Stanley Johnson’s nomination for a knighthood is only as absurd as the system that allows it

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

If ever there was a political equivalent of ‘keep it in the family’ then this is it (PA)

Arise Sir Stanley; your son bids it, and the King will duly oblige.

It seems absurd, but less so than the existence of the feudal system which allows it. Membership to our second chamber – already an inappropriate anachronism in the 21st century – can be bought, and this impacts legislation.

David Lloyd George employed a broker and offered a sensible and well-structured menu from which wealthy “donors” could select whichever title they wished. It would appear that Boris Johnson is not that well organised, although he does indulge in a bit of old-fashioned nepotism. If the Tory party is open for business, in the interests of transparency, it should publish the price list and the availability of stock.

The Conservatives are flogging public honours to fund their political enterprise – a clear example of getting something for nothing by opportunism and a familiar Tory practice. The relatively minor indiscretion of Stanley Johnson’s knighthood, should it happen, is an award which, like some others of similar ilk, is unlikely to be widely respected.

David Nelmes

Newport

If ever there was a political equivalent of “keep it in the family” then this is it. What an absolute joke that Stanley Johnson is set to be nominated for a knighthood by his son, Boris.

What has Stanley ever done to deserve it? Given us the biggest liar to enter British politics? Given a few speeches to Tory dinner clubs?

Surely, if Boris Johnson is found guilty of lying to parliament somebody will step in and block his nominations.

Geoffrey Brooking

Hampshire

Boris Johnson’s proposed nepotistic knighthood for his father may be his last great stand. The outcome of the report into his alleged lies in the House of Commons is looming, and may stop any of his putative honours in their tracks. It would be totally inappropriate to allow him the privilege of bestowing honours on any cronies if the inquiry into Partygate is damning of his conduct.

Tim Sidaway

Hertfordshire

What’s fair for one party, must be fair for the other

At last, I thought. The Tories have decided that there are parliamentary rules and that yes, they should be followed. I found myself looking forward to the re-resignation of Suella Braverman and an investigation into her breaches of the ministerial code. A full inquiry into lockdown parties, including those of the Abba variety. An inquiry into Akshata Murty’s use of non-dom status and the alleged setting of taxation rules by her husband, Rishi Sunak, to suit their wealthy family.

But alas, the rules seem only to apply when it comes to trying to sling mud at the opposition’s recruitment of Sue Gray. Tory MP Jeremy Quin had obviously had his thesaurus out, so many words for rule-breaking were used! And no less than four “pertinent” rules that had allegedly been breached.

A senior civil servant accepts a post that she is well qualified for, and the Tories leap on this as a reason to dismiss all the evidence and findings of rule-breaking by their own leader. So let’s have an inquiry into when Gray accepted the offer or even discussed the post with Keir Starmer. But let’s also have several other inquiries into the multitude of rule-breaking by many Tory MPs.

What’s fair for one party, must be fair for the other.

Karen Brittain

York

Abolishing the House of Lords may not be the right answer

One apparently easy solution to the problem of ill-judged peerages is that of creating an elected upper house. While I see the attractions of a more democratic system, there are problems. As in the US, if each house is dominated by opposing parties, we may end up with deadlocks that make a joke of government – where the same party predominates, then uncritical legislation could conceivably be worse.

The current House of Lords has been very good at making the government rethink unreasonable legislation. Wouldn’t the (admittedly less simple) solution be to extend life peerages, with rules about the constituencies? For example, the House could consist of members of professional bodies, academic experts, and maybe a few ex-MPs, but preferably not those chosen by the prime minister alone.

As for Stanley Johnson, he has had the distinction of having headed the antipollution body of the European Commission. Maybe Boris is being evenhanded!

Cole Davis

Norwich