PEERS, NHS FLU PRESSURE AND A FLICKER OF YOUTH MOBILITY SCHEME HOPE.

A Joke at the House of Lords’ expense.

On Wednesday HMG announced 34 new Lords, including 25 Labour peers, five LibDems and three Tories. The list includes a slug of second rank (aka “failed”) Labour advisers, including Matthew Doyle, Katie Martin and Carol Linforth (who? Ed.) and some public service folk such as Ann Limb, lesbian 70-ish Further Education teacher and educational inclusionist, former London Fire Commissioner Andy Roe, probably best known as the incident commander at Grenfell Tower in 2019 and Brenda Dacres the Mayor of Lewisham who never managed to be selected to fight a constituency. (Eleni Courea, Guardian, 10th December 2025.) The Conservatives appointment of Sharron Davies the Olympic swimmer and the LibDems promotion of Sarah Teather amongst others, continue the “profoundly underwhelming” theme.

Just in case anyone needs a reminder, the Labour 2024 Jokifesto included the following gag in the “Constitutional Reform” section, obviously written by the same authors as your local panto:

“Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big.”

The panto authors finished this (short!) section in similarly witty mode:

“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.”

So, way to go Keir: 17 months in and not a hint of even beginning any public consultation on replacing the Lords as promised, but actually a slew of appointments that bring the Lords in to disrepute and continue the pathetic parade of sycophancy and “patronage” which seems to be the polite term for “deranged influence peddling.”

Labour’s “justification” is only tactical: the Conservatives form the largest bloc in the Lords and the government wants smoother legislative passage (possibly but not only just for their non-Bill on assisted suicide.) The problem, of course, is that the Lords already numbers 800 members, making it the second-largest legislative chamber in the world after China’s National People’s Congress. TWOP feels surprisingly passionate about this. The hereditary peers have been ejected without the delivery of a revised structure for the second chamber that formed the basis of Lord Strathclyde’s “party-like-1999” acceptance of the hereditaries’ curtailment (TWOP is always amused by Tom’s name: Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, Baron Strathclyde.)

Then there is just the obvious democratic deficit: no nominations for peerages for Reform UK, despite its electoral visibility. The Labour grandees, so used to stuffing every committee they depend on with placemen and women just could not stand the idea of giving Reform UK any additional credibility. However, by avoiding the idea of Reform UK as a serious party, they have further underlined the opaque nature of the appointments system and the absurdity of the “semi-reformed” Lords, now full of second-class Labour local government rejects and quango and NGO “siloviki”, rather than the 14^th generation of descendants of the victors of the Battle of Bosworth Field. This is truly pathetic.

[In an aside it would be fair for readers to ask: “so what’s your solution?” TWOP has never thought that solving the second chamber riddle is particularly hard: allow hereditaries and appointees to continue to have (unpaid) attendance and speaking rights in the chamber, but elect 100 Voting Lords from their number by party list proportional representation for 8 year terms with a quarter of seats elected every other year. Make committees of the house able to include hereditaries and appointee life peers, paid for their attendance and work on committees, but reserve votes on all matters in the House and in committees to Voting Lords. Job done. Thank us later. (Yes it’s a hybrid of tradition, eccentricity and modernisation. Yes, the Commons would dislike the improved democratic mandate this would provide to the second chamber as a threat to their legislative supremacy. Would it work? Certainly worth a try. Other solutions are available.)

NHS winter pressure: flu, fatigue and fragile capacity

The NHS has entered what officials describe as a “worst case scenario” winter, driven by a sharp rise in flu admissions alongside persistent pressure on A&E. NHS “officials” seem to believe that the “worst case scenario” is really any winter in which people get a bit poorly with seasonal snuffles, coughs and sore throats. NHS England data show an average of 2,660 patients per day hospitalised with flu across the week, a rise of more than 55% over the a previous week, alongside increasing cases of norovirus (NHS England, 11^th December 2025.)

Why is everyone going to hospital? Why doesn’t some NHS worthy go on BBCR4, write a comment piece in The Sun/Mail/Whatever to say: “stay at home you cretinous fools, there’s nothing we can do for you that you can’t do better for yourselves at home without infecting everyone.” Oh, and “open your blasted windows!” TWOP is bewildered (but TWOP “benefits” from a medical parent and, as we know, medics are the WORST, so maybe this isn’t so simple really.)

