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
Scotsman
27 minutes ago
- Scotsman
How Edinburgh helped decide Britain's relationship with Europe 50 years ago
Britain's vote to leave the European Union in 2016 - nine years ago this month - was a close-run thing and came as a shock whose repercussions are still being felt today. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... But it was a different story in the UK's first ever national referendum in 1975, when voters decisively backed British membership of what was then known as the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market. While the Brexit result - 52 per cent to 48 in favour of Leave - reflected a divided nation and forced the departure of Tory prime minister David Cameron, the vote 50 year ago was 67 per cent to 33 to stay in and represented a convincing victory for Labour's Harold Wilson. Prime Minister Harold Wilson goingto vote on referendum day 1975, accompanied by his wife Mary. Picture: Keystone/Getty Images. | Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He had called the referendum, held on Thursday June 5, 1975, to allow the British people the say they had not been given when Ted Heath's Tory government took the country into the EEC without any ballot on January 1, 1973. Labour had made a manifesto pledge to renegotiate the UK's terms of membership and then hold a referendum to decide whether Britain remained in. It was also a way to deal with the internal tensions inside the Labour party, where there were passionate pro-Europeans as well as fierce critics of "the Market". There was much debate about the rights and wrongs of holding a referendum. Opponents called it "un-British", "a constitutional monstrosity" and incompatible with parliamentary government. But supporters pointed out referendums had been used in Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth and recalled that Ted Heath had promised he would take Britain into the EEC with "the full-hearted consent of the British people". The ballot paper in the 1975 referendum asked people to vote Yes or No to staying in the EEC | x Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Talks with Europe, led by Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary James Callaghan, did not achieve the "fundamental renegotiation" they had wanted. But they did secure a partial refund of Britain's inflated financial contribution to the EEC. They were also helped by a change of leadership in both France and Germany, rising world food prices which closed the gap with those in Europe and support from Commonwealth countries for Britain staying in. The campaign saw politicians from different parties co-operating - with varying degrees of enthusiasm - on each side of the debate. There were two umbrella organisations - Britain in Europe running the Yes campaign and the National Referendum Campaign co-ordinating the No side. There was some debate among politicians on the issue of democracy and loss of sovereignty. But polls consistently found the topics which voters were interested in were food prices and jobs. Leading Labour anti-Marketeer Barbara Castle made a well-publicised shopping trip to Brussels to show prices were higher inside the Common Market. But in retaliation, the pro-EEC campaign sent one of their members to Norway - which had voted against joining - to prove that shopping was even more expensive outside. Barbara Castle and helpers display a variety of goods purchased in London and Brussels to support their claim that prices were higher inside the EEC. Picture: Keystone/Getty Images | Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Evening News organised its own shopping expedition, running a competition to choose two shoppers and sending them to Amsterdam as guests of the Dutch Dairy Board. "I must admit I was quite shocked to see that most of their food in tins and packets with well-known brand names were twice or three times more expensive than in Scotland," said Mrs Ella Daniel, 31, from Cortorphine. "But their fruit and vegetables were about the same price or cheaper and much nicer and fresher looking, They also have a greater selection. Alcohol is also cheaper." Mrs Kathy Urquhart, 60, from Kingsknowe, said: "The Dutch also have a generally higher standard of living with bigger wages than here. But we were told they do pay a lot of income tax and have a lot of deductions for their various social benefits." Both women said despite the prices, they still planned to vote to stay in. The Trades Union Congress formally backed a vote to leave the EEC, though some key union figures backed Yes. And an Economist poll found 95 per cent of businesses favoured staying in. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The week before the vote, the Evening News reported how Peter Balfour, chairman of Scottish & Newcastle breweries, warned that leaving the Common Market would result in the loss of jobs for some of the company's employees in Edinburgh. Waverley Vintners, based in Holyrood Road and responsible for the group's wine and beer exports, would be worst hit, he said. William Reilly, chairman of the shop stewards' committee at S&N, branded the warning "a form of political blackmail". And Robin Cook, then Labour MP for Edinburgh Central, criticised employers for trying to influence the votes of workers. He cited one constituent who received a letter from her employer urging her to vote in favour of the EEC. "She was even invited to draw this advice to the attention of her family - the whole family would be voting according to the wishes of the boss. I am sure many workers will respond with some degree of sceptical indignation." Liberal David Steel in June 1975. He described Scottish anti-Marketeers as the "most narrow, inward-looking, xenophobic forces which Scotland could muster". | TSPL Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad David Steel, then Liberal chief whip, described Scotland's anti-Marketeers as the "most narrow, inward-looking, xenophobic forces which Scotland could muster". And he rejected claims that EEC membership would obstruct plans for devolution in Scotland and Wales. Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative MP for Edinburgh Pentlands, argued that if there was a Yes vote to stay in the EEC, Edinburgh should become the centre of administration for the European Regional Fund. In an open letter to constituents he said: "In our two years of membership there have already been major benefits in Edinburgh and the Lothian Region. More than £1,500,000 of grants and loans have been made available and the regional fund will ensure continuing benefits." But Leith Labour MP Ronald King Murray, who was the Lord Advocate, told a press conference he would be voting No because he was concerned about the loss of parliamentary power and because the principal aims of the founding treaty were economic rather than social or human. Newly-elected Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher with 'Keep Britain in Europe' campaigners the day before voting in the EEC P. Floyd/Daily Express/| Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Yes campaign in favour of staying in the EEC had a lead in the opinion polls throughout the campaign. The leaders of the three main parties all wanted a Yes vote - including Maragret Thatcher, who had taken over as Tory leader just a few months earlier. But Scotland was the part of the UK where seemed to be most chance of a No vote. The SNP argued for leaving, though its slogan opposed membership "on anyone else's terms" and at least some leading figures would have supported separate Scottish membership. There had been a big debate about whether there should be one national count in London of all the votes from across the UK. Some feared problems if it was clear that Scotland or Wales had reached a different conclusion from the rest of the country. Winnie Ewing and the SNP campaigned against Britain staying in the Common Market. | TSPL But in the end, the counts were held at county level in England and regional level in Scotland and all parts of the UK voted Yes, except for Shetland and the Western Isles. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad All the counts were held the next morning. The Lothian count took place at the Meadowbank sports centre and revealed a 59.5 per cent vote for staying in - 208,133 votes for Yes to 141,456 for No. That was slightly above the Scottish average Yes vote of 58.4 per cent, but well behind the Borders, the most enthusiastic Scottish region for Yes with 72.3 per cent. The Evening News carried the result of the referendum just hours after the counting of votes finished on 6 June 1975. | TSPL An academic study of the referendum published six months afterwards concluded that the Yes vote to stay in was "unequivocal but also unenthusiastic". "Support for membership was wide, but it did not run deep. The referendum was not a vote cast for new departures initiatives, it was a vote for the status quo." When parliament met after the referendum, an MP asked Harold Wilson for an assurance he would not repeat this 'constitutional experiment'. Wilson replied: 'I can certainly give the Right Honourable Member the assurance he seeks.' But 40 years later, another prime minister took a different view and got a very different result.
Daily Record
35 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Labour must stand up for the vulnerable and not pander to Reform's selfish rhetoric
Keir Starmer believes his government has a 'moral imperative' to fix the welfare system. The problem is that the practical application of this is cutting disability benefits from thousands of people. The PM has now had to back down from £5billion of proposed savings in the face of a rebellion from his own MPs who can see the plans pose an existential threat to their chances of reelection. Starmer has also been forced into a screeching U-turn over his policy of cutting the winter fuel payment to pensioners. He also seems likely at some point to reverse a refusal to abolish the two-child cap on benefits payments. While the Prime Minister is still not quite in the same league, the number of policy reversals is beginning to feel reminiscent of the chaotic years of Boris Johnson's premiership. When Labour came into government it promised stability and a laser focus on 'fixing the foundations' of Britain's economy. There was a feeling that this lacked the transformative ambition a Labour administration should aspire to, but at least if it could be achieved that would be an improvement. But with the Bank of England warning of a slowdown in the jobs market and inflation continuing to outstrip wage increases for thousands of Scottish workers, Starmer is in danger of appearing to fail on the economy front. There is a growing feeling that chief of staff Morgan McSweeney – a key architect of former leader Jeremy Corbyn's downfall – has been responsible for many of these tactical blunders and has pulled Starmer too far to the right. Nobody joins the Labour Party to cut benefits from disabled people. The Prime Minister may well believe there is a moral imperative to cut welfare, but many of his MPs believe the exact opposite and that protecting spending on the most vulnerable is central to the party's values. Starmer is right that more has to be done to help people off benefits and into work, and that young people especially should not be abandoned to a life on handouts. Likewise it is the case that while many pensioners desperately need the winter fuel payment there are also many others who neither need or particularly want it. Labour government's job is to stand up for the most vulnerable and Sir Keir needs to make the case for a society that does this rather than pandering to Reform's selfish right-wing rhetoric.
