Right. It's going to be the longest day of parliamentary drama you have ever experienced. And it kicks off now.
The Speaker, John Bercow, is currently deciding what to do about the election for the new Speaker, given it is now ramming right up against the election debate.
Basically it comes down to: Do they hold the Speaker's election before or after the election? Bercow said he was standing down on October 31st. But some want him to hold out for after the election.
Others wants the election to replace him before the House is suspended for an election. Michael Fabricant just made this argument very well. New MPs will troop through and do what they're told. This parliament is marvellously independent. Better do it now.
Bercow tells MPs he'll do whatever he's asked. It;s a battle for another time. It's a very important one, actually, especially if we get a hung parliament or small majority after the election.
Bercow says he's selected an amendment by Stella Creasy. I'll explain this later. He says vote of second reading of the bill must come no later than four hours after the start of the debate on the business motion. I'll explain this in a bit too.
Mogg is up to bring forward the business motion.
You can see the business motion in the order paper here publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201920/cm…
Mogg, the leader of the House, is saying that the House should dissolve after midnight on the 6th November. This is so a bill can be passed ensuring the Northern Ireland (NI) civil service has funding.
This is the kind of thing which would once have been readily accepted when said by government, but because of the total breakdown of trust is now contentious. This is how relentless lies from a government degrade the way we do politics.
Valerie Vaz responding for the opposition. She says she is "surprised" the motion is being brought in this way. She criticises the fact the bill itself was not published until today.
She wants to know if the Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) will be repealed, given that it's obviously not working.
Vaz says "this is another way of crashing out of the EU without a deal. This programme motion is unacceptable and is deliberately designed to avoid scrutiny on the govt."
It sounds like Labour is going to vote against the programme motion.
This would suddenly throw the entire question of whether we're going to have an election into question.
The govt probably still has the numbers probably, but would need to keep SNP, Lib Dems and Independent Tories on board, which may be a struggle.
Completely baffled by Vaz's argument, which is that Mogg should bring back the Brexit deal to the Commons for it to be debated. Incredible. She sounds quite a bit like Labour is turning against the election and wants the Brexit deal back.
Pete Wishart, Scottish National party (SNP), confirms the party will vote for the programme motion. I think.
Quite a weird statement. "It's never been the practice of the SNP to vote with the Tories on programme motions. And we will be supporting them on this today, but we will not be standing in the way of this bill. We will not vote with the Tories on this programme motion...
...but we will back the general election this country definitely needs." Fuck knows how to make head or tail of that.
He did say he'd back the Creasy amendment. This amendment basically opens the doors to amendments on the bill. It is a gateway to further amendments.
Creasy up. She says it;s about making sure that "whatever happens today, the House can know it is fair play".
Says govt is trying to rig today's debate, but removing right of chair of proceedings to select any amendment. "To do that late at night without any consultation with the opposition and in the hope nobody notices is frankly not cricket."
"It is to admit that rather than win the case for this bill, the executive wants no challenge to it at all, and that, whether you think this is a good bill or not, should be a concern for all of us. If we let this lie on this it'll become standard practice in future."
Division. MPs are now going to vote on the amendment.
If this goes through, more amendments can potentially be added as the bill goes through the House today. If not, then it's a pretty stripped down proceeding.
It;s possible that the amendment being passed would mean that Labour would then back the business motion. Not clear just yet.
Ah - looks like Labour will back if Creasy's amendment passes.
Ok, let's talk amendments. There are two that keep coming up - giving EU citizens the right to vote and giving 16-17 year olds the right to vote. They sound similar, but in reality they're very different.
EU citizens are already on the electoral roll. 16-17 year olds are not. That means that realistically the first is doable and the second isn't, in the time frame we're looking at.
Even the EU citizens amendments would require additional powers, in the form of statutory instruments, though. Would be difficult, but it is feasible. However, were either of these amendments to pass, the govt is likely to simply pull the bill. Back to the primordial chaos.
Other amendments could concern the date. The Lib Dems and SNP are likely to push for the 9th, 10th, or 11th of December. Or they could add an amendment which prohibits the government from bringing back its Brexit deal - the withdrawal agreement bill (Wab) before the election.
More details here politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/10/…
The govt has pledged not to do so. It would also struggle. MPs already rejected its programme motion to force through the Wab quickly, they would likely do so again. But it is exactly thew kind of underhand trick they tend to do, so nothing is guaranteed.
Creasy amendment passes.
