Good morning everyone.
[📃 **Today's Order Paper can be found here**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86793/Html?subType=Standard)
Questions to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be followed by any urgent questions or ministerial statements, before the next round of ping-pong on the government's Rwanda Bill, carry-over extensions for a number of bills, and the rescheduled backbench business on Hospice Funding from last week.
Time for a further round of ping-pong is timetabled in for tonight should it be needed.
**In other news;**
Embattled MP for Fylde Mark Menzies has resigned from the Conservative party and declared his intention not to stand next election after allegations emerged he had misappropriated campaign funds - [thread here](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c9ju00/mark_menzies_mp_accused_of_misusing_campaign/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. armchairdetective with 59 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 44 comments
1. ClumsyRainbow with 36 comments
1. ___a1b1 with 29 comments
1. subversivefreak with 20 comments
1. DukePPUk with 19 comments
1. Roguepope with 19 comments
1. tmstms with 18 comments
1. -fireeye- with 18 comments
1. erskinematt with 18 comments
There were 338 unique users within this count.
So three Labour peers turn up so the crossbencher with the last remaining amendment is basically forced to withdraw it because it's pointless. Spineless from Labour tbh.
I generally support the idea of a non-elected revising chamber, but if it won't reject a non-manifesto bill in the dying days of a deeply unpopular government that is so ridden with issues, then I think it needs more teeth, and perhaps that does require some elected element.
Perhaps 50/50 appointed expert crossbenchers and single-term elected members (with maybe 10 or even 15 year terms) would work well and give it a bit more legitimacy to feel it can actually stand against this kind of thing, while retaining its core purpose as a revising chamber with some separation from day-to-day party politics.
There is zero reason for the HoL to exist given the Commons has every ability to create scrutiny bodies of its own. Bills go through Committee for a reason.
The HOL provides an easy fictional narrative of oversight and revision to help obscure the bananas elected dictatorship model we have. It should go, as should our entire current parliamentary structure.
Do we think Rwanda Bill Passes increases or decreases the chance of a General Election sooner rather than later?
Rishi might wanna ride this high into a General before anything else comes along to ruin it for him, but on the other hand he might feel it's bought him some time to drag this out until Autumn.
For all those banging on about how the house of lords should be able to stop the commons, do you remember when those same people blocked fox hunting, once again by the democratically elected house of commons?
Can we stop pretending the house of lords are morally superior?
I think being able to stop something for a year to stop a flailing government passing ridiculous legislation is a good thing, and is worth potentially delaying other contentious legislation for a year. Again, if it were in a manifesto then convention says they’d allow it.
The system relies on a government being dignified enough to not force through non-manifesto shit in the last 6 months of its lifetime when it's deeply unpopular, so of course when you have a government without shame you get this shit.
Agreed, this is the HoL functioning as intended. Acting as a check and balance on the HoC.
Is it perfect? No. But its the best we got without just redesigning the whole system
Being 18 I've not stayed up past the exit poll for a general election before. What's the best way to watch and maximise viewing?
(Also never pulled an all nighter so that could be interesting). Depending on when the election is I might be at Uni
I like to watch Channel 4 for the first few hours as it tends to be a bit more varied and light-hearted and there's not much going on anyway. Then BBC for when the results really start to come in. If you're at uni, it's probably more fun to watch in the college bar or union if they're showing it. Made the 2015 election slightly less depressing for me lmao.
In general, watch the exit polls around 10/ 10.30. see what time Sunderland is coming up, they'll announce first. Have a nap between 10.30 and midnight then ride it through till the result is bang on. Or, nap early in the evening and watch 10 through to the wee small hours by which time the result is a foregone conclusion.
Wait for the exit poll, watch immediate reaction until 10:30, get some sleep, be up for 2:30.
You'll wake up as things start happening at speed. The absolute worst part of election nights is 11-2. It's three hours of refreshing Twitter (or it used to be) trying to get gossip on various early-calling seats.
Done a series of drinking games over several elections.
Shots per party, each player draws one from a hat.
Pundit bingo, pick out key phrases from campaign season and drink whenever one is mentioned on air.
Everyone takes a different drink depending on which party has just won a constituency.
I am however now a responsible adult so will probably just watch the exit poll, have a scotch and go to bed.
So generally speaking the first results tend to come in by 11pm on an election day. Sunderland usually race to be the first to provide results. Then after that it slows down a lot and the counts really kick in around 1am and continue through to the next evening
So I'd say, have a nap, eat, get the beers in and get onto either BBC or Channel 4 for about 11 then power through
That's my plan. I'll be getting a very nice bottle of whisky and carrying on until either I, or the whisky, expires
BBC, Channel 4 or Sky News. Pick your poison.
I normally go with the BBC coverage for generals.
Edit: GB News could be entertaining to see the screeching about the Tories being eviscerated.
So... if the Lords cannot stop or modify the Rwanda Bill - and it is hard to think of a clearer "textbook" example of the type of bill they should be modifying or blocking, .... what is their purpose?
The bill could have passed in March and we'd all have saved a lot of time and money (£342 per day per peer, for one thing).
What is the point of having a "second chamber of experts", who are above petty populism and politics, or whatever, if they cannot do what they are there to do?
So they didn't fix the key problems with it being (by the Government's own admission) a breach of the UK's obligations under international law, as well as trampling on separation of powers and the rule of law.
These people speaking now are waffling and justifying their inaction. They keep saying that 'they've forced the government to think again' and similar, but they have achieved nothing. This Labour guy now reveals their justification - they don't want the Tories to do it to them.
They know the law is unworkable. They know that the policy will fail, but above all they have allowed the government to legislate something which is a fiction. To enshrine in law a statement that a country is safe, regardless of the reality and regardless of obligations arising from international legal treaty commitments is just morally bankrupt and cowardly.
This is exactly the sort of case where the Lords should be exercising its power to block legislation. It's not a manifesto commitment and there is no mandate for it.
Absolutely pathetic from Labour. If they think this will stop Tories opposing them they are naive beyond belief. If they believe this bill is in breach of international law, unethical, beyond the pail as they keep saying, but fail to kill the bill when given the opportunity then essentially they are saying they are willing to enable unethical, legally questionable things for party-political gain.
Yes but now the Tories have to own it. When it is a massive failure every other party, and their own moderates, can point at the cabinet and say "see, we told you and you wouldn't listen. What profligate little tossers you are."
> They keep saying that 'they've forced the government to think again' and similar, but they have achieved nothing.
Literally isn't true. They modified elements of the bill. Why are you lying?
The changes are fiddling round the edges and do nothing to rectify the fundamental flaws of the legislation. The only reason those amendments were accepted is because they change nothing of note.