Daily Record
43 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Calls for SNP to drop nuclear opposition but party says Starmer is 'pandering' to Trump on defence
The Scottish Secretary said Scotland should reap the 'defence dividend' but the SNP's Westminster defence spokesperson said his party's stance on nuclear was in line with the Scottish population. In a week that began with the US launching strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the world's most powerful nations have now turned their attention to their own defence. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the UK would buy 12 new F-35A fighter jets capable of transporting nuclear bombs while at the NATO summit in the Netherlands Donald Trump praised members for agreeing to spend five per cent of their GDP on defence. A newly-published National Security Strategy stated the UK has to 'actively prepare for the possibility of the UK coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario'. Politicians from across the spectrum have been debating what this preparation looks like and whether it should include nuclear weapons. Here the Sunday Mail speaks to Labour's Scottish Secretary Ian Murray and the SNP's defence spokesman Dave Doogan about their very different views on how to protect the nation from foreign threats. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray has called for the SNP to rethink its stance against nuclear weapons. The Labour MP for Edinburgh South changed his stance on nukes in recent months, having been a 'lifelong' opponent of the weapons previously. In February he was praised by disarmament campaigners for his support of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but a month later he said he was 'proud' that Scotland hosted Trident. Last week he re-stated his support of the deadly weapons and said 'It's really important when circumstances change for that to happen.' He made the comments the day before Starmer announced he was buying 12 new US-made fighter jets, which are capable of carrying conventional weapons as well as American nuclear bombs. Speaking exclusively to the Sunday Mail Murray said the First Minister and his party should review their opposition to nukes. He said: 'Any responsible government has to make sure they put their national security and the safety of their own people first. 'Scots only have to turn on their TVs and pick up their newspapers to read about the fact that there is a changing global instability. 'I do think the Scottish Government should readdress it. 'Defence is really important and the two key things that come from that defence posture are jobs and growth in Scotland.' Murray said the country played a 'disproportionate role' in Britain's defence and he wanted to exploit the 'dividend' that comes from that. He said: 'My views on nuclear weapons changed some time ago but they have been underlined and emphasised by the fact that the issue of nuclear weapons and deterrence have become a huge global stability issue. 'For the Scottish government to tell Rolls Royce, one of the most respected British institutions, that they will not contribute to them investing in a highly skilled welding academy in Glasgow tells the public that they don't care about jobs, growth and opportunities for the future. 'That is a huge part of the defence dividend we should be trying to capture. Places like Babcock and BAE systems are hiring foreign welders from the Philippines and South Africa to do the work local people should be doing. 'So yes their stance should change, not just on defensive nuclear but on civilian nuclear as well.' The SNP's Westminster defence spokesman accused Keir Starmer of pandering to Donald Trump to 'make him relevant' after agreeing to buy a dozen new fighter jets capable of transporting US nuclear weapons. Dave Doogan, MP for Angus and Perthshire Glens, said his party's stance on nuclear was in line with the Scottish population and said the UK Government was not being honest about the country's own nuclear capability. He said: ' The SNP's position on nuclear remains resolute insofar as we're against it. We believe we're firmly in step with the vast majority of civil society in Scotland on that point. 'Ian Murray, consistent with many other issues, is not in step with the majority of civil society in Scotland. 'I've spoken to armed forces professionals who deal with the nuclear deterrent and nobody talks about it in the triumphant way in which Westminster politicians of the two main parties do. 'They know keenly that nuclear weapons are an evil. They would see it as a necessary evil, I take a different view.' Doogan said the public were 'being taken for mugs' by Starmer following the announcement about the dozen F-35A jets and said the US would really be in control if it came to delivering nuclear attacks. He said: 'The announcement is an absolute disgrace. The Americans have instructed the United Kingdom to not buy 12 F-35B variants, which is the vertical takeoff model that the UK wanted, and swap them for 12 'A' variants that can't be operated off the UK's aircraft carriers. 'They have to operate off land so they can carry America's nuclear weapons for America, store them in the United kingdom and launch them in a way that America determines, without a debate or a manifesto commitment on any of this. 'People are being taken for mugs.' Doogan said the purchase will see the UK 'become an arms-length nuclear franchise for the United States' and said: 'No other nuclear power delivers another nuclear power's nuclear weapons. 'There are five nuclear sharing nations in Europe who have agreed that in time of war they will assist with United States nuclear weapons. None of those countries have massive nuclear weapons bills like the UK. 'Only the UK is lining up to deliver America's nuclear weapons for America while being a nuclear power. 'It is yet another example of the current Labour government falling at the feet of the Trump administration, begging for him to make them relevant.' He said the money spent on nuclear weapons in the UK was 'one of the reasons why the conventional armed forces are in the state that they are in.' He said: 'The SNP believe not that we should be disinvesting from nuclear weapons so that we can disinvest in defence - far from it. 'We could have a far more robust defence posture of conventional armed forces, that Scotland deserves, without the hundreds of millions that's getting spent on dreadnought-class submarines and weapons. 'We believe nuclear weapons are morally wrong and that the UK's possession is surplus to requirements that exist in a genuinely independent way within NATO. 'They certainly shouldn't be in Scotland's waters without a by your leave.'
