Starmer changes his tune on peerage rules
Sir Keir Starmer seems to be changing his mind a lot these days. Whether it is welfare cuts or the 'island of strangers' speech, a grooming gangs inquiry or winter fuel, the Prime Minister is struggling to keep consistent line on much at present. So it is perhaps no surprise then that the Labour leader has changed his tune on the rules around peerages too.
In a little-noticed statement to parliament, snuck out last Thursday, Starmer provided an update on the 'roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in making nominations to the House of Lords.' He addressed the subject of the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), saying that:
Advice on propriety is separate to judgements about the suitability of candidates, which are for political parties… The Commission can decline to support a nomination on propriety grounds and will inform the relevant political party if this is the case. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to the Sovereign. In the unlikely event I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC's advice on propriety I would write to the Commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk… The Commission may also provide advice on whether there are any presentational risks associated with a nominee. The Commission does not withhold support for a nominee due to presentational risks.
Hmm. That is a somewhat different tone to the one struck by Labour in opposition. Flashback to 2020 when Labour criticised Boris Johnson's decision to overrule HOLAC and award businessman Peter Cruddas a peerage. It prompted Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, to declare that 'there is one rule for the Conservatives and their chums, another for the rest of the country.' Yet now that Labour is in office, it seems that Starmer is perfectly happy to overrule HOLAC if he deems it necessary…
There is an intriguing sub-plot to this latest Starmer statement too. He goes on to refer to the creation of Crossbench peerages:
As Prime Minister, I will continue to recommend directly for appointment a limited number of candidates to sit as Crossbench peers, based on their public service, including both distinguished public servants on retirement and individuals with a proven track record of service to the public. These nominations will continue to be vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Given Starmer's aforementioned distinction between 'propriety' and 'suitability', it does raise the question of who exactly he has in mind to sit on the Crossbenches in future…
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
43 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer's start as PM worse than Liz Truss, claims expert
Leading historian Sir Anthony Seldon has described Sir Keir Starmer 's start as prime minister as the most inept in a century, suggesting it is even worse than Liz Truss 's brief tenure. Mr Seldon criticised Sir Keir for lacking a clear plan, not consulting previous prime ministers, and having an unclear purpose for his leadership. Polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice agreed, stating it has been the "worst start for any newly elected prime minister, Labour or Conservative". Sir Keir recently admitted he was slow to address a growing rebellion over welfare reforms as he was focussed on foreign affairs like G7, Nato summits, and Middle East tensions. Despite significant backbencher opposition, Starmer is expected to win a crucial vote on welfare reforms on Tuesday.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Cutting personal independent payments: potentially devastating or justified?
As predicted (Starmer offers 'massive concessions' on welfare bill to Labour rebels, 26 June), an attempt has been made to salvage the welfare bill. Discontented MPs and disabled people alike will welcome the assurance that people currently receiving personal independence payments (Pip) or the health element of universal credit will be protected from changes. But the episode is damaging, has caused thousands of disabled people needless worry, and may come to be seen as pivotal in Keir Starmer's tenure. There is something deeply invidious about having two classes of benefit recipients – the protected current recipients, and those making future claims. At the same time, it is clear that the benefits system does need reform and, in particular, needs to support people into work rather than taking a punitive and brutal approach to cost saving. How Starmer has ended up in this position is fascinating, if it were not extraordinary for a government with such a majority and the potential to make radical and equitable change to be repeatedly wrongfooted. U-turns look weak and messy, and presenting them as a response to active listening is unlikely to convince anyone. Starmer claims not to be ideological, and there is the issue; policy is being shaped not by a coherent strategic vision and principle-driven aspirations for better lives, opportunities and genuine equality, but by economic necessity and caution. It's a flawed model, certain to intensify divisions between ministries, Labour members, taxpayers, benefit recipients and the wider electorate. There is major learning and reflection needed by the government; the optics have gone badly wrong, but the welfare reform chaos is a symptom of a much deeper political Melanie HenwoodHartwell, Northamptonshire I am a social worker and I support cutting Pips. I have encountered a number of young adults trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency, unemployment and chaotic lifestyles. They share a belief that the state must fund every aspect of life, and a lack of understanding that benefits come not 'from the government' but are redistributed from taxation of the population. Pip is often claimed on the basis of anxiety or depression, but the idea of working