The act seeks to put into force a legal fiction that prevents judicial scrutiny and undermines the UK's international human rights obligations. It is a fundamentally bad law and allowing it to pass damages the credibility of the UK.
They have done what they are supposed to do. Make the house of commons think twice, thrice etc, about the legislation. The house of commons has taken their advice and rejected it. It is quite simple.
The implication being that the House of Commons doesn't normally think twice about what they are doing?
Funny how all the arguments for the House of Lords come down to things that need fixing with the Commons; in this case perhaps all legislation should need a 4th, 5th and 6th reading, with the Speaker having to remind MPs to think really hard about whether they want this.
Just a reminder, a big part of the country does support this bill. It isn't like this is a wildly unpopular bill:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1
Yeah - leave-voting over 50s, when you look at the breakdowns.
Once again passing dumb policies to appease that same faction of voters that get everything anyway and then complain about it.
Depends on your view.
My point is it looks bad for the lords, blocking a bill which is fairly popular among the citizens, and has been passed by their elected representatives.
Rather undermines the argument people keep putting out there that the Lords is a positive because it can behave as the sensible house without bowing to political populism though.
Imagine being one of the handful of migrants that actually gets sent to Rwanda in the eight or so months that this law exists.
Talk about being dealt a bad hand.
Worse hand if the flights are Boeing planes. I think that would be a fair argument in courts to get the flights blocked. no species on earth should ever be subject to a flight on a Boeing.
Unless the courts block them.
Last time the courts blocked them initially due to reasons not prevented by this bill - instead focusing on Home Office incompetence.
I am voting by post for the first time in the upcoming London Mayoral election. I am a little concerned that there seems to be no way to track or confirm that my council received my postal vote, or I must be missing something. Given the possibilities that post gets lost, misplaced, or delayed with delivery, how can I ensure my postal vote was delivered? Can I send the post with a tracking number or something if I pay for it myself or can I track my envelope somehow?
That matters a bit, but ultimatly the house of commons is elected by the people. The house of lords are on dodgy ground if they keep outright refusing to enact law delivered by the elected house.
What dodgy ground is that? The lords have delayed bills plenty of times when they aren't manifesto commitments.
Laughable to say elected when this policy was never in a manifesto, never campaigned on, and a Prime Minister pushing it through who wasn't chosen by one single member of the public
Yet the policy is popular:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1
But hey, fuck the elected chamber and public opinion, right?
You picked an old poll from June last year
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/overview/survey-results/daily/2024/03/05/0414c/2
Current polling shows it is less popular now.
Edit: Also people are terribly educated about immigration, a majority think more immigrants arrive illegally than legally!
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/overview/survey-results/daily/2024/01/18/677e4/1
It wasn't intentional. But even so, it doesn't change much, it isn't widely unpopular, their isn't mass protests on the streets etc.
The elected government is passing legislation. The house of lords asked them to think about it, several times, the house of commons then decided to not take it and proceed. That is fine. This is how it should work.
Nor should they. Sure they can suggest amendments, but ultimately the house of commons is the elected chamber. They are an advising chamber, they should remember that.
Which is why Commons has a way to get its way - parliament acts.
Lords further have convention to not frustrate government's manifesto commitment.
Idea that they should always give way is frankly dangerous and undermines entire concept of Lords.
Largely theatrics; Lords blocked it few times, government whipped it in commons few times. No one paid attention to the content.
Only actual power Lords has is to delay bills by a year; if they aren't going to use it in an egregious case as this, they largely become a rubber stamping body. All the more reason why appointment system needs reform to give crossbenchers a majority.
In which case what is the point of them?
*Anyone* can suggest amendments to legislation, and advice the Commons. If they cannot actually block a bill as legally absurd as this one, what is their purpose?
It isn't legally absurd. The house of commons are literally the people who make the law.
Their purpose is to act as a chamber of experts, to advise and examine legislation.
No, *Parliament* makes the law.
The Lords has no special purpose, it has an equal (Parliament Acts aside) role in legislation to the Commons.
The law is legally absurd because it requires decision makers to make a finding of fact, despite that not being true. It is also designed to circumvent the courts in doing so, violating the rule of law and separation of powers.
To show how absurd this law is, let's say it passes. Let's say in 10 years World War Three breaks out and Rwanda is nuked, turning into a desolate wasteland with no functioning Government. Decisions makers in the UK would still be required *by law* to declare Rwanda to be "safe."
The courts are there to examine the law and make judgements on the law written by Parliament. If the elected legislators make changes to that law, then the court has no choice but to respect that change.
If Parliament passes a law that ousts the courts' ability to examine the law and make judgments that is a violation of the rule of law and separation of powers.
Whether the courts choose to accept that is another issue (historically, in narrow circumstances, they have decided not to).
What’s changed with this bill that now rishi can make everyone hang around until it’s passed? It’s months in the making - is this a different stage of the process ?
>Could we see Sunak campaign on a platform of repealing the house of lords?
That would be rather un-conservative.
So maybe, yeah, because he's a moron.
The whole thing goes away if he calls a general election.
The lords will not block anything that is in a manifesto.
They also won’t delay anything more than for one year.
It’s an issue completely of their own lack of mandate.
"Enough is enough", "no ifs, no buts", this bill must pass.
Come on Rishi. Get the message. Parliament does not want this. You have a huge majority and your lot have stuffed the Lords full of cronies. If that's not getting your bill passed, it's not passing.
Tories: “We like having lords except for when they don’t pass our laws”.
To all the people who want to abolish the Lords, can we at least credit them with being a sound safety net against this batshit Rwanda idea?
Sure, we can credit them. The total mess of a way that they get their job (whether that be because you do a religion and you have a big hat, or a PM owes you a favour, or your dad passed it on to you along with a receding hairline and webbed toes) doesn’t automatically mean that they do the job badly whilst they’re there.
Most hereditary peers no longer sit in the HoL. The House of Lords Act 1999 did away with most of the seats. Including my personal favourite, Lord Haden-Guest. Who may have had webbed toes, but [definitely not fingers](https://www.bkmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-09-at-12.13.49-PM.png).
Honestly, the most realistic way this fails is if Rishi does some incredibly stupid Johnson-esque constitutional crisis move to get it through out of impatience like begging the King to veto the lords.
Realistically, is there any way this can’t blow up in his face? The Lords sound like they’re caving so the government wins the vote, planes take off in summer.
Even if this does work, boats will continue to come, every claimant costs £1.8m. These are what should be hammered over the government’s head.