Ayes: 312
Noes: 295
Ayes: 312
Noes: 295
That should unlock Labour support for the programme motion. Means we're still on course for an election. Also means more amendments will now be able to come into play throughout the day.
It has. The business motion goes through.
No need for a vote. No-one objected.
Right, this shit is now ON. We're go.
According to the govt's incredibly quick timetable, the vote on second reading will be in four hours and the final vote will be two hours after that. So 6.20pm and 8.20pm.
Relatively civilised, in a frenzied kind of way.
It's going to be hard to keep up with amendments. They're going to be put down in the House, so not clear if they'll all go online or when. Think we'll be relying on MPs to put them up on Twitter.
Boris Johnson is up and talking a lot of horseshit.
Sorry - I see lots of tweets about people being confused about what just happened. Clearly didn't explain it well.
Summary: The govt tried to stop opposition amendments to today's bill on an election. This was preventing Labour supporting it.
But Stella Creasy put down an amendment allowing further amendments. It passed, so amendments can now be applied on things like votes for EU citizens.
So we are now on for six hours of debate on whether to hold an election. The first vote will be in four hours, the final vote in six.
Johnson seems quite knackered.
Trying to make it as humiliating as possible for Jeremy Corbyn to back the election. "I hope he will stand up and say that he has mastered his doubts and is finally willing to submit to the electorate."
"Says the government;s deal would allow the country to leave the EU "As one whole United Kingdom". Clear Johnson plans to lie his way through the general election campaign as he has his time as prime minister.
He's really terrible at the dispatch box. Surprisingly bad.
Still, Corbyn's shit at it too, and he'll be up in a bit.
Ah, here he comes.
"Labour backs a general election because we want this country to be rid of this reckless and destructive Conservative government."
The Labour leader clearly on an election footing.
"I've said consistently, when no-deal is off the table, we'll back an election. Today, after much denial and much bluster by the PM, that deal is off the table."
Paul Farrelly, Lab, gets up to say that he'll vote against an election. Corbyn urges him to join in the campaign.
Here's an amendment for votes-at-16
Corbyn confirms he'll back amendments on votes-for-16s and EU citizens.
I'm not sure those amendments will be accepted by the chairman of ways and means - the deputy speaker. Unclear if they are within the scope of the bill ie: if they are sufficiently connected to its purpose. There's also a financial aspect.
If they are selected, they could well succeed. Labour, SNP and Lib Dems will vote for it. Wouldn't need that many independent Tories to get on board.
At that point govt could well pull the bill and we'd be back in the chaos pit. But even if they don't, as I mentioned earlier, don't think votes-for-16s could be sorted in time. Votes for EU citizens could be.
Bill Cash is wanging on about God knows what.
Even by his standards that was some shoddy fucking shit.
Ian Blackford, SNP: "The hon member says the SNP has tried to obstruct Brexit. Well, guilty as charged."
Increasingly concerned about these amendments. I support votes at 16 and votes for EU citizens. But I'm not sure this is the way to do it: in a mad rush, without any assessment or organisation, in a way that could derail the election happening at all.
Let's be clear what happens if this thing fails: chances are that deal will come back to the Commons. And chances are, eventually, it'll pass. This election is Remainers last, best chance. It's not a good one. But it is the best one.
Jo Swinson now up for the Liberal Democrats. She says she will vote for an amendment for votes-at-16.
Sorry, had to duck out for a few mins for a work call. And also to stick my head in the bin and scream.
Normal service of screaming existential pain in public will now continue.
Amendments so far
I'd have liked a lock on the govt introducing the WAB before parliament is dissolved. But we can't always have what we want, I guess.
I mean, people like me have got absolutely fuck all of what we want for nearly four years now and I think we'll be startled if that ever changes.
I can't even begin to describe how weird it is to ask for the election to take place on May 7th.
Fuck why then? Why not 14th of September 2021.
Desmond Swayne, Con, like if Alfred Pennyworth had a change of heart and joined the supervillains. Warns that "the whole wretched cycle can begin again" about something or other.
Vigorously overexcited by everything except his own inadequacy.
Caroline Johnson, Con, doing a speech so boring, so lacking in substance, charisma or reason, that my brain is shrinking gradually into my brain, starved of nutrients, actually dying of thirst.
Will she ever stop. It feels like she's been speaking for centuries.
Oh thank god it's over.
Jess Phillips, Lab. Marvellous.
Says Tory MPs seem "very concerned about how the referendum and how we vote on bill s has been used for political expediency."
