KEIR Starmer is reportedly planning to award a peerage to Sue Gray as well as a raft of ex-MPs who stepped down from Labour safe seats ahead of July’s General Election.
Labour officials told the Financial Times that the Prime Minister had a long list of political peerages to unveil.
This includes his former chief of staff, who was forced to resign amid bitter infighting in Number 10.
Gray was swiftly replaced by Morgan McSweeney, a close Starmer adviser, and was said to be taking on the role of nations and regions envoy – until she revealed she had rejected the position.
READ MORE: Sue Gray 'rejects nations envoy role in Keir Starmer's government'
Several party figures also reportedly said a series of former Labour MPs who stepped down shortly before the July 4 election were set to be included – notably, Lyn Brown, Kevin Brennan and Julie Elliott.
Thangam Debbonaire, who was in Starmer’s shadow cabinet but lost her Bristol West seat to the Green party at the election, is also being considered.
Meanwhile, former Tory prime minister Rishi Sunak has not yet submitted his resignation list of proposed peerages, and is running out of time to do so by the end of this year.
It is believed that former cabinet ministers Michael Gove, Simon Hart and Alister Jack will be on Sunak’s list.
Currently in the House of Lords, Labour has just 187 peers against 273 Tories, 78 Liberal Democrats and 184 cross-benchers, who are not affiliated with any party.
Earlier this year, Labour abolished the 92 seats reserved for hereditary peers.
But the SNP pushed Starmer to go further and abolish the House of Lords entirely.
Pete Wishart branded the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill a “pathetic, little, minuscule bill” that “should have been done centuries ago”.
He told the Commons: “I’m just someone who intrinsically believes that if you represent the people, you should be voted by the people.
“That to legislate requires consent, through some sort of electoral mandate, a group of people who vote for you to go into a legislature and to represent them, and allow you to make the laws of this land."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel