Do you trust your politicians like Keir Starmer? According to polling, the answer is almost certainly no:
One of the easiest ways for a UK prime minister to counter the abysmal state of affairs would be to abolish the unelected House of Lords. As such, it was a good thing Starmer proposed doing this to “restore trust in politics”. However, according to a report in the Observer, such plans will now be “limited”.
While Labour hasn’t confirmed an intention to ‘water down’ the proposals, many are finding it easy to believe – probably because Starmer U-turns so often he could sue himself for whiplash:
“committed to a proper House of Lords”.
So another lie from @Keir_Starmer and another u-turn.
All about restoring trust, guys! 🤣🤡 https://t.co/wJo1iwGsc4 pic.twitter.com/3A9p4MUPqg
— James Foster (@JamesEFoster) February 4, 2024
U-Turn approaching?
Labour is planning only limited first-term reforms of social care and the House of Lords and a smaller green investment plan as part of a stripped-down general election manifesto, as it seeks to make its policies “bombproof” to Tory attacks.
By “bombproof”, Labour means the manifesto will be so lacking in substance that you couldn’t hit it with a homing missile from a metre away. The Observer elaborated on the Lords plan:
In addition, despite Keir Starmer’s previous promises to abolish the Lords in a first term, it is expected to commit only to limited changes. This is likely to mean legislating only for the abolition of the remaining 91 hereditary peers.
If Labour gets in power, no one will be impressed at the next election when it points at the half-arsed half measures it implemented, and the party tells us it plans to half finish what it half started by the second half of the next term (economic situation permitting).
The Observer had an explanation for all this:
Labour’s cautious approach – which is frustrating some MPs and party members – is partly the result of uncertainty about the economic situation it will inherit and what can be afforded.
A less-biased way of saying this would be to report ‘Labour claims its partly the result of uncertainty about the economic situation‘. The Observer’s wording makes it seem like Labour’s position is inarguable, whereas we all know that there’s always money for things like war and dodgy contracts – just never for things like democracy or social care (social care being the other big plan that Labour is allegedly watering down).
Lords have mercy
The House of Lords is a key source of mistrust in the UK political system. Unlike in other countries, the powerful lawmakers in the UK House of Lords are granted their power – either through birthright or by appointment from whatever floundering mess is currently prime minister. Polling shows you almost certainly don’t approve of this situation:
When you remove the ‘don’t knows’ from that poll, 60% of people think the second house should be ‘mostly elected’. As noted, the Observer report suggests Labour will at least get rid of the hereditary peers – i.e. the aristocrats who are born into the role. That would still leave us with appointed peers like Alan Sugar – a man who’s in a position to influence and vote on laws which could benefit his own bottom line:
Lord Alan Sugar explains why he's not a fan of WFH pic.twitter.com/zuxkitvPev
— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) February 1, 2024
There’s also Charlotte Owen – the former aide to Boris Johnson who was made a Lord at the age of 30 for no discernible reason (besides the fact she looks suspiciously like him):
Boris Johnson has made Charlotte Owen a lawmaker for life. She has very little work experience of any kind and has no significant achievements to her name. She is now a life peer. I want to know the reason why and I want to know if it was corrupt. pic.twitter.com/jCRX0fPfCY
— Dr Martin Opposes Gov’t Corruption (@MartinRemains) July 24, 2023
Then you’ve got Andrew Lloyd-Webber – the man who wrote Cats the fucking musical, and for some reason was deemed worthy of having the power to shape British law for the rest of his life:
Andrew Lloyd Webber – the Lord who's worth £650m – who flew back to the UK to vote to end tax credits for the poorest people in society in 2015. And Justin Webb is simpering and gushing at him. #r4today
— Matthew (he/him) 🇪🇺🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️♂️♀️⚧️♿ (@_ifib) June 4, 2022
Predictable
While Labour hasn’t confirmed the U-Turn, it’s worth reporting on because every other flip flop was preceded by months of speculation (much of it no doubt leaked from Labour HQ). You could certainly argue some change is better than none, but bear in mind:
- Does anyone believe Starmer will follow-through on fully democratising the house in the second term?
- How can anyone trust Starmer to deliver on any change at this point?
While hereditary peers are certainly the most backwards element of the Lords, they’re arguably less of a problem than the business pigs stuffed into the House by successive prime ministers. And we all know ‘Sir Keir’ is exactly the sort of establishment stooge who’d like to upgrade to ‘Lord Starmer’ at some point.
Featured image via YouTube
