiny it needs, and I think our second chamber does a pretty good job, though it has very many more members than it needs.
My questions centre around how members of the second chamber should be selected. The hereditary principle had the great merit of almost total independence from the Government of the day, except for new creations. Clearly heredity is no longer acceptable to the great majority, but putting virtually the entire power of patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day to me is equally unacceptable. I understand your concerns about the difficulties of having a second elected chamber, but I think much more thought needs to be given to what would be the best way forward.
In addition, now that membership of the second chamber is no longer part of the regular awards of honours, and is essentially a working role, it seems to me anachronistic for the members to be known as ‘Lords’, implying some form of personal superiority, and therefor, for their house to be known as The House of Lords.
December 12, 2025
I agree with so much of what you say BUT ‘The House and its members has far too much dependence on the Government of the day. For years it has been increased with failed politicians moved ‘sideways’, dodgy friends of figures directly in government or involved financially, even a gong bung after years of unquestioned loyalty shoring up incompetence. As it stands it is certainly 3 times larger than the role it tries to perform.
December 12, 2025
Congratulations, Sir!
December 12, 2025
It would appear that the greater majority of contributors here, as with the country as a whole, are looking to live in an active democracy.
It could be reasoned that political groups as with all religions have a single minded attitude to self, a very personal self, that only their religion has all the answers all the time. That’s why it is so difficult to find people that are actually serving thier constituents and the nation, they are instead serving thier religion to the exclusion of everything else
December 12, 2025
Congratulations Sir John. I hope it will be enjoyable for you. I look forward to hearing you speak.
December 12, 2025
If members of the HofL are elected they will just be third rate wannabe members of the Commons.Better that they be appointed by the political parties in proportion to the number of votes received by each party at the latest general election, subject to a minimum number of,say,1 million votes.Limit the number to those needed for the HofL to fulfil its functions (+ 20 % as backup) …a total of 350? Members of the HofL to sit for no more than a total of 15 years and be paid a salary equal to half that of a Commons member.In theory they could be appointed by different parties after each general election.Might be sensible for the Speaker and other important administrative posts to come from the hereditary ( and now non-voting peers).
December 12, 2025
Hi sir john
Enjoy your 350 pounds just for turning up
We need you there
December 12, 2025
If the UK was to become a proper functioning democracy, surely the idea of an appointed upper chamber is a fail. Most note that Quang’s are taxpayer funded entities that no wants to control or hold to account or manage. We have a wayward BoE, OBR, ONS to name a few where no one takes responsibility for the failings, just the taxpayer picks up Bill. Apply the same to an Upper Chamber, appointed and not accountable, not representing anyone but themselves, yet still requiring taxpayer funding, it doesn’t leave us with a responsible functioning democracy.
As with all avenues that ultimately have a requirement for taxpayer to pay the bills, the taxpayer should have a voice, the accepted way is through an elected HoC, if that then applies to them controlling the upper chamber it is defeated from the get go.
December 12, 2025
If only Blair hadn’t vandalised the old House of Lords. It knew what it was there for and how to do it. It was very civilized, with different parties lunching and dining together. It was truly representative of the country instead of just SW1, because the hereditary peers came from all over the country and were deeply rooted in the places they championed. Ever since Blair wrecked it, they have been trying to make it a second House of Commons with a huge Labour majority. To keep the huge Labour majority permanent, they have consistently refused to make it an elected House which they said they would do.
Anyway, it is some compensation every time a good appointment to the House of Lords is made, and never more so than now with the elevation of Sir John. How pleased and proud his parents must be, looking down on him from Heaven. And this means he could yet be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
December 12, 2025
A great honour that reflects your decades long contribution to public service to date. I am sure you can contribute further in the upper chamber. Congratulations
December 12, 2025
We want the legislative chamber to lack time so that they cannot pass so many laws. Time itself is a welcome constraint.
I would like to abolish the Committees and force all legislation to be fully debated on the floor of the House as it always was.
December 12, 2025
I agree that they should abolish lords standing committees and only create a committee withthe title of the new proposed law …..everything else is a waste parliamentary time, as their job is ‘revising law’ NOT ‘lets investigate what the EU is doing’
December 12, 2025
LA, ‘as it always was’ !!!
What would you do with everything that goes as statutory instruments (SIs) parts of secondary legislation, and this since … 1946. Particularly those SIs that define the law through ‘the negative resolution procedure’ (which practically prevents the SI to be debated, simply approved or rejected).
Congratulations on Sir John’s elevation to the Lords.
December 13, 2025
Ah – since the Socialists took over you mean. I would not allow SI, I would also abolish the Royal Prerogative.
Everything should be debated and go through all stages in the Committee we elect, the House of Commons.
December 12, 2025
Wonderful news and much deserved! Congratulations!
December 12, 2025
If the HoL is to stay, it would do so without my support unless there are major reforms!
Eg: Size 300 max! < HoC. No substructures or ways in!
No Royal Affiliations!
No Political affiliations!
No Union affiliations!
No Religious affiliations (Established or not)!
No Financially/Influence/Money derived affiliation!
No Hereditary seats, at all!
A maximum life span (10 years, and then out)!
All Peers would need to be independent, and proven to be so, at all times, even if they lean towards a Political stance!
Rules/Laws to remove a peers, and all their affiliated assets, if needed! Criminal offense, etc,…
RDM.
PS: JR; It's been obvious, for a long time, you would receive this recognition! For you service, if nothing else! I could never have done it! Now, I find myself in a Hospital (POW) with Cancer (Multiple Myeloma), and I had a heart attack, two nights ago! But, I'm still going, and so should you! Make the best of it!
Reply Thank you. Best wishes for better health to you.
December 13, 2025
Well said RDM
December 13, 2025
Great news for the UK – well done.
December 13, 2025
Congratulations, Sir John. I hope you do not regret your decision to accept the peerage. I am sure you can be a voice of reason there, although it will not be easy going, given that the current (hopefully very temporary) PM is trying to create a slew of Labour peers to nod his more unpopular legislation obediently through.
December 15, 2025
Congratulations Sir John on your elevation to the Upper House. A richly deserved award.
Delighted that you will still be posting your interesting Diary.