The most comprehensive analysis of the House of Lords in more than a decade finds that wealth and elite privilege remain deeply embedded in British politics.
Hereditary peers have been removed to modernise the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament and make it more representative, but wealth and elite privilege remain embedded.
New research from the University of Birmingham shows that, despite recent reforms intended to make the upper chamber of Parliament more representative, a new elite rooted in financial assets, property, and corporate power has secured a stronghold in the House of Lords.
The first systematic study of the financial and political activities of more than 800 members of the House of Lords has been published today (30th October) in a new book, The Assetocracy: Wealth, Power and Elitism in the House of Lords, by Dr Huw Macartney, Associate Professor of Political Economy at the University of Birmingham.
Conducted over two years by Dr Macartney and a team of graduate researchers, the project compiled what is believed to be the largest available repository of information on peers' shareholdings, company directorships, property ownership, educational backgrounds, attendance records, speeches and voting patterns.
The findings come in the same year that hereditary peers, members of the UK aristocracy whose titles gave them the right to sit in the House of Lords, were removed to modernise the upper chamber and make it more representative.
Even though hereditary peers have now been removed from the House of Lords, our findings show that this has done little to fix a huge wealth and status gap between peers and the public.
Dr Macartney said: “Even though hereditary peers have now been removed from the House of Lords, our findings show that this has done little to fix a huge wealth and status gap between peers and the public. In 2013, when the last major study was conducted, there was a suggested decline in wealth and elitism in the upper chamber. Now, little more than a decade later, this has been reversed.
“The House of Lords is now populated disproportionately by very wealthy, elite-educated individuals, far removed from the socioeconomic profile of the wider population. The upper chamber is increasingly disconnected from the British public and unrepresentative of their everyday economic and social experiences. Given the impact that decisions made in the Lords have on laws, government policy and the everyday lives of ordinary people, this is fundamentally inequitable.”
The research reveals that more than 260 life peers hold individual shareholdings each worth more than £100,000, representing around 38% of life peers. At the upper end, some peers hold over two hundred shareholdings over £100,000, placing them at the top of the very top 1% of wealthy individuals in Britain.
Among those shareholder peers:
The study found that financial corporations account for the largest share of peers' investments, making up approximately 26% of identified shareholdings. Around 250 peers hold company directorships, while 14 members appear on the Sunday Times Rich List.
According to the findings, peers with substantial shareholdings are mostly associated with the Conservative Party, with many appointed since 2010.
Dr Macartney added: “Since 2010, Conservative appointments have flooded the Lords with wealthy asset-holders, significantly changing the composition of the chamber. Aristocrats have been replaced with 'assetocrats’.
“Historically, debates in the Lords have tended to narrow the scope for meaningful wealth redistribution, prioritising business incentives and the ‘capital flight argument’. In doing so, the chamber has helped reinforce rather than challenge the structures underpinning Britain’s rentier economy.”
As public scrutiny of links between business and politics is increasing, public trust in democratic institutions erodes, and the division between the haves and have-nots grows, these findings raise important questions about transparency, influence and whether meaningful reform of elitism in the Lords is truly underway.
The research also points to a close relationship between political status and corporate influence.
The total number of company directorships held by peers was found to approximately double following appointment to the House of Lords, rising from around 400 directorships before appointment to nearly 800 afterwards.
92% of peers who already held company directorships increased the number of directorships after entering the Lords.
Despite the increase in political influence, the book suggests that there is a small but statistically significant correlation between greater wealth and lower levels of participation in the Lords. The richer the peer, the less likely they are to attend and engage; the ‘cash for peerages’ argument rings true as well, with ten of the Lords who have made the largest donations to political parties being among the lowest attendees.
A significant number of peers appear to have accepted a peerage with little intention of participating substantially. This reinforces existing concerns about peerages as status symbols, and being leveraged to further enhance an individual’s marketability for lucrative external roles.
While members of the House of Lords are required to disclose financial interests through the Register of Interests, the study argues that existing reporting requirements often reveal little about the overall scale of individual wealth or income.
The findings raise questions about how financial interests combine with legislative influence and decision-making, creating potential conflicts of interest - whether real or perceived - between public duties and private interests.
Dr Macartney said: "The Register of Interests is publicly available, but the depth and implications of this information have rarely been examined systematically. As public scrutiny of links between business and politics is increasing, public trust in democratic institutions erodes, and the division between the haves and have-nots grows, these findings raise important questions about transparency, influence and whether meaningful reform of elitism in the Lords is truly underway."
The research comes amid wider public debate about the role, composition and accountability of the second chamber. It offers a detailed examination of how wealth, privilege and political power intersect within Westminster and could go on to shape democracy in the UK.
For more information and media inquiries, please contact Ellie Hail (e.hail@bham.ac.uk), Communications Officer, University of Birmingham, on +44 (0)7966 311 409. Out-of-hours, please call +44 (0) 121 414 2772.
Associate Professor in Political Economy
Dr Huw Macartney is a political economist whose work is broadly concerned with the politics of banking and financial services.