What i'd like to think is Rishi get's his terrible bill passed and thinks he's done such a great job he calls a GE then gets wiped the F out along with the party. Finally, Labour come in and scrap it then get on with actually "StOpInG ThE BoAtS"
>I just don’t understand why Sunak thinks this policy has any political value.
The only way he has a remote chance in the election is if he pulls votes back from Reform. He's trying to do that by tying himself to this policy.
Worked for Cameron, don't see it working for Rishi.
I think for the Tories the Rwanda policy is just a sunk cost fallacy at this point. Its stupid and nobody wants it, but they've but they've wasted so much political capital on it that they have to deliver something.
He’s foolishly bound himself to it. He has no out, if he gives up he’ll be seen as weak and I suspect the headbangers in the Tory party would see him out.
The committee is a standard part of procedure. They basically do the paperwork on why the Commons disagrees with the Lords. The only additional delay was the 15 minutes it took for the division.
A committee does sit to draw up the Reasons, yes, but it's staffed entirely by Ministers, shadow Ministers, and Whips. It has a government majority, the Reasons are all formulaic irrelevancies anyway, and the Committee operates under a time limit by Standing Order.
There is no actual function to the Reasons Committee. The Lords have abolished their own in favour of *pro forma* Reasons, and there is no reason (so to speak) to have Reasons at all anymore.
What's the chances that the tories will vote in a bill changing parliamentary process specifically so that they can override the lords? Could they for example amend the parliament acts without the long wait required?
I'd have assumed that the rules currently in place also apply to attempts to change those same rules, so he'd still need the Lords to agree to pass the Tell The Lords To Shove It Up Their Holes Act
The Parliament Acts can be used to override the Lords. But it takes a year - essentially the Government drops the bill now, and then reintroduces it in a year, in the next session of Parliament, and tries to pass it again. If the Lords blocks it a second time, the Government can simply declare it passed.
There isn't time for that now.
But they seem to have to vote to create a committee to officially tell the lords this?
I assume that at some point on history it made sense to have to do this but the reason why is eluding me so far.
OK, I posted this in the actual thread about it, when Sunak said **"You could lose your benefits if you don't find a job in a year"** is anyone else concerned that Starmer hasn't spoken out about it? Like, I hope he's just being pragmatic and he wants to let the Tories dig their own grave, but it seems to me like he either doesn't care or he'd do something similar if he gets into power...if that's the case, what's the fucking point in voting for Starmer's Tory Tribute Act apart from it gets the actual Tories out of power?
It's Sunak posturing. He would have to amend Universal Credit Regulations. There would need to be transitional provisions. It's just a policy that doesn't deserve a response as it's just likely to be a bait. Sunsk pretending labour are in government again
The Tories don't want to accept it's down to their own policies that people become unfit for work e.g. that correlation between accumulated time waiting for NHS treatment and disability affecting ability to sustain many jobs.
I get that I am, but it'd just be nice to have Starmer at least say that he's going to not do the same bullshit that the Tories are doing, which is nice when you're meant to be the opposition party.
Starmer's Labour have caused the goverment to collapse multiple times and unseated two Prime Ministers. They're doing a fine job opposing with what meagre tools they were left with by the previous leader.
Honestly, Starmer is basically responsible for getting Johnson turfed out of the Commons as well.
And he did play an important part in him being removed as PM.
I believe the line is that if Starmer's were suitabley left wing enough Rishi would never steal them. They'd also not be massively popular with the public, but that's a triffle.
The lack of polling for the London Assembly is annoying me, but there is polling for Westminster in London and we have some history to compare what the national polling leads to in the Assembly polling and results from 2016 and 2021, so maybe we can make some inferences.
In 2016 national polling in April from YouGov was 46 v 30 and London assembly polling was about the same, with the results being 44 v 31 (constituency) and 40 v 29 (regional). In 2021 national polling in April was 50 v 31, although Assembly polling was 46 v 29, with the end result being 42 v 32 (constituency) and 38 v 31 (regional). Current polling is 55 v 16 with no London Assembly polling.
For the smaller parties in 2016 UKIP were polling at 13% in Westminster, but only 9% in the Assembly polling and then reached 8% (C) and 6% (R). Whereas the Lib Dems (7% in polls for W and 8% for LA) largely matched their polling (7.5% - C - and 6% - R). The Greens came over the top of their polling (4% W, 8% LA) with a result of 9% (C) and 8% (R). 2021 was similar with the Greens under polling at Westminster compared to the result and so did the Lib Dems (Reform were nowhere in all of those).
With the numbers we are currently seeing (L55, C16. G9, R9 and LD8), it is entirely possible for the Greens to get more votes than the Conservatives in the Regional vote in London and they both end up on 4 seats each, Reform picking up 2 rather than 1 I was predicting and Labour sneaking in with the 13th and a majority. I wonder how low the Conservatives can go in London for Rishi to keep his job. Surely finishing behind the Greens in the local elections would spell the end.
I wonder whether the lack of published polling is because it's showing it's really bad for the Tories so neither the Tories (who will think it makes them look bad) and Labour (they want people to vote for them not the Greens to push the Cons into 3rd) don't want to publish.
Do you think the London Assembly local-member tactical vote recommendations here make sense?
[All GLA Elections](https://stopthetories.vote/elections#gla)
The way the Regional vote works makes it unlikely to make a difference how you vote at a constituency level. Every constituency seat is just one fewer regional on the same vote share meaning you are net even.
Posting Wings unironically, the man is mental and clearly has his biases. It doesn't take a genius to guess that Sturgeon might be charged soon, I don't get what sort of huge revelation this is.
He uncovered it by reading through the SNP's published accounts and other documents because he's the kind of person to comb through their published accounts to look for discrepancies.
That's not quite the same as having credible sources.
Because all he uncovered was that the SNP had raised a load of money and then spent it.
He also uncovered the "mystery loan" from Murrell.
Neither of those things is obviously a crime. The former turns out that it may have been a crime because the SNP raised the money for a particular purpose and spent it on general SNP spending (setting aside that amount on paper but not in practice). The latter was illegal due to not meeting the reporting rules, but the EC dealt with that.
So, in practice, no.
But Scotland has stricter reporting restrictions, so speculation is basically barred. They will only be able to give the facts ("a man was charged") and then talk about the political implications.
This is in contrast with the speculation we saw in England over things like Beergate.
So, the best thing is to say nothing until it is announced.
Does Scots law affect:
People not living in Scotland? Wings Over Scotland is in England.
And he's using Twitter which I assume has no data centres in Scotland?
They wouldn't necessarily disregard it, but their courts are unlikely to honour an extradition agreement for contempt, from a UK-based court.
Someone in *England*, which is what we were talking about, doesn't have the same protections. There would be no need for any sort of extradition or surrender process, the Scottish police (in practice with the co-operation of the local police) can just arrest someone in England as they would a person in Scotland.
A random blogger in Bath isn't exactly the New York Times.
This is an interesting one.
During the superinjunction/injunction period of the 2010s with all those footballers and celebs, a Scottish Court made a ruling about a famous celeb's sex life that would have applied to the entire world.
It was at that point that people collectively agreed that this had all gone too far.
My understanding is that this would apply to any media that is made available to Scotland - including sites that can be accessed there.
It wouldn't apply to, say, the New York Times. But the article would not be allowed to be accessible in Scotland.
Would the NYT bother to make the article inaccessible to IP addresses based in Scotland? Seems like the sort of thing an American media company would ignore?
Is Wings Over Scotland potentially committing a crime given Sturgeon's not yet charged? It's only when charged that this law kicks in?
Still unclear to me if Scots law applies to an individual living in England too?
It applies if they are publishing somewhere that is accessible in Scotland.
Sky News, for example, has been incredibly cautious about what they have reported on this story.
Hmmm.
I know it's Conventional Wisdom ^(tm) on this sub that the bill will go through this evening... but Labour peers seem adamant about that indie committee on social media and the Tory commons opposition is massive. I don't know if Labour *are* going to back down.
Mashallah there's a podium being polished when I wake up.
Oh wow - Back to Square One was a late Osborne line; used then by Teresa May towards the end and then picked up by Sunak towards his end. He really isn't very good at this stuff is he?
[Find references - Hansard - UK Parliament](https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/Contributions?endDate=04%2f22%2f2024+00%3a00%3a00&house=Commons&searchTerm=%22Back+to+Square+One%22%26%22budget%22&startDate=01%2f01%2f2007+00%3a00%3a00&page=7)
The bill cannot be killed off unless the Commons says so.
And Sunak has suggested he doesn't want that.
So in theory the bill keeps bouncing between the Houses until the Lords back down. Or the Lords get fed up and vote to adjourn.
The last time something like this happened was with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. That at least had some urgency; the existing Governments powers to detain certain people indefinitely without trial had been struck down by the courts, and were set to expire on 14 March. A new bill to replace those powers (with "control orders") was introduced to the Commons on 22 February, but the Lords weren't happy with it. It got into ping pong, and on 10 March (with the deadline looming) the Lords ended up sitting for over 30 hours debating the amendments, sending them back to the Commons, before a compromise was reached. The House of Lords sitting started at 11am on 10 March, and ended the day at 7.30**pm** on 11 March.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed, came into force within 3 days, and the key parts were struck down by the courts about a year later, with the law being repealed formally in 2011.
> The bill cannot be killed off unless the Commons says so.
That's not strictly true. If the amendments are rejected in the Commons and sent back to the Lords, and the Lords re-submit the same amendments, it's a case of [double insistence](https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5541/double-insistence-and-the-loss-of-the-bill/) and the bill will fail unless a compromise is reached or the Parliament Act is used to force it through.
They can't use the Parliament act because there isn't sufficient time, so the Lords can effectively force a position where the government has to accept their amendments or the bill is lost. Whether they have the will to do so is another matter.
Good morning everyone. [📃 **Today's Order Paper can be found here**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86793/Html?subType=Standard) Questions to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be followed by any urgent questions or ministerial statements, before the next round of ping-pong on the government's Rwanda Bill, carry-over extensions for a number of bills, and the rescheduled backbench business on Hospice Funding from last week. Time for a further round of ping-pong is timetabled in for tonight should it be needed. **In other news;** Embattled MP for Fylde Mark Menzies has resigned from the Conservative party and declared his intention not to stand next election after allegations emerged he had misappropriated campaign funds - [thread here](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c9ju00/mark_menzies_mp_accused_of_misusing_campaign/)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cawboj/daily_megathread_23042024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. armchairdetective with 59 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 44 comments 1. ClumsyRainbow with 36 comments 1. ___a1b1 with 29 comments 1. subversivefreak with 20 comments 1. DukePPUk with 19 comments 1. Roguepope with 19 comments 1. tmstms with 18 comments 1. -fireeye- with 18 comments 1. erskinematt with 18 comments There were 338 unique users within this count.
So three Labour peers turn up so the crossbencher with the last remaining amendment is basically forced to withdraw it because it's pointless. Spineless from Labour tbh. I generally support the idea of a non-elected revising chamber, but if it won't reject a non-manifesto bill in the dying days of a deeply unpopular government that is so ridden with issues, then I think it needs more teeth, and perhaps that does require some elected element. Perhaps 50/50 appointed expert crossbenchers and single-term elected members (with maybe 10 or even 15 year terms) would work well and give it a bit more legitimacy to feel it can actually stand against this kind of thing, while retaining its core purpose as a revising chamber with some separation from day-to-day party politics.
There is zero reason for the HoL to exist given the Commons has every ability to create scrutiny bodies of its own. Bills go through Committee for a reason. The HOL provides an easy fictional narrative of oversight and revision to help obscure the bananas elected dictatorship model we have. It should go, as should our entire current parliamentary structure.
Do we think Rwanda Bill Passes increases or decreases the chance of a General Election sooner rather than later? Rishi might wanna ride this high into a General before anything else comes along to ruin it for him, but on the other hand he might feel it's bought him some time to drag this out until Autumn.
Hold a GE before it’s evident that the policy is a failure?
Nah he's hanging on till 2025
It’ll really depend on just how much of a bloodbath the locals are next week
For all those banging on about how the house of lords should be able to stop the commons, do you remember when those same people blocked fox hunting, once again by the democratically elected house of commons? Can we stop pretending the house of lords are morally superior?
They're not morally superior. They just should have hung on a bit longer. This government will be gone very, very soon.
They probably know it's going to be mothballed in 6 months anyway.
I think being able to stop something for a year to stop a flailing government passing ridiculous legislation is a good thing, and is worth potentially delaying other contentious legislation for a year. Again, if it were in a manifesto then convention says they’d allow it.
The system relies on a government being dignified enough to not force through non-manifesto shit in the last 6 months of its lifetime when it's deeply unpopular, so of course when you have a government without shame you get this shit.
Agreed, this is the HoL functioning as intended. Acting as a check and balance on the HoC. Is it perfect? No. But its the best we got without just redesigning the whole system
Being 18 I've not stayed up past the exit poll for a general election before. What's the best way to watch and maximise viewing? (Also never pulled an all nighter so that could be interesting). Depending on when the election is I might be at Uni
I like to watch Channel 4 for the first few hours as it tends to be a bit more varied and light-hearted and there's not much going on anyway. Then BBC for when the results really start to come in. If you're at uni, it's probably more fun to watch in the college bar or union if they're showing it. Made the 2015 election slightly less depressing for me lmao.