"I'd just like to gently remind everybody of that time the PM got a camera crew to come and take a picture of him as he signed his little resignation letter to Theresa May. Some might say it had been politically expedient. And lo and behold, he's the PM."
The referendum was a marginal win, she says. "After the 2017 election again the country was split. The idea of bringing a bill we could all sit down and work on was literally never ever taken."
"I have listened to members opposite today say: 'You shouldn't be allowed to amend it. You only want time to amend it.' Yes. That's absolutely right. That is the job of this House."
"I seem to be in a twilight zone, where the govt seem to think they just write a line and say: 'It's my way or the highway'. Welcome to parliamentary democracy."
If Jess Phillips did not exist it would be necessary to create her.
She says she spoke to the PM the other day. "He said: 'What wil it take for you, Jess, to support this bill'?" Pauses. "Am I allowed to say my own name, is that allowed," she asks the Speaker.
Told no. "What will it take for you, the incredibly honourable member for Birmingham Yardley? I said: 'What it would take for me is you ask the people where I live if they're happy with the deal'."
"He looked at me like it was brand new information. It's the first time he;d had that revelation. Which I thought I was odd. But you know, he's an unusual man."
"He said: 'Don't you think another referendum would be dangerous for this country'. To which I said: 'I'm not entirely sure why you think it would be different to a general election'."
"Pretty much no-one has actually talked about general elections - apart from a few party political broadcasts about people's museums and their own constituencies."
"The reality is we've all talked about the referendum. This is going to be a Brexit referendum, whether we like it or not. Except we won't be being clear and we won't be being honest."
"We're going to use it for political expediency. And can we all just stop pretending that it is anything else?"
"Nobody can answer me the question what happens when we return a hung parliament to this place and we are stuck once again in Brexit paralysis."
"Everybody is acting completely arrogant and doing that thing we all do on the stump and say 'here's the next prime minister' about a minority party with four people in it. It's ridiculous."
Launches a devastating critique on the absence of regulations about foreign funding in election.
"In the last European elections, a man stood on the platform, completely legitimately. The thing that made him famous was whether he would or wouldn't rape me. Our electoral laws in this country are not fit for purpose."
"What are we all going to do during the election campaign to make sure it;s fair and make sure it's legal?"
"And makes sure that it isn't trying to say from your side that people like me are a danger to the country or from my side that people like you are? So that people who hear that turn up and try to break into my office and scream in my face and send me death threats."
"I will gladly go back and sleep in my own bed for a solid six weeks and see my children every day and join the camaraderie of the hundreds of volunteers that will join me in my seat."
"But what happens next is the question nobody can answer and until that is the case, the one-line bill is useless."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you do a parliamentary speech. Or rather it isn't, and we are all the worse for that.
Ed Vaizey, Indie Con, says he supports votes for 16s and EU citizens. Not clear if that means he'd vote for the amendments, but suggested he might.
Ah, appears that won't be an issue because the chairman of ways and means hasn't selected those amendments
This has not yet been confirmed from the Chair yet though, so not guaranteed. But appears to be ruled out for now.
So that ends the mini-drama over votes for 16s and EU citizens. Presumably he thought they were outside the scope of the bill.
However, there are still amendments on the date. The govt has said it will pull the bill if the December 9th date is selected. Unclear if they would really do that.
On the pro side: They are really quite mad, basically clowns on mescaline, but less interesting. They do all sorts of weird shit.
But on the anti side: they lie, all the time, in order to prevent amendments.
Vaizey: "Mr Speaker, I don't know if you and I will ever meet again in our respective positions. So I simply want to say to you, as one man of average height but substantial girth, thank you for everything you've done to stand up for the rights of this Chamber."
"This place, at it's best, is one of the best places to be. And at its worst, it's absolutely awful."
And with that Vaizey sits. Harsh electoral fight coming up for him and all the independent Tories who stood up to the govt on no-deal and consequently had the whip withdrawn. Really funny and honourable speech to make before it.
Oliver Dowden now summing up for the govt. We'll be on for the second reading vote soon.
Never seen much of Dowden before and I think we can already recognise why that's the case.
Jokes, obviously. All sorts of shrivelled-up mediocrities succeed in this govt, in fact it's seemingly a requirement.
Point of order by Lab MP Barry Sheerman: "Many excellent speeches were curtailed at three minutes this evening. Why is this awful repetitious performance allowed to go on?"
No vote on second reading. It is nodded through. Not even enough opposition in the House for it to be voted on.
