One of the many reasons I shouldn’t be Prime Minister is that I would definitely pack the Lords just for the lols. Make Gary Lineker a Duke and watch the right wing press implode. Grant Ru Paul citizenship and make her a baroness. Pardon every Just Stop Oil protestor and make them all earls.

However, she dismissed the idea that Starmer would rush through the appointment of his own peers after an election win.

Classic. Title implies that this is a decision that the Labour party has formally taken and agreed upon. But dig a little deeper and it is just a throw away comment from one Labour peer. Nevertheless the impresion has been given that Labour won’t pack the Lords.

They will, they’d be daft not to, but whether it is in the first week or the first hundred days is the question. They also won’t abolish the Lords. And they also won’t do voting reform.

Now is not the time when the country faces so many crises left by 15 years of Tory government.

That’s what they’ll say and kick this into the long grass. When actually both can be true. 15 years of shit government is precisely why we need to stop that happening again and bring about reform to the upper chamber as well as fundamental root and branch change to the voting system.

We can all be Lords! No more commoners. Levelling up for realises.

Good (ish) on them not replacing the lords:

The lords being unelected is a good thing, as they can call out braindead policies by the commons without needing to worry about losing the next election as they shot down a “but think about the children!” style law. What’s bad is that the political party in power can appoint lords - it should be impartial (ie political views and affiliations should not be considered) and ideally a full time job to allow the lords to build up knowledge on the laws they vote on, however it’s not really possible to tell a random person “this is your job now”… The closest you can get is either the current system or a jury duty style public obligation to be a lord for a day when called at random, but the only certainty is replacing it with an elected chamber is a terrible move

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Labour has ruled out immediately packing the House of Lords with dozens of peers if Keir Starmer wins the next general election.

The Labour leader has already scaled back on his previous pledges to abolish the Lords and replace it with a fully elected second chamber in his first term.

Smith told the House magazine: “The idea that Keir Starmer is on day one going to have a list of 100 people to put here is cloud cuckoo … If you look at the numbers at the moment, the Tories have over 100 more than us, and they still lose votes.

In its first few years the party also hopes to increase the powers of the body that oversees appointments to prevent inappropriate people being given peerages.

Labour has vowed to use its first years in power to focus on a number of priorities including its “new deal” for working people that would ban zero-hours contracts and end qualifying periods for basic rights such as sick pay and parental leave.

Smith confirmed this, adding: “If I’m honest, I think the first few years of a Labour government will be dealing with economic growth and the cost of living … There’ll be something about House of Lords reform in the manifesto.

The original article contains 565 words, the summary contains 210 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

deleted by creator