Farage Accuses PM of ‘Democratic Disparity’ in House of Lords Representation

Published: 15 August 2025 — The English Chronicle Desk

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer of perpetuating what he calls a “democratic disparity” in the composition of the House of Lords, after claiming his party is being unfairly excluded from nominating peers to the upper chamber. The Clacton MP, who has previously campaigned for the abolition of the Lords, is now pressing for his party to have a formal presence in the unelected legislative body — a stance which has drawn both political criticism and constitutional debate.

Mr Farage, whose Reform UK party secured four MPs in last year’s general election and currently controls ten local councils, argues that his party’s exclusion is inconsistent with the treatment of other political groups. He pointed to the Green Party, which also has four MPs yet counts two working peers in the Lords, and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which has six Lords members despite holding only five Commons seats. “This is not simply about ceremony or tradition — it’s about fair representation,” Mr Farage said in a letter to the Prime Minister, obtained by The Times. He argued that Reform UK’s 4.1 million votes in the 2024 general election, coupled with subsequent local election gains and the party’s by-election victory this parliament, justify its inclusion in the upper house.

The request has reignited political tensions. Defence Secretary John Healey, speaking to LBC, dismissed the demand as “the same Nigel Farage that called for the abolition of the House of Lords now wanting to put his cronies in there.” Mr Healey went further, criticising Mr Farage’s political stance, remarking, “I’m not sure Parliament’s going to benefit from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage, to be honest.”

Under current arrangements, appointments to the House of Lords are made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, with nominations coming from political parties, members of the public, or other bodies. These appointments are then formalised by the King. While there is no formal obligation for a prime minister to grant peerages to opposition parties, precedent has often dictated that governments offer some representation to smaller political factions.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government has pledged to tighten the rules surrounding appointments following years of controversy over accusations of “cronyism” and excessive political patronage. In December, his administration announced that parties would now need to justify nominations, a move aimed at curbing the practice of awarding peerages to close political allies and donors. This followed a series of public rows, most notably under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was criticised for elevating former aides and personal associates to the Lords, including Evgeny Lebedev, the media magnate and son of a former KGB officer, in 2020.

Since taking office, Mr Starmer has overseen the appointment of 30 new Labour peers, among them former MPs, party stalwarts, and political allies such as his ex-chief of staff Sue Gray — a decision that stirred debate as Ms Gray served in the role for less than 100 days before leaving amid internal disputes. The Prime Minister also approved six Conservative nominations, including high-profile figures like former deputy prime minister Thérèse Coffey and cultural commentator Toby Young, alongside two nominees from Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey.

Constitutional experts are divided on Mr Farage’s claim. Lord Norton of Louth, a respected authority on parliamentary procedure, acknowledged that there is “a case for minor parties like Reform to have representation” but stressed that the decision rests solely with the Prime Minister. Former cabinet secretary Lord O’Donnell echoed concerns about the concentration of appointment power in the hands of one political leader, saying: “It is a feature of our system that the prime minister can appoint whoever they like to the House of Lords. It is an area where I think we need greater checks and balances.”

Baroness Fox of Buckley, a crossbench peer formerly associated with Mr Farage’s Brexit Party, also spoke in his defence, describing Reform UK’s absence from the Lords as inconsistent with Labour’s stated commitment to improving diversity and representation. “There can be no rational reason for Starmer to turn it down,” she said.

Despite the calls for inclusion, Downing Street sources have indicated that the Prime Minister may adopt a “wait and see” approach to assess Reform UK’s long-term political performance before making any decisions. This stance has been bolstered by the fact that two of the five Reform MPs elected in 2024 have already resigned, raising questions about the party’s stability.

As the row unfolds, the debate over the composition and future of the House of Lords continues to expose deeper questions about the UK’s constitutional framework, representation, and the political realities of patronage in the modern era. Whether Mr Farage’s demand will translate into actual seats in the Lords remains uncertain — but the controversy ensures that the centuries-old institution remains firmly in the political spotlight.