It’s Labour’s turn to take centre stage today as Keir Starmer attempts to seize the agenda with the launch of his party’s constitutional review. The report – A New Britain – is written by Gordon Brown and has been over two years in the making, with the former prime minister set to present it alongside the Labour leader in Leeds later this morning. Given the party currently enjoys a 20-point lead over the Tories, it’s safe to say the plans will receive plenty of attention and scrutiny.

The general thrust of the 155-page report is devolving power, with Labour aides keen to pitch it as what would amount to the biggest transfer of power outside of Westminster to date. Many of the headline measures have already been floated or announced – they include banning second jobs for MPs, new local powers for transport and housing and abolition of the House of Lords. The parts on empowering communities aren’t so dissimilar in tone to the Tories’ Levelling Up agenda.

There is still some discomfort within Labour over the policy

It’s the Lords policy that has so far received the most attention – particularly in light of the row over Boris Johnson’s resignation list which has seen sitting MPs and twenty-something advisers put forward for peerages. This controversy has added to a sense in the Labour leader’s office that their Lords policy is both popular and politically relevant; Starmer’s team take a similar view of their private school policy to put VAT on fees and end charitable status for these schools. Expect Labour to go even harder on the problems with the House of Lords if Liz Truss pushes ahead with her own resignation honours list (this is currently a source of debate behind the scenes).

Yet there is still some discomfort within Labour over the policy. For one, there are Labour MPs who worry that the Lords policy risks overshadowing the wider contents of the report. Second, if Labour take power, turning the Lords into an elected chamber would take time that could be spent on legislation and policy with a greater effect on voters’ everyday lives. Over the weekend, the Times reported a disagreement between Starmer’s aides and Brown over whether the abolition of the House of Lords ought to be a first term issue – or more of an ambition for when the time is right.

On a media round this morning, Starmer appeared to fudge it – telling the BBC that the Lords should be abolished ‘as quickly as possible’ which could be within the first five years of a Labour government. Notably, Starmer would not commit to putting it in the manifesto – despite shadow education secretary Bridget Philipson suggesting on Sunday the policy was one for the first term. As one senior Tory MP puts it:

‘Abolishing the House of Lords is the type of thing where lots of people support it but those who do oppose it will work very hard to obstruct it and make it as difficult as possible’.

It follows that it could take a very long time to implement.

Does the timing matter? After all, Starmer already warned his party at its annual conference in September that a Labour government won’t be able to do some of the things they want ‘as quickly as they want to’ due to the difficult situation they would inherit if in power.

By talking about a second term he could also present his project as a moment of change for the country. Yet it’s always risky for a political leader to make what sound like promises only to later water them down.

The post Does Starmer have the stomach to scrap the House of Lords? appeared first on The Spectator.