Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

[MillionMilesAway]

So abstaining is a good thing then.

Essentially yes - it was just on one amendment as far as I know, not everything.

As ever, it means Sunak/Braverman will bleat about how Labour didn't support the bill or vote against it, misrepresenting the situation wilfully.

Obviously there are alternative opinions (as in @Postman Pep 's post - I don't know whether that or Labour's rationale is most accurate.

 

[Postman Pep]

Essentially yes - it was just on one amendment as far as I know, not everything.

As ever, it means Sunak/Braverman will bleat about how Labour didn't support the bill or vote against it, misrepresenting the situation wilfully.

Obviously there are alternative opinions (as in @Postman Pep 's post - I don't know whether that or Labour's rationale is most accurate.

The motion was to kill the whole bill. Even via the parliament act they couldn't bring it back for a year so the delaying tactics argument doesn't really wash. There is also the argument that the parliament act/will of the people case doesn't stand because it bears no relation to their manifesto and they'd have to seek a fresh mandate...... but given there is a very good chance we'll be in election territory in a years time that's by the by.
Where I agree is that this is about shutting down Tory attack lines, soft on immigration etc, not that it will stop them because they'll say any old shit. I'd add that Labour don't oppose this on moral grounds more on efficiency. They'd rather let it play out and hope it all goes to shit and if a few thousand people get carted off to internment camps in Rwanda it will be price worth paying in their eyes.

 

[Vic]

The archbishop not to happy in the lords with the immigration bill as it stands

That's going to a few Christian Tory MPs

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The motion was to kill the whole bill. Even via the parliament act they couldn't bring it back for a year so the delaying tactics argument doesn't really wash. There is also the argument that the parliament act/will of the people case doesn't stand because it bears no relation to their manifesto and they'd have to seek a fresh mandate...... but given there is a very good chance we'll be in election territory in a years time that's by the by.
Where I agree is that this is about shutting down Tory attack lines, soft on immigration etc, not that it will stop them because they'll say any old shit. I'd add that Labour don't oppose this on moral grounds more on efficiency. They'd rather let it play out and hope it all goes to shit and if a few thousand people get carted off to internment camps in Rwanda it will be price worth paying in their eyes.

I hadn't heard of this 13 month thing before - maybe it's specific to reacting to an amendment to vote down a bill, rather than just to ignore an amendment. I don't recall other uses having a year's delay.

It presumably is driven, as you say, by not wanting to give a target; if so, it does look as though planning for the future is trumping acting now.

 

[Postman Pep]

I hadn't heard of this 13 month thing before - maybe it's specific to reacting to an amendment to vote down a bill, rather than just to ignore an amendment. I don't recall other uses having a year's delay.

It presumably is driven, as you say, by not wanting to give a target; if so, it does look as though planning for the future is trumping acting now.

Me neither. Maybe it's related to it being a 'fatal motion'. Not sure there is any recent precedents for it.

 

[Vic]

It could be stopped ..... If we had an opposition.

That would appear to be the Archbishop's view as well. "Our duty is to change not to throw out the bill"

I guess many who want the Lords to kill the bill would also want to abolish the House of Lords.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Looking around, the 13 month delay may be because it needs reintroducing in a King's Speech, at which point the Conservatives could force it through with no amendments (as far as I can tell from something Blunkett has said). The next King's Speech will be in the autumn.

I assume Labour have decided that it will be taken to court, so they can't be blamed for it failing.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That would appear to be the Archbishop's view as well. "Our duty is to change not to throw out the bill"

I guess many who want the Lords to kill the bill would also want to abolish the House of Lords.

I hadn't seen that he'd said that - I think he makes a good point.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I hadn't seen that he'd said that - I think he makes a good point.

made himself out to be an enemy of the people again though - it seems that for some people the tradition of having Bishops in the Lords is worthy but they just need to toe the line and not speak out or if they do speak out in a manner that they agree with. For me the Bishops are in there to be a moral compass and provide guidance on the business of the House and when things like this Bill come to the Lords if he feels duty bound to speak out its right that he does

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Me neither. Maybe it's related to it being a 'fatal motion'. Not sure there is any recent precedents for it.

I thought they could just bring it back in the next session of Parliament, if it was voted down in the HOL?
Given that this current session has been extended until the Autumn, they’d have 5 months of ‘blaming Labour’ and then put it through anyway, having defeated the ‘lefty lawyers’ and ‘Marxist Elite’. Now, I disagree with almost everything Starmer does but I think they’ve been left with no choice on this one, given the likely consequences.