to support oneself, or seeking training or education to make work more attainable, is absent from their thinking. The answer? Probably a combination of education, early interventions and nudges towards culture change, including reducing the availability of Pip. In the long term the status quo won't help the young people I work and address supplied What is not being made clear in government statements and coverage of the cuts to disability benefits is the personal independence payment's relationship to work. Pip is paid to help with the additional costs arising from disability. It is paid to people in work and out of work. It is crucial in enabling people to stay in work, paying for technical and personal support, health needs, travel and other costs. It also enables people who cannot work full-time to work. What will happen to these working people when they can no longer afford the additional costs? It's clear the government does not understand the role of Pip in enabling BetteridgeManchester As we approach the parliamentary vote on the new welfare bill, spare a thought for the many Pip recipients who received the benefit when it was known as disability living allowance. I suspect, for many, the scars still linger from that government change to the system. What that revealed was that disability allowance was not directed to those most in need of it due to their disability. Rather, receiving the new benefit depended upon one's ability to fill out a 40-page form. Next, it depended on having the physical and mental resilience to challenge the result and take it to a tribunal. This was a protracted and stressful period of time. For many, who made it that far, the tribunal reversed the DWP scoring and people found that they had their old level of benefit reinstated. Just a shame that stress makes many medical conditions far worse for the individual. Many years ago, I believed that the DWP wanted to help those with serious disabilities. These days, I have as much faith in them as they appear to have in disabled people (DWP letters now seem to be written with a subtext of 'you're a fraud and we'll catch you').Name and address supplied Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Video of Labour's broken promises to nuke veterans gets 3 million views
Labour is under pressure to act on the Nuked Blood scandal after a video of ministers' broken promises was seen by 3 million people The 3 Cabinet ministers who made promises to nuke veterans A video detailing Labour's broken promises to nuclear veterans has been seen by more people than the 10 o'clock news. Growing awareness of the goverment's failure to resolve the £5bn Nuked Blood scandal is now putting ministers under pressure to come up with answers. A defence minister is expected to make a written statement to the House of Commons tomorrow to reveal interim findings of a review into allegations of human radiation experiments carried out on troops in the Cold War. And it comes as more evidence emerges of veterans' medical records being tampered with to remove evidence of monitoring them before, during and after they served at nuclear weapons tests. Peter Stefanovic, lawyer and founder of the Campaign for Social Justice, has compiled clips of Defence Secretary John Healey, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard while in Opposition, all calling for the Tories to set up compensation schemes for the veterans. In just six weeks it has been viewed by 3 million people - more than watch the 10 o'clock news on either BBC or ITN. * You can support the veterans' fight for justice HERE "That doesn't happen unless the public get behind something. It illustrates to the government that public consciousness and outrage continues to grow," said Mr Stefanovic. "We are hitting the public and the government in the face with this every day. Something has to give." Lawyers acting for the veterans have threatened to launch a £5bn lawsuit for the missing medical records, unless the government accepts a cheaper offer of a one-year special tribunal, with capped costs, to investigate the cover-up. And police are assessing a criminal complaint of misconduct in public office, linked to a secret database with information about blood and urine testing of troops, unlawfully locked behind national security at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. After the Mirror forced some of the files open, the entire archive is due to be declassified. Now veteran Dave Whyte - who has been ruled "vexatious"| by the Ministry of Defence over a long Freedom of Information battle aimed at discovering his radiation dose after he was sent into Ground Zero at Operation Grapple in 1958 - has discovered a huge bundle of his personal medical records have gone missing. After more than a decade and campaign group LABRATS raising his case with the Veterans Minister Al Carns, Dave, 88, of Kirkcaldy, Fife, has been sent his medical notes from his 10 years in service. It contains just 13 sheets of paper, some of them duplicates. His 10 years of annual medical examinations are missing, along with 12 sets of clinical notes and 8 records of visiting the medic. The papers show two blood tests and a chest x-ray were administered for no clinical reason, but only one set of test results is in his file. And the results of a gland biopsy, conducted two years after the nuclear tests when his lymph nodes swelled up and doctors decided he had a blood disorder, are also missing. Dave said: "I've asked again about my records from the decontamination centre I was sent to, and have been informed that I am still barred from asking FOIs. It is 14 years since I have been banned, convicted murderers serve less time." The Mirror's evidence of the Nuked Blood scandal featured in a BBC documentary last year, called Britain's Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story, and in a Newsnight special report last week.
