Daniel Gover

Waka waka waka Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Recall Petition

A thing I wrote for @robfordmancs.bsky.social's excellent substack, The Swingometer. How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Recall Petition. Features Māori war canoes, Enoch Powell, Edmund Burke, and some spectacular examples of hypocrisy.
swingometer.substack.com/p/waka-waka-...

This line in Guide to Making Legislation, though, is about the fact that there are unlikely to be any Commons Fridays left. It’s not saying that if the bill needs amending the Lords will fail to pass it. It’s exceptionally rare, not standard practice, for Lords to fail to pass a PMB passed by MPs.

I’m not sure this is a parliament at all though

The real question is is it even a proper parliament if there is no mug?

Yes it is. Now hand over the cash!

What is the picture of tho?

Oh wow. So long as it meets the definition of a parliamentary mug…!

It's not really true to say that the witnesses were selected by the sponsor. This is true in a procedural sense. But there was consultation with opponents for additional witnesses. What made this bill different from usual is that the 'usual channels' processes (whips from 2 parties) didn't apply.

The reason there was a majority in the committee was because there was a majority in the House. That is normal practice. I've already said I agree with you on the two additional ministers.

I agree with your criticisms of the more limited pre-leg process. It is not true though that the PMB route was 'chosen by supporters in order to control the process'. This was the only route available to those outside govt - and many felt more appropriate to avoid the government taking a side.

On witnesses... Remember that some bills (inc some very controversial government ones) have no evidence sessions at all. This is the first ever PMB to have evidence sessions - and had lots of it. And unprecedented in *also* having evidence in Lords - this doesn't even happen on govt bills.

I agree with you on the inclusion of two additional pro-bill ministers in the committee. This did not stop the sponsor losing at least one vote, however. And does not apply to (also long) Report stage.

I don't agree on the composition of witnesses.

I agree that the pre-leg policy development side was challenging due to the PMB process constraints. I also agree on delegated powers - though this is one of the key areas where Falconer has moved.

But the time for parliamentary scrutiny itself has not been constrained - quite the opposite.

The Assisted Dying Bill: Rushed And Lacking Scrutiny, Or Unfairly Criticised? Has the assisted dying bill been rushed as critics say? Would the unusually complex Private Members’ Bill have been any better-off as a government ...

What was it about the Commons debates that led you to this conclusion? I've spent over a decade researching how parliament scrutinises legislation. I agree with the Hansard Society that this was 'among the most heavily scrutinised bills in recent times'. www.politicshome.com/news/article...

The reason for the delay has been the time required to discuss all of the amendments.

A significant number of amendments were accepted in the Commons, and significantly more non-government amendments than on government bills. We do not know if there is a majority in the Lords (let alone the Commons) for any of the proposed new amendments, because they've not been put to votes.

Thank you. However, this is not because the Lords would block the bill. It is because those amendments would then need to be approved by the Commons, and this is likely to be after the 13 Commons Fridays have been completed. In practice, the government (almost?) always facilitates the extra time.

Thank you. This text is specifically about the Commons, and yet MPs did pass the bill.

Bill may well be deeply flawed (it's a matter of judgement). But question is who should make that decision in a parliamentary democracy. Should it be (a) elected MPs, (b) unelected peers, or (c) a small number of unelected peers?

The assisted dying bill: Is the number of Lords amendments a parliamentary record? The assisted dying bill has attracted an extraordinary number of amendments in the House of Lords, prompting questions about whether the volume is unprecedented. This blog examines how its amendment c...

It is though an extraordinary number of amendments - far higher than for any comparable bill for many years. www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blog/assiste...

They would have been wrong to make such claims too. I explained why such claims were wrong at the time of this bill's 2R vote when I was on Parliament Matters. No reason to believe representative of House.

On point about committee time comparisons - I assume that's right but:
1) This is partly because bill had such extensive scrutiny in Commons - far more even than many contentious govt bills.
2) Not unusual for longer committee in Commons cf Lords. (E.g. I just checked table in my book on this data.)

I'd like to see this put to the test in a vote. Truth is nobody knows how House would vote - but there's no reason to believe 2R speech proportions reflect voting intentions. Either way, House should be able to express its view.

It really isn’t. Large parts of the UK constitution - including the power balance between the two chambers - operate primarily on the basis of what is considered politically appropriate, not formal enforceable rules.

The question then is whether it is appropriate for a small number of peers to table so many amendments that the Lords is unable to take a decision on a proposal backed in a free vote by the elected Commons - potentially contrary to the will of both chambers.

The question then is whether it is appropriate for a small number of peers to table so many amendments that the Lords is unable to take a decision on a proposal backed in a free vote by the elected Commons - potentially contrary to the will of both chambers.

I write ‘the Lords’, but of course that is not really correct. We don’t know the will of the chamber, because it has not voted. If those tabling these amendments were confident that the chamber was inclined to reject the bill, one suspects they might not be taking this approach.

The Lords almost never, though, uses ‘the process how it can’. It almost always sees its role as being to offer scrutiny but not to obstruct the Commons. It is getting dangerously close to the latter. I suspect even opponents of the bill may fear the longer consequences of this.

Requiring by-elections where an MP changes their party sounds very appealing… until you start thinking through some of the practicalities. Good piece here by @philipjcowley.bsky.social.

The House of Lords has voted to stop under 16s using social media – what happens now? The vote in the Lords took place on an amendment to the government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

New piece by me for @uk.theconversation.com, explaining yesterday’s Lords vote on under-16s’ social media use.

‘The House of Lords has voted to stop under 16s using social media – what happens now?’

theconversation.com/the-house-of...