Nigel Farage, the ever-controversial leader of Reform UK, has once again thrown himself into the heart of Westminster’s constitutional debate—this time by demanding the right to nominate peers to the House of Lords. On August 15, 2025, Farage penned a letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, urging him to address what he termed a “democratic disparity” in the upper chamber. The move, unsurprisingly, has reignited fierce debate across the political spectrum and drawn accusations of hypocrisy, even as it spotlights the peculiarities of Britain’s second chamber.
Farage’s argument is straightforward: despite Reform UK’s recent electoral successes—including four MPs in the Commons, control of 10 councils in England, and a narrow victory in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election—his party has no representation in the House of Lords. In his letter, Farage wrote, “My party received over 4.1 million votes at the general election in July 2024. We have since won a large number of seats in local government, led the national opinion polls for many months and won the only by-election of this Parliament.” According to BBC reporting, he went on to describe his request as “modest.”
Yet Farage’s plea comes with a twist of irony. As The Times pointed out, Reform’s own “contract” with voters at the last election promised to “replace the crony-filled House of Lords with a much smaller, more democratic second chamber”—and to end political appointees “immediately.” The manifesto’s details on how such a chamber would be constituted were, at best, vague: “Structure to be debated.” That debate, some wryly note, has been ongoing for more than a century.
So why is Farage now seeking to send his own allies—potentially including Ann Widdecombe, Nick Candy, and Zia Yusuf, as listed by The Times—into the very body he once derided? Critics have relished the contradiction. Defence Secretary John Healey didn’t mince words, telling LBC, “This is the same Nigel Farage that called for the abolition of the House of Lords and now wants to fill it with his cronies.” Healey went further, accusing Farage of being a “Putin apologist” and questioning whether Parliament would benefit from such appointments.
Farage, for his part, insists that the current arrangement is unfair. He points out that smaller parties such as the Green Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Ulster Unionist Party collectively have 13 peers, while the Liberal Democrats boast 76 peers—despite, as Farage notes, winning fewer votes than Reform UK at the previous general election. “None of this holds water any longer given the seismic shifts that have taken place in British politics,” he asserted in his letter. The Liberal Democrats, it’s worth noting, currently hold 72 Commons seats, making them the third-largest party after Labour and the Conservatives.
Yet the constitutional reality is clear: appointments to the Lords are made at the discretion of the prime minister, who is under no legal obligation to elevate opposition party members. As a Downing Street spokesperson told the BBC, “The process for appointments to the House of Lords follows established conventions and is guided by advice from the House of Lords Appointments Commission and other relevant bodies. While political parties may make representations regarding peerage nominations, decisions are made in line with long-standing procedures.”
Those procedures, while steeped in tradition, are hardly set in stone. Sources familiar with the process told the BBC that, although main opposition parties are usually invited to nominate peers, there are no hard-and-fast rules, and the final decision rests with the sitting prime minister. The House of Lords Appointments Commission, for its part, vets nominees but does not decide which parties get to nominate.
Past prime ministers have made their own calls—sometimes surprising ones. David Cameron and Boris Johnson, for example, allowed the Green Party to nominate peers, resulting in Jenny Jones joining the Lords in 2013 and Natalie Bennett in 2019. Johnson even overruled the Appointments Commission when it objected to making Peter Cruddas, a former Conservative Party treasurer, a peer. Yet, as The Times observed, the Scottish National Party (SNP) continues to refuse seats in the Lords on principle, underscoring the ongoing debate about the chamber’s legitimacy.
Farage’s own history with the Lords is checkered. While his previous parties have seen members join the upper chamber—Malcolm Pearson, a former UKIP leader, and David Stevens, former chair of United Newspapers, both became peers but later became non-affiliated; Claire Fox, a former Brexit Party MEP, was nominated by Boris Johnson and is now also non-affiliated—Farage has struggled to maintain a foothold. His current campaign is, in part, an attempt to change that.
Still, the odds of success seem slim. As The Times put it, “It is not going to happen, and Farage knows it is not going to happen.” The letter is widely seen as a strategic August news story—a bid to attract attention and reinforce Farage’s image as the perennial outsider, locked out by the establishment. At a time when anti-government and anti-establishment sentiment is running high, such a stance is politically potent.
Some observers suggest that granting Farage’s request might actually blunt his outsider appeal. If Reform UK were given the right to nominate peers, it would become harder for Farage to claim he’s being shut out by the political elite. It would also mean more Reform representatives in the public eye—something that could, in theory, backfire if any of them were to embarrass the party. And as the BBC notes, it would be a “responsible thing to do,” given the remote but real possibility that Farage could one day become prime minister and might then need allies in the Lords.
The House of Lords itself, with more than 800 members, remains a peculiar institution. Peers—who can change their political affiliation once appointed—scrutinize government work and recommend changes to legislation. While some see the chamber as a vital check on the Commons, others, like Farage (at least until recently), have derided it as an outdated relic filled with political cronies. Last year, MPs even backed plans to abolish hereditary peers, a small but symbolic step toward reform.
Meanwhile, the debate over the Lords’ future rumbles on. Reform UK’s manifesto may have called for a “more democratic” upper chamber, but as The Times dryly noted, the specifics remain elusive. For now, the prime minister holds all the cards, and the status quo is unlikely to change soon. Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, perhaps summed up the prevailing mood best: “The fact he’s focusing on how he can get his mates into the House of Lords says all you need to know about Nigel Farage.”
In the end, Farage’s letter has succeeded in its immediate goal: keeping Reform UK—and its leader—firmly in the headlines, while exposing the contradictions and complexities of Britain’s constitutional arrangements. Whether that translates into real change, or simply more political theatre, remains to be seen.
