Inside The Lords: Kings, influencers and insults
Claire Fox reports from the start of a new parliamentary term.
We’re back with a new parliamentary session inside the Lords. A lot has happened, from the kicking Labour and the Tories got in the local elections at the hands of Reform and the Greens to wins for the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales - a mixed bag, shall we say. The Lords feels demoralised, not least because we’ve got to discuss the 35 bills coming up in this parliamentary session following the King’s Speech, many of which are dull if not dire, but also without the full backing of a fragmenting government. We’re in this odd situation where many ministers are expected to push a programme that they’re not entirely sure will exist in a few weeks or months, depending on when the Labour leadership election will eventually run.
So what are these new pieces of legislation? The government is pushing digital ID, abolishing jury trials, a new conversion-therapy bill to criminalise parents and those who work with young people who question transitioning and - you guessed it - running back to the EU. The pro-EU position is the government’s safe space, and Labour politicians have completely gone against the red lines they set out in their own manifesto about not going back on Brexit. You get five days of debate on the King’s Speech - and just four minutes each(!) - so I chose to take on the issue of national security. I used the example of the two demos on the weekend and the fact that our Prime Minister decided to target just one of those (the Unite the Kingdom march), because it’s much safer to opine about the far right than it is to tackle the vicious anti-Semitism present among some members of the pro-Palestine marches.
There are two recent events that I think really indicate where parliament is at at the moment. The first is the video published by the Department for Education featuring Bridget Phillipson and TOWIE’s reality-TV star Gemma Collins discussing how to ‘transform post-16 education’. I’ve no doubt Collins might have some ideas about skills and training, but the Labour Party has got her in for one reason only - they think her Essex charm is what will convince ‘ordinary people’. You can see the cogs whirring: ‘What will the working class relate to? Gemma Collins’.
The second event is the government’s shock decision to water down sanctions on Russian oil and gas. It initially looked like an obvious sell out of our solidarity with Ukranians and many British voters are rightly outraged. Since it hit the headlines (and I recorded this film), ministers have been scrambling to deny that that was their aim; that it’s been misrepresented (while admitting poor government communication). But no amount of gaslighting will cover up their back-pedalling from the boastful commitment it made months ago to Ukraine. And I can’t help but suspect it reveals yet again an underestimation of the electorate. The government has clearly had a panic about the price of flights with the summer holidays coming up, imagining voters will not tolerate any disruption to getting off on holidays for any noble cause, and so concluded that they should try to curry favour by getting a bit of jet fuel in at the expense of defending Ukrainian sovereignty. Of course, they can’t open up oil and gas fields because that would upset their net-zero targets.
Behind both the education video and the change in foreign policy is the Labour Party’s caricatured version of the working class, who they believe only switch on for influencers and only care about their summer holidays. This is what’s rotten at the heart of Labour.
We’re off again for Whitsun recess - I know, you couldn’t make it up - but what is really going to preoccupy everyone is the Makerfield by-election. Whether Andy Burnham’s Manchesterism will work to stop Reform from what would be a historic victory or not, he certainly believes his own hype. The arrogance of Burnham’s campaign is based on the idea that he is the change everyone wants, and yet his politics are pretty indiscernible from his potential leadership rivals. Just take Brexit - we all know that Burnham, Streeting, Starmer, Rayner - the lot of them - are all in favour of re-joining or re-aligning with the EU in one form or another. Let’s see what the Makerfield voters (65% of whom went for Leave in 2016 let’s remember) make of the return of the anti-Brexit campaign.
It can all feel a bit depressing at the moment, but if you like a laugh and are free on the 30 June, get a ticket to Stand-Up For Jews!: A night of laughter in the face of anti-Semitism. Our friend Andy Shaw from the Comedy Unleashed team and others have set up a one-off event at the Leicester Square Theatre, and all profits go towards supporting jewish volunteer services in London and campaigns against anti-Semitism like Stop The Hate and Our Fight. There has been war over whether or not the naff jokes at the Unite the Kingdom march where people took off hijabs should be allowed or not - there’s even a question on it in parliament. But what’s great about Comedy Unleashed is that they’re one of the only comedy outlets that defends the idea that satire should come without strings. No religion should be safe from ridicule, so I look forward to a night of laughter for a very important political cause. Book now.
The last thing I’d like to mention is a reminder of Living Freedom, a three-day residential school taking place in central London on 9-11 July, open to anyone aged 18 to 30, based in the UK or beyond. Are you keen to defend free speech? To challenge Big Tech and the growth of online censorship? Want to understand historic ideals of tolerance and moral autonomy? Do you have concerns about attacks on civil liberties or artists being cancelled for their views? Are you interested in exploring the arguments for and against single-sex spaces in an open and tolerant way? Then Living Freedom Summer School is for you. And, if you’re too old to attend like me, get your kids, grandkids, students and friends to sign up - the deadline for applications is 26 May.




The Purpose of Law Vol I - looks into : Failures of enforcement - Failures of Safeguarding - Failures of Consistency - Failures of Courage
Over the past year I began examining a recurring constitutional question:
What happens when equal protection under law remains formally intact, but its practical application becomes increasingly inconsistent?
The first volume of The Purpose of Law explores recurring patterns across safeguarding, public order, procedural fairness, lawful expression, and institutional discretion.
The central concern is not political ideology, but whether delayed recognition of harm, inconsistent enforcement, and expanding discretion are gradually weakening public trust in the legal framework itself.
The paper does not argue for new laws. It asks whether existing legal protections are being applied consistently enough to preserve confidence in equal protection under law.
If anyone working in law, governance, academia, public policy, or institutional accountability is interested, I’m happy to share the paper privately via email as I’ve not figured out how to send it via DM
Thank you for sharing your thoughts