Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced a lengthy and, by many accounts, profoundly tedious session before the powerful liaison committee in the House of Commons this week. The tri-annual encounter, which brings together the chairs of all select committees, is designed to hold the premier to account. However, according to observers, the event became an exercise in political stamina rather than revelation.
A Strategy of Sleep-Inducing Statements
The session, chaired by Labour's Meg Hillier, opened with a statement on the Bondi terror attack before swiftly moving to standards in public life. This topic appeared to animate Starmer, a former Director of Public Prosecutions known for his procedural rigour. The goal for any prime minister in such a setting is damage limitation, and Starmer's approach was characterised as a deliberate strategy to commit no news whatsoever, leaving attendees questioning the value of the democratic exercise.
The atmosphere was described as draining from the outset. Conservative MP Alberto Costa led with a pedantic line of questioning, focusing on whether a Starmer tweet about a new bus fare cap breached paragraph 6, clause 3 of the ministerial code. Starmer patiently explained the distinction between the old Tory cap and his new policy, a nuance that failed to electrify the room. Costa's subsequent focus on the age-old practice of ministers briefing policy to the media before parliament further sapped energy, tackling what many see as an unchangeable Westminster ritual.
Briefings, Leaks, and the House of Lords
The PM showed a flicker of engagement when Labour's Cat Smith asked if Number 10 had been briefing against cabinet ministers. Starmer expressed apparent outrage, stating he had launched an inquiry and would act on the evidence—so long as it didn't lead back to him. He claimed to have already asked himself about the matter and received assurances of his own innocence. Chair Meg Hillier noted the curious similarity to Chancellor Rachel Reeves's recent comments to the Treasury committee, where she distinguished between an authorised 'briefing' and an unauthorised 'leak'.
The discussion then meandered into the future of the House of Lords, though, as the sketch noted, no one present was likely to advocate for its abolition given many may harbour hopes for a peerage themselves. Tory MP Simon Hoare expressed concern about the 'good chaps' principle of preferment, an irony not lost on the author, who suggested Hoare's own career benefited from such a system.
Vague Missions and Farmer Frustrations
With half the session gone, the committee turned to Labour's flagship 'five missions for government'. This proved problematic, with the suggestion that not even Starmer could clearly remember all the details. When pressed on progress, the Prime Minister was reportedly alone in his optimism, surprised he hadn't received more credit and that some goals were taking longer than expected.
The most pointed exchange came on inheritance tax changes affecting farmers. MPs Cat Smith and Alistair Carmichael confronted Starmer with reports that some farmers might find it financially prudent to die before the new rules take effect in April. Starmer acknowledged the issue, noting farmers had been given over a year to prepare, a response that did little to assuage concerns that the policy unfairly targets the agricultural community.
The session concluded with cursory discussions on the resident doctors' strike, energy prices, and even the Swiss railway system. Tory MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown seemed unsure of his own presence, and by the time Tan Dhesi was invited to ask about Ukraine, the collective will to live had reportedly diminished. Starmer departed for Berlin, leaving behind a committee room full of exhausted MPs, having successfully navigated the hearing without a major misstep or headline-grabbing announcement.