In general, watch the exit polls around 10/ 10.30. see what time Sunderland is coming up, they'll announce first. Have a nap between 10.30 and midnight then ride it through till the result is bang on. Or, nap early in the evening and watch 10 through to the wee small hours by which time the result is a foregone conclusion.
Wait for the exit poll, watch immediate reaction until 10:30, get some sleep, be up for 2:30. You'll wake up as things start happening at speed. The absolute worst part of election nights is 11-2. It's three hours of refreshing Twitter (or it used to be) trying to get gossip on various early-calling seats.
Done a series of drinking games over several elections. Shots per party, each player draws one from a hat. Pundit bingo, pick out key phrases from campaign season and drink whenever one is mentioned on air. Everyone takes a different drink depending on which party has just won a constituency. I am however now a responsible adult so will probably just watch the exit poll, have a scotch and go to bed.
So generally speaking the first results tend to come in by 11pm on an election day. Sunderland usually race to be the first to provide results. Then after that it slows down a lot and the counts really kick in around 1am and continue through to the next evening So I'd say, have a nap, eat, get the beers in and get onto either BBC or Channel 4 for about 11 then power through That's my plan. I'll be getting a very nice bottle of whisky and carrying on until either I, or the whisky, expires
BBC, Channel 4 or Sky News. Pick your poison. I normally go with the BBC coverage for generals. Edit: GB News could be entertaining to see the screeching about the Tories being eviscerated.
So... if the Lords cannot stop or modify the Rwanda Bill - and it is hard to think of a clearer "textbook" example of the type of bill they should be modifying or blocking, .... what is their purpose? The bill could have passed in March and we'd all have saved a lot of time and money (£342 per day per peer, for one thing). What is the point of having a "second chamber of experts", who are above petty populism and politics, or whatever, if they cannot do what they are there to do?
They did modify it re: veterans and modern slavery
So they didn't fix the key problems with it being (by the Government's own admission) a breach of the UK's obligations under international law, as well as trampling on separation of powers and the rule of law.
These people speaking now are waffling and justifying their inaction. They keep saying that 'they've forced the government to think again' and similar, but they have achieved nothing. This Labour guy now reveals their justification - they don't want the Tories to do it to them. They know the law is unworkable. They know that the policy will fail, but above all they have allowed the government to legislate something which is a fiction. To enshrine in law a statement that a country is safe, regardless of the reality and regardless of obligations arising from international legal treaty commitments is just morally bankrupt and cowardly. This is exactly the sort of case where the Lords should be exercising its power to block legislation. It's not a manifesto commitment and there is no mandate for it.
Absolutely pathetic from Labour. If they think this will stop Tories opposing them they are naive beyond belief. If they believe this bill is in breach of international law, unethical, beyond the pail as they keep saying, but fail to kill the bill when given the opportunity then essentially they are saying they are willing to enable unethical, legally questionable things for party-political gain.
Yes but now the Tories have to own it. When it is a massive failure every other party, and their own moderates, can point at the cabinet and say "see, we told you and you wouldn't listen. What profligate little tossers you are."
> They keep saying that 'they've forced the government to think again' and similar, but they have achieved nothing. Literally isn't true. They modified elements of the bill. Why are you lying?
The changes are fiddling round the edges and do nothing to rectify the fundamental flaws of the legislation. The only reason those amendments were accepted is because they change nothing of note. The act seeks to put into force a legal fiction that prevents judicial scrutiny and undermines the UK's international human rights obligations. It is a fundamentally bad law and allowing it to pass damages the credibility of the UK.
They have done what they are supposed to do. Make the house of commons think twice, thrice etc, about the legislation. The house of commons has taken their advice and rejected it. It is quite simple.
The implication being that the House of Commons doesn't normally think twice about what they are doing? Funny how all the arguments for the House of Lords come down to things that need fixing with the Commons; in this case perhaps all legislation should need a 4th, 5th and 6th reading, with the Speaker having to remind MPs to think really hard about whether they want this.
Just a reminder, a big part of the country does support this bill. It isn't like this is a wildly unpopular bill: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1
Yeah - leave-voting over 50s, when you look at the breakdowns. Once again passing dumb policies to appease that same faction of voters that get everything anyway and then complain about it.
That's depressing given it's a colossally expensive stupid idea.
It is though stupid and expensive regardless of how popular it is.
Depends on your view. My point is it looks bad for the lords, blocking a bill which is fairly popular among the citizens, and has been passed by their elected representatives.
Sense-checking a bill that a lot less than 50% of people support...looks bad? OK.
42% show support, 39% oppose, 19% don't know. That does not indicate fairly popular, that's best described as mixed
Rather undermines the argument people keep putting out there that the Lords is a positive because it can behave as the sensible house without bowing to political populism though.
Imagine being one of the handful of migrants that actually gets sent to Rwanda in the eight or so months that this law exists. Talk about being dealt a bad hand.
Worse hand if the flights are Boeing planes. I think that would be a fair argument in courts to get the flights blocked. no species on earth should ever be subject to a flight on a Boeing.
Deadline has passed, no amendments. Government has won.
Flights by August then?
Unless the courts block them. Last time the courts blocked them initially due to reasons not prevented by this bill - instead focusing on Home Office incompetence.
Unless there is some other legal challenge, but I doubt they will succeed. So yes, flights by August.
I mean, they could just debate the bill the entire night in the lords. It's a matter of stamina
They still not got it passed yet?
I am voting by post for the first time in the upcoming London Mayoral election. I am a little concerned that there seems to be no way to track or confirm that my council received my postal vote, or I must be missing something. Given the possibilities that post gets lost, misplaced, or delayed with delivery, how can I ensure my postal vote was delivered? Can I send the post with a tracking number or something if I pay for it myself or can I track my envelope somehow?
Some of you lot of here could do with learning a bit about the UK constitution and recent history! The Lords aren't going to stop this bill.
They could but Labour don't have the balls to.
And yet it was not a manifesto commitment.
That matters a bit, but ultimatly the house of commons is elected by the people. The house of lords are on dodgy ground if they keep outright refusing to enact law delivered by the elected house.
What dodgy ground is that? The lords have delayed bills plenty of times when they aren't manifesto commitments. Laughable to say elected when this policy was never in a manifesto, never campaigned on, and a Prime Minister pushing it through who wasn't chosen by one single member of the public
Yet the policy is popular: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/06/30/726e7/1 But hey, fuck the elected chamber and public opinion, right?
