Best Of

Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.

Its the same sort of nonsense that we saw at the time of Brexit when May was trying to negotiate a deal. One thousand reasons for saying no and never a yes. Wrecking amendments to prevent implementation. Thankfully, all of the main protagonists in that case lost their seats but that doesn't happen with the House of Lords.

This kind of thing pisses me off despite being no friend of the Labour government and being highly ambivalent about assisted dying. Labour should get on with abolishing the House of Lords. Who do these plonkers think they are?

Trump sees everything as a real estate deal, hence Witkoff as his negotiator.
.

There are 2 quotes on Bluesky that sum trump up



https://bsky.app/profile/sturdyalex.bsky.social/post/3m6bwo5xmm22r

"Trump hates losing and loves winners. He has to somehow rewrite history. The last sentence of this chapter can't be: Trump endorsed Cuomo, who then lost disastrously. So, he inserts himself and makes the last sentence: Trump became unlikely buddies with Mamdani."

and

https://bsky.app/profile/sturdyalex.bsky.social/post/3m6bxgwl4gs2r

A former guest who knows him, once told me that Trump sees politics as a reality show. Whatever else happens, by Friday every week, he has to "win the episode", ensure he's the principal character, make the last shot.

Once you tune into that, everything begins to make a twisted sort of sense.

Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.

Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.

The hundreds of amendments from a tiny number of peers is very clearly disruptive, which isn’t their job

Perhaps if the bill, a private members bill with an active and well funded lobbying campaign behind it, had been better drafted there wouldn’t be so many amendments.

Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.

Kite flying for Lords reform then to get a supine second chamber.

I’d dispute the Lords are doing anything wrong on the AD bill. They are doing their job.

The AD bill was not a manifesto commitment. It looks a complete mess to me.

Europe should now present its own 28 point peace plan including:
* immediate ceasefire at current line of contact
* negotiations to start re status of occupied territories - expectation that Russia will need to withdraw from Kherson & Zhaporizia but could retain occupied parts of Donbas & Crimea but which shall be demilitarised
* A no-fly zone imposed across all of Ukraine east of Dnieper river (including occupied territories). To be enforced by European air forces
* European (inc Turkey) peace-keeping forces on the ground - subject to Ukrainian agreement.
* Putin & Zhelensky to both stand aside with free elections within 1 year.

Nah, do what the Russians have done but the other way around:
* Russia to withdraw immediately to 1991 border
* Putin, Lavrov, Dimitriev, and senior military commanders to be handed over to The Hague.
* 10km DMZ inside Russian territory along border with Ukraine, no-fly zone enforced by NATO
* Ukraine to join NATO with Ukranian agreement, NATO air defences to be positioned on Ukraine/Russia border
* Western assets of Russian state and sanctioned individuals to be paid as reparations to rebuild Ukraine
* UK and France to work with Ukraine on development and deployment of an independent nuclear deterrent.
* Permanent ban on sale of Russian oil and gas to EU and NATO countries.
* Russia to hand over forcibly displaced refugees and PoWs in Russia, Ukraine to hand over PoWs in return.
* Plan for resettlement of international Ukranian refugees, to be followed by a registration process and internationally observed elections within 12 months.

A good piece, although it overlooks Russian subversion of the free world. The role of bribery and blackmail has been a significant one, and in many ways has been an important war front for the Russians. Trump's craven attitude to Putin is extremely significant. The EU must go ahead and take on the financial support for Kyiv and dare Trump to sabotage the process. Given the extraordinarily unpopularity of Trump at home, there is a high chance that he will not be able to break NATO even if he wants to. It forces the GOP to confront their little problem.
Any kind of Russian peace is simply a pause before World War III, so to give up after four years of Russian brutality and aggression will make the world a lot less safe. The UK, EU, Canada and a coalition of the willing must see this through or we will enter a very dark future indeed.