There's a familiar hum around Westminster again — that low, conspiratorial murmur that usually precedes a quiet retreat. This time, it's Labour MPs openly betting that Keir Starmer will be forced into another reverse, with plans to restrict jury trials already wobbling under pressure from his own benches.
Privately, MPs are saying the plan won't survive contact with Parliament. Publicly, they're sharpening the knives.
The mood music
One backbencher didn't mince words, predicting the whole idea will simply disappear:
"It looks like the whole thing will be quietly ditched."
Another senior Labour MP was even blunter about the timetable — and its political fragility:
"I would be amazed if they actually follow through with the attacks on jury trial… October is a long way away in political terms. I presume they'll dump it — quietly or otherwise."
Karl Turner breaks cover
The most striking intervention comes from Karl Turner, a rare rebel who says he has never previously broken ranks.
His verdict on the proposals was scathing:
"People are cheesed off. It's not in the manifesto. If this was the Tory government doing this, Labour MPs would be going absolutely stark raving mad — including Keir Starmer and including David Lammy."
Turner says the anger is now boiling over:
"We are absolutely seething with the government, with the prime minister and with David Lammy… I want to see him face to face on this single issue and I expect him to instruct Lammy to stop and think again."
And he's confident the Commons would block it outright:
"I am absolutely confident that if they're daft enough to put this legislation forward… I'm confident we'll defeat it."
What's actually being proposed
The plan — announced last year by Lammy — is rooted in recommendations from retired judge Sir Brian Leveson and is framed as a response to the post-Covid court backlog.
Key elements include:
- Jury trials reserved only for the most serious offences (murder, rape)
- Judge-only trials for cases likely to result in sentences under three years
- Long fraud and financial cases moved out of jury courts
- Interim "swift courts" and expanded use of magistrates
The aim: speed, efficiency, fewer jurors tied up for months.
The cost: a direct challenge to the principle of jury trial.
The déjà vu factor
Several MPs see clear parallels with last summer's welfare rebellion, when a £5bn cut was abandoned to avoid a Commons defeat. That sense of déjà vu has only grown after reports — first published by The Independent — that Rachel Reeves is already preparing to ditch plans to scrap business rates relief for pubs.
One MP summed it up neatly: this feels like another retreat being pre-loaded.
Ministers dig in — cautiously
Defending the policy in an opposition day debate last week, justice minister Sarah Sackman insisted change was unavoidable:
"Victims are waiting years for justice — over 20,000 open cases in the Crown Court backlog have been waiting for a year or more. Justice delayed is justice denied."
But even she left the door ajar:
"There will be an impact assessment before legislation is brought forward and MPs will have the opportunity to scrutinise the plans."
Translation: nothing is locked in.
Verdict
The vote hasn't even been scheduled — now postponed until at least October — and already Labour MPs are talking as if the battle is over. When backbenchers start openly predicting defeat before a bill exists, Downing Street usually gets the message.
If history is any guide, this looks less like reform in waiting — and more like the next U-turn quietly circling the runway.