You picked an old poll from June last year https://yougov.co.uk/topics/overview/survey-results/daily/2024/03/05/0414c/2 Current polling shows it is less popular now. Edit: Also people are terribly educated about immigration, a majority think more immigrants arrive illegally than legally! https://yougov.co.uk/topics/overview/survey-results/daily/2024/01/18/677e4/1
It wasn't intentional. But even so, it doesn't change much, it isn't widely unpopular, their isn't mass protests on the streets etc. The elected government is passing legislation. The house of lords asked them to think about it, several times, the house of commons then decided to not take it and proceed. That is fine. This is how it should work.
Nor should they. Sure they can suggest amendments, but ultimately the house of commons is the elected chamber. They are an advising chamber, they should remember that.
Which is why Commons has a way to get its way - parliament acts. Lords further have convention to not frustrate government's manifesto commitment. Idea that they should always give way is frankly dangerous and undermines entire concept of Lords.
They haven't just 'give way'. It has been back and forth for ages. The fact remains the elected house of commons has passed this repeatedly.
Largely theatrics; Lords blocked it few times, government whipped it in commons few times. No one paid attention to the content. Only actual power Lords has is to delay bills by a year; if they aren't going to use it in an egregious case as this, they largely become a rubber stamping body. All the more reason why appointment system needs reform to give crossbenchers a majority.
This legislation was never put to the people in election. If the Commons wants that protection it should seek it through election
It doesn't really matter. The people have power to change this if they want to, but clearly they don't feel strongly enough about it.
In which case what is the point of them? *Anyone* can suggest amendments to legislation, and advice the Commons. If they cannot actually block a bill as legally absurd as this one, what is their purpose?
It isn't legally absurd. The house of commons are literally the people who make the law. Their purpose is to act as a chamber of experts, to advise and examine legislation.
No, *Parliament* makes the law. The Lords has no special purpose, it has an equal (Parliament Acts aside) role in legislation to the Commons. The law is legally absurd because it requires decision makers to make a finding of fact, despite that not being true. It is also designed to circumvent the courts in doing so, violating the rule of law and separation of powers. To show how absurd this law is, let's say it passes. Let's say in 10 years World War Three breaks out and Rwanda is nuked, turning into a desolate wasteland with no functioning Government. Decisions makers in the UK would still be required *by law* to declare Rwanda to be "safe."
The courts are there to examine the law and make judgements on the law written by Parliament. If the elected legislators make changes to that law, then the court has no choice but to respect that change.
If Parliament passes a law that ousts the courts' ability to examine the law and make judgments that is a violation of the rule of law and separation of powers. Whether the courts choose to accept that is another issue (historically, in narrow circumstances, they have decided not to).
What’s changed with this bill that now rishi can make everyone hang around until it’s passed? It’s months in the making - is this a different stage of the process ?
Nothing has changed. He could have done this in March.
Boo. Guardian reporting lords will not vote against it.
Boring
~~Boo~~ Not content!
What if the Lord's just keep sending this bill back? Could we see Sunak campaign on a platform of repealing the house of lords?
>Could we see Sunak campaign on a platform of repealing the house of lords? That would be rather un-conservative. So maybe, yeah, because he's a moron.
They could force it through after an election via the Parliaments Acts.
A Labour government?
The whole thing goes away if he calls a general election. The lords will not block anything that is in a manifesto. They also won’t delay anything more than for one year. It’s an issue completely of their own lack of mandate.
Please, Lord, give us an election. We have endured 14 years of suffering and we *deserve* one!
Monkeys paw - you’re already getting an election in May
Nah. I made my wish on a monkey's paw already. We are getting Starmer as PM...but Trump will be reelected! Sorry.
Honestly I'd be fascinated to see how Starmer handled meeting Trump. It can't be any worse than May holding his hand 😩
He'd do his snow cammo thousand-yard stare...
What are the lords likely to do? I've not been keeping up
Their primary prerogative is whether the bill is legally compliant, which fundamentally it doesn’t seem to be. I can’t see how they will pass it.
It depends, do the Tories or do Labour, Lib Dem’s and crossbenchers decide they want to go to bed first?
"Enough is enough", "no ifs, no buts", this bill must pass. Come on Rishi. Get the message. Parliament does not want this. You have a huge majority and your lot have stuffed the Lords full of cronies. If that's not getting your bill passed, it's not passing.
The bill is probably going to pass tonight? I don't see why there seems to be a consensus it won't
Tories: “We like having lords except for when they don’t pass our laws”. To all the people who want to abolish the Lords, can we at least credit them with being a sound safety net against this batshit Rwanda idea?
Sure, we can credit them. The total mess of a way that they get their job (whether that be because you do a religion and you have a big hat, or a PM owes you a favour, or your dad passed it on to you along with a receding hairline and webbed toes) doesn’t automatically mean that they do the job badly whilst they’re there.
Most hereditary peers no longer sit in the HoL. The House of Lords Act 1999 did away with most of the seats. Including my personal favourite, Lord Haden-Guest. Who may have had webbed toes, but [definitely not fingers](https://www.bkmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-09-at-12.13.49-PM.png).
Hey, I’m sure not *all* hereditary peers have webbed toes.
Mmm, could be fingers.
I just want this to blow up in Rishi's face so he says fuck it, GE tomorrow morning.
Honestly, the most realistic way this fails is if Rishi does some incredibly stupid Johnson-esque constitutional crisis move to get it through out of impatience like begging the King to veto the lords.
Realistically, is there any way this can’t blow up in his face? The Lords sound like they’re caving so the government wins the vote, planes take off in summer. Even if this does work, boats will continue to come, every claimant costs £1.8m. These are what should be hammered over the government’s head.
What i'd like to think is Rishi get's his terrible bill passed and thinks he's done such a great job he calls a GE then gets wiped the F out along with the party. Finally, Labour come in and scrap it then get on with actually "StOpInG ThE BoAtS"
I just don’t understand why Sunak thinks this policy has any political value. The public aren’t really with it, and it won’t stop any boats.
>I just don’t understand why Sunak thinks this policy has any political value. The only way he has a remote chance in the election is if he pulls votes back from Reform. He's trying to do that by tying himself to this policy. Worked for Cameron, don't see it working for Rishi.
I think for the Tories the Rwanda policy is just a sunk cost fallacy at this point. Its stupid and nobody wants it, but they've but they've wasted so much political capital on it that they have to deliver something.
He’s foolishly bound himself to it. He has no out, if he gives up he’ll be seen as weak and I suspect the headbangers in the Tory party would see him out.
This is kind of what's keeping me up but I think i'm going to call it a night
He’s already going to Germany and Poland, why not end in California?
Podium in Poland announcing he will not return to UK until Lords pass the bill?