The wider picture is depressingly familiar: record A&E attendances, ambulance delays and hospitals operating at or beyond safe capacity. The annual framing of winter as an “unexpected crisis” increasingly looks like a failure of state capacity rather than seasonal misfortune. At the tail end of the cricket season TWOP thinks to itself “Winter is on its way.” It is confusing that this simple recognition seems to be beyond NHS mandarins and totally shocking to the BMA’s panjandrums. AND WHY IS EVERYONE GOING TO HOSPITAL WITH FLU ANYWAY???

Erasmus and youth mobility: cautious re-engagement

Right, there has obviously been something in TWOP’s water this week. Sorry.

More quietly therefore, there SEEMS to have been some movement on the UK potentially rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme and some whispered suggestions that there may be some chance of the UK rejoining for the 2027/’8 academic year. Where were these whispers heard? The Lords! Who asked the initial question? Crossbench Life Peer, translator, Afghan interpreter supporter and South American enthusiast, Baroness Coussins (Hansard, House of Lords, 21st October 2025.)

“My Lords, the Minister says that she cannot go into details, but will she be asking for UK citizens to be afforded the fullest breadth of opportunities—meaning opportunities not just for students but for teachers in terms of their professional development abroad? That was extremely valuable when we were previously a member of Erasmus+.”

In reply the Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, formerly Ruth Anderson MP and now a Labour government spokeswoman in the Lords, commented:

“The noble Earl raises the most important point. Currently, 60% of our schools are struggling to recruit modern foreign language teachers. There is a genuine issue about how we ensure that not just students but their teachers and supporting staff have opportunities in this space.”

Aside from the simple pleasure of seeing a 9^th generation hereditary earning his place in the House, the noble Lady’s response suggests that there has been a shift from the government’s earlier insistence that the UK’s own “Turing scheme” was a full replacement for Erasmus, despite persistent criticism that it lacks reciprocity and institutional depth. As recently as January, ministers maintained that there were no plans to rejoin Erasmus itself (Hansard, House of Lords, 20th January 2025.)

While any European youth mobility agreement still seems horribly distant and uncertain, the new tone suggests a more pragmatic approach from HMG, shaped by political reality rather than ideological posture.

A note for older people unaware of Erasmus! This scheme supported European students (including those from the UK) to study in other countries within the scheme for 2-12 months during their degree programmes from its inception in 1987. The UK left the scheme as part of BREXIT and oft stated that it had been unfair because more EU students came to the UK than UK students went to other countries because basically UK students were pants at languages. No-one thought of maybe offering increased language support to UK potential Erasmus participants. Too simple. Because UK civil servants were unable to explain basic maths to their political masters it seems that the decision to withdraw was made in order to save the UK’s ~£200m annual Erasmus contribution, without taking in to account the ~£243m annual profit the UK made from it. Gah! Useless tossers. Ben Horton & Max Fras, Chatham House, 13^th January 2021.)

Efforts to recalibrate the wider UK-EU relationship now inch ahead (?centimetre ahead, Ed?) under Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds (Welsh MP, barrister, PPE – St Edmund’s Hall, Oxford) who emphasised pragmatic cooperation with the EU over grand resets. (TWOP caught Thomas-Symonds being interviewed by Evan Davis on BBCR4’s PM on 3^rd December 2025 from 5:35pm available until 2^nd January 2026.) It would be good if Erasmus participation could be more explicitly included in the UK-EU “reset” agenda. TWOP’s guess is that UK participation will be timed out for full participation in the 2027-’33 cycle. London will lack personable baristas as a result too (but will still suffer from a super-abundance of Oxford PPE barristers. Not the same at all.)

Bottom line

More peers are being added to an already swollen House of Lords. The NHS is buckling under completely predictable seasonal strains, A tentative reopening of the Erasmus conversation looks less than likely to produce opportunities for young British students to study abroad.
Posturing everywhere, resolution nowhere to be found.

Chin chin.