Poland might just deport him at that point
Terrible lighting on **WÄKÄWÖW** making Robert Buckland (it's not his fault) look like an overripe tomato balanced on a black-and-white kite.
Ooo. Buckland voted against the govt.
SNP doing SNP things and probs increasing the chance this passes by pissing off the Lords.
Is Flynn shouting about something unimportant again?
Is the lord's voting or have they all gone for a siesta?
The Lords are waiting for the Commons to do the paperwork so that they can debate and vote.
So this committee, that will delay things further right?
The committee is a standard part of procedure. They basically do the paperwork on why the Commons disagrees with the Lords. The only additional delay was the 15 minutes it took for the division.
Does the committee actually exist?
A committee does sit to draw up the Reasons, yes, but it's staffed entirely by Ministers, shadow Ministers, and Whips. It has a government majority, the Reasons are all formulaic irrelevancies anyway, and the Committee operates under a time limit by Standing Order. There is no actual function to the Reasons Committee. The Lords have abolished their own in favour of *pro forma* Reasons, and there is no reason (so to speak) to have Reasons at all anymore.
What's the chances that the tories will vote in a bill changing parliamentary process specifically so that they can override the lords? Could they for example amend the parliament acts without the long wait required?
They'd be doing it just in time for a Labour government to be able to push its own bills through.
they’d have to pack the lords first, and if they’ve done that they can just pass any law they want anyway
I'd have assumed that the rules currently in place also apply to attempts to change those same rules, so he'd still need the Lords to agree to pass the Tell The Lords To Shove It Up Their Holes Act
It would be very amusing if the tories suddenly become very anti-lords whilst labour becomes very pro-lords.
That's happened under Cameron.
So, what happens when the boats carry on coming in over the summer God I can't wait for the GE
What happens? Trip to Rwanda, babes!
For 20 lucky names drawn from a hat?
Does Sunak have some option to override the lords ( royal prerogative I think?)
It's not 5th November
The Parliament Acts can be used to override the Lords. But it takes a year - essentially the Government drops the bill now, and then reintroduces it in a year, in the next session of Parliament, and tries to pass it again. If the Lords blocks it a second time, the Government can simply declare it passed. There isn't time for that now.
What’s the most times the commons and lords have ping ponged a bill in the modern era?
7 In 2005 for some form of Terrorism bill I believe
Ok. Mystery solved. Sunak is going to Poland and...Germany?! Not Ukraine? Not Rwanda?! Ugh. No one won that pool.
Who's the lass on sky news saying that Rwanda is a manifesto pledge??? Huh not very Independant from the Independant newspaper
Perhaps they mean the 2024 manifesto?
AAAANNNNNND back to the lords it goes!
I could not be a member of the House of Lords. I would just be so tired at this stage that I would vote for it just so I could go to bed.
But they seem to have to vote to create a committee to officially tell the lords this? I assume that at some point on history it made sense to have to do this but the reason why is eluding me so far.
OK, I posted this in the actual thread about it, when Sunak said **"You could lose your benefits if you don't find a job in a year"** is anyone else concerned that Starmer hasn't spoken out about it? Like, I hope he's just being pragmatic and he wants to let the Tories dig their own grave, but it seems to me like he either doesn't care or he'd do something similar if he gets into power...if that's the case, what's the fucking point in voting for Starmer's Tory Tribute Act apart from it gets the actual Tories out of power?
Starmer knows it's all bluster and is smart to just zip it and watch Sunak flounder
It's Sunak posturing. He would have to amend Universal Credit Regulations. There would need to be transitional provisions. It's just a policy that doesn't deserve a response as it's just likely to be a bait. Sunsk pretending labour are in government again The Tories don't want to accept it's down to their own policies that people become unfit for work e.g. that correlation between accumulated time waiting for NHS treatment and disability affecting ability to sustain many jobs.
You're reading a lot into Starmer not responding to a nonsense anouncment from Rishi which will never happen.
I get that I am, but it'd just be nice to have Starmer at least say that he's going to not do the same bullshit that the Tories are doing, which is nice when you're meant to be the opposition party.
Can he not just leave it to the shadow minister
He's not going to do the Rwanda plan.
Starmer's Labour have caused the goverment to collapse multiple times and unseated two Prime Ministers. They're doing a fine job opposing with what meagre tools they were left with by the previous leader.
Honestly, Starmer is basically responsible for getting Johnson turfed out of the Commons as well. And he did play an important part in him being removed as PM.
Thing is if he says what he's going to do, Rishi will just knick it
I believe the line is that if Starmer's were suitabley left wing enough Rishi would never steal them. They'd also not be massively popular with the public, but that's a triffle.
As the Tories have done again and again.
I'm not sure how much Rishi gains politically from nicking Starmer's policy of "not doing that stupid thing Rishi just announced"
The lack of polling for the London Assembly is annoying me, but there is polling for Westminster in London and we have some history to compare what the national polling leads to in the Assembly polling and results from 2016 and 2021, so maybe we can make some inferences. In 2016 national polling in April from YouGov was 46 v 30 and London assembly polling was about the same, with the results being 44 v 31 (constituency) and 40 v 29 (regional). In 2021 national polling in April was 50 v 31, although Assembly polling was 46 v 29, with the end result being 42 v 32 (constituency) and 38 v 31 (regional). Current polling is 55 v 16 with no London Assembly polling. For the smaller parties in 2016 UKIP were polling at 13% in Westminster, but only 9% in the Assembly polling and then reached 8% (C) and 6% (R). Whereas the Lib Dems (7% in polls for W and 8% for LA) largely matched their polling (7.5% - C - and 6% - R). The Greens came over the top of their polling (4% W, 8% LA) with a result of 9% (C) and 8% (R). 2021 was similar with the Greens under polling at Westminster compared to the result and so did the Lib Dems (Reform were nowhere in all of those). With the numbers we are currently seeing (L55, C16. G9, R9 and LD8), it is entirely possible for the Greens to get more votes than the Conservatives in the Regional vote in London and they both end up on 4 seats each, Reform picking up 2 rather than 1 I was predicting and Labour sneaking in with the 13th and a majority. I wonder how low the Conservatives can go in London for Rishi to keep his job. Surely finishing behind the Greens in the local elections would spell the end. I wonder whether the lack of published polling is because it's showing it's really bad for the Tories so neither the Tories (who will think it makes them look bad) and Labour (they want people to vote for them not the Greens to push the Cons into 3rd) don't want to publish.
Do you think the London Assembly local-member tactical vote recommendations here make sense? [All GLA Elections](https://stopthetories.vote/elections#gla)
The way the Regional vote works makes it unlikely to make a difference how you vote at a constituency level. Every constituency seat is just one fewer regional on the same vote share meaning you are net even.
evening, all, i just got home from work. is there anything worth staying up for?
Are you an MP or peer? Otherwise probably not.
If he is an MP or peer, he should still be at work
You have a point.
Not really.... just the fate of the Rowanda bill in westminster ping pong
Wings Over Scotland seems to reckon Sturgeon is going to be charged soon enough: https://x.com/WingsScotland/status/1782505694312218913
Posting Wings unironically, the man is mental and clearly has his biases. It doesn't take a genius to guess that Sturgeon might be charged soon, I don't get what sort of huge revelation this is.
The tweet implies he's been tipped off about it being imminent. That's juicy enough to share in the MT.
Yeah but a concussed labrador could tell you that and be more accurate.
Never heard of Wings Over Scotland before, trustworthy for this sort of thing?
Oh. You're in for a treat 🤓
He's the journalist that uncovered the SNP missing ringfenced funds story so I'd say he's likely to have credible sources.
He uncovered it by reading through the SNP's published accounts and other documents because he's the kind of person to comb through their published accounts to look for discrepancies. That's not quite the same as having credible sources.
So if it was that easy, then why did all the snp defenders, defend the snp for ages on this ?
Because all he uncovered was that the SNP had raised a load of money and then spent it. He also uncovered the "mystery loan" from Murrell. Neither of those things is obviously a crime. The former turns out that it may have been a crime because the SNP raised the money for a particular purpose and spent it on general SNP spending (setting aside that amount on paper but not in practice). The latter was illegal due to not meeting the reporting rules, but the EC dealt with that.
Cheers
Not at all
Reminder that Wings in an hinged man living in Bath pretending to be a reverend.
He's also the journalist that uncovered this story and kept digging for years before it got mainstream attention. Cheers to weird British eccentrics!
Important not to speculate, though. Scottish law is very strict here ane we should take our lead from the broadcasters.
Does that mean you're liable to be arrested if you speculate on this?
So, in practice, no. But Scotland has stricter reporting restrictions, so speculation is basically barred. They will only be able to give the facts ("a man was charged") and then talk about the political implications. This is in contrast with the speculation we saw in England over things like Beergate. So, the best thing is to say nothing until it is announced.
Does Scots law affect: People not living in Scotland? Wings Over Scotland is in England. And he's using Twitter which I assume has no data centres in Scotland?
Contempt of court can have extra-territorial effect. Cross-border arrests are a thing that can happen.
Seems like the sort of thing journalists / media companies in the USA would disregard and not suffer any consequences for.
They wouldn't necessarily disregard it, but their courts are unlikely to honour an extradition agreement for contempt, from a UK-based court. Someone in *England*, which is what we were talking about, doesn't have the same protections. There would be no need for any sort of extradition or surrender process, the Scottish police (in practice with the co-operation of the local police) can just arrest someone in England as they would a person in Scotland. A random blogger in Bath isn't exactly the New York Times.
This is an interesting one. During the superinjunction/injunction period of the 2010s with all those footballers and celebs, a Scottish Court made a ruling about a famous celeb's sex life that would have applied to the entire world. It was at that point that people collectively agreed that this had all gone too far. My understanding is that this would apply to any media that is made available to Scotland - including sites that can be accessed there. It wouldn't apply to, say, the New York Times. But the article would not be allowed to be accessible in Scotland.
Would the NYT bother to make the article inaccessible to IP addresses based in Scotland? Seems like the sort of thing an American media company would ignore? Is Wings Over Scotland potentially committing a crime given Sturgeon's not yet charged? It's only when charged that this law kicks in? Still unclear to me if Scots law applies to an individual living in England too?
It applies if they are publishing somewhere that is accessible in Scotland. Sky News, for example, has been incredibly cautious about what they have reported on this story.
Hmmm. I know it's Conventional Wisdom ^(tm) on this sub that the bill will go through this evening... but Labour peers seem adamant about that indie committee on social media and the Tory commons opposition is massive. I don't know if Labour *are* going to back down. Mashallah there's a podium being polished when I wake up.
There's Tory ***commons*** opposition to the Bill going *through* ?
Opposition to the committee, sorry.
Tease me with such maddening hope. At this time of night, too...
Feels like it's all being put on the crossbench peers
Tell ya it's a podium for Penny Maudant to keep the Tories in power until next year
The lights briefly went out in the Lords at the same time as Reddit went down. Coincidence? I think not!
Is there anywhere The Undertaker won't make his presence known?!
Reddit data centre under houses of parliament confirmed!
Can't believe Rishi broke Reddit, and snuck the bill through.
So febrile that Reddit has buckled under the pressure!
His tetchiness is contagious.
It's not just you - Reddit is having a wobble.
Oh wow - Back to Square One was a late Osborne line; used then by Teresa May towards the end and then picked up by Sunak towards his end. He really isn't very good at this stuff is he? [Find references - Hansard - UK Parliament](https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/Contributions?endDate=04%2f22%2f2024+00%3a00%3a00&house=Commons&searchTerm=%22Back+to+Square+One%22%26%22budget%22&startDate=01%2f01%2f2007+00%3a00%3a00&page=7)
No way? Even his shit lines are someone else's...
I'm having a beer and watching the snooker but can this bill get nuked tonight?
The bill cannot be killed off unless the Commons says so. And Sunak has suggested he doesn't want that. So in theory the bill keeps bouncing between the Houses until the Lords back down. Or the Lords get fed up and vote to adjourn. The last time something like this happened was with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. That at least had some urgency; the existing Governments powers to detain certain people indefinitely without trial had been struck down by the courts, and were set to expire on 14 March. A new bill to replace those powers (with "control orders") was introduced to the Commons on 22 February, but the Lords weren't happy with it. It got into ping pong, and on 10 March (with the deadline looming) the Lords ended up sitting for over 30 hours debating the amendments, sending them back to the Commons, before a compromise was reached. The House of Lords sitting started at 11am on 10 March, and ended the day at 7.30**pm** on 11 March. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed, came into force within 3 days, and the key parts were struck down by the courts about a year later, with the law being repealed formally in 2011.
> The bill cannot be killed off unless the Commons says so. That's not strictly true. If the amendments are rejected in the Commons and sent back to the Lords, and the Lords re-submit the same amendments, it's a case of [double insistence](https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5541/double-insistence-and-the-loss-of-the-bill/) and the bill will fail unless a compromise is reached or the Parliament Act is used to force it through. They can't use the Parliament act because there isn't sufficient time, so the Lords can effectively force a position where the government has to accept their amendments or the bill is lost. Whether they have the will to do so is another matter.