Just a handful of MPs shouting 'no'.
We now go into a super weird committee stage. Although that requires the deputy Speaker, who is currently not there.
Bercow desperately plays for time. Very slowly says: "I say with some confidence, another Chair arrive herelong, to take up his or her important duties."
Allison McGovern asks a point of order. Bercow leaps on it happily. "I'm deeply grateful to the hon lady, who may be indulged at greater lengths that might otherwise be the case."
Deputy Speaker, and chairman of ways and means, Lindsay Hoyle, finally arrives, to cheers.
OK, we're in committee. Mace is removed. Hoyle kicks off.
The two amendments: One brings the election forward from Dec 12th to Dec 9th. The other pushes it back to May 20th 2020.
Sorry, May 7th.
The latter amendment unlikely to get anywhere. The former one is where the action is.
Corbyn supports it. Lib Dems and SNP once said they did. If they back today it has decent chance. But would still need DUP and Indie Tory support.
Looks like May 7th amendment isn't going forward after all
Neil Gray, SNP, asks if govt will pull bill if amendment passes. Dowden doesn't answer. That strongly suggests they will not pull.
Think the chances of govt pulling the bill now really very small. An election for December is now pretty much a certainty.
SNP confirm they'll back the amendment on a Dec 9th date.
Huge Swire, Con, simply unable to get his shit together. Jabbering away about "any device or attempt to frustrate the public in having an election". He is literally talking about a difference of 3 days and still the nonsense about 'frustrating the people'.
Hell of a drug, populist nationalism.
Hoyle impressively strict on keeping MPs on topic and on time. "We are not broadening this debate. There are others who do wish to speak. You have answered the question at least five times already."
Tory MP Andrew Percy hits back: "Mr Speaker, we've got two hours for this debate."
Hoyle not having it. "You know exactly I'm relating this to the clause. I want you to speak to the clause. If not there are other members."
Reports starting to dribble into the Commons that the govt has done a deal and agreed to a date of Dec 9th, just as its MPs in there saying how unacceptable it would be.
Nigel Evans, Con: "If the news is that there is some deal done about the 9th December, it would be really instructive if we were to be told because clearly that would influence the contributions that we're going to make."
Quite hilarious. Please let me know the opinion I should express quickly because I am in danger of revealing that I do not hold it.
Steve Baker, Con, reassures him. "I just popped out to ask from an authoritative source whether we've given way on the date and I understand the government is not giving way on the date."
There's something charmingly Conservative, in the true sense of the word, about Tory MPs insisting the election has to be on a Thursday because it has always been on a Thursday.
Literally no other reason given, just that underlying assumption that because something was a given way in the past it should by all good sense be that way in the future.
Backwards-looking hogwash of course, on a logical and moral level. But actual bona-fide Conservatism, which, much as I disagree with it, I far prefer to the frenzied nationalism they've adopted recently.
Crispin Blunt mentions "European ideals". Something snaps quite suddenly in Bill Cash's soul. He looks alarmed and baffled.
"I'd be grateful if my hon friend could tell me," Cash asks, "if he has any evidence about what that ideal is. Has he heard anyone ever properly justify why they'd want to remain in this European Union?"
Blunt informs him gently that it is about internationalism and cooperation.
They made me do it. 
Division. MPs are now voting on amendment 2, which would change the proposed election date from December 12th to December 9th.
Things at stake here. First, student votes. Would the fact some unis had ended term prevent many from voting? The data suggests probably not.
Second: It would absolutely make sure the govt can't go back on its promise and try to bring back the WAB one more time before the election. But it really does seem unlikely they'd do that now and MPs could always vote it down if they did.
Third: Optics. Would show opposition parties having some sense of command in triggering the election.
Fifth: Govt says it needs this time to pass NI legislation. This will be a rush without it, but can be done quickly.
Sorry, that was fourth. Wine already doing its thing. Fifth, least discussed bu arguably most important: A Dec 9th vote would mean the election of the new Speaker would almost certainly take place int he next parliament rather than this one.
A Dec 12th date would mean parliament dissolves next Wednesday. A Dec 9th date would mean it dissolves Thursday night. The election for the Speaker was supposed to be on Monday.
That's a big deal actually. This parliament is independent, rebellious, confident. A new one would be full of fresh-faced MPs, possibly with a majority one way or the other.
Amendment defeated
Ayes: 295
Noes: 315
Ayes: 295
Noes: 315
That means the election is set for December 12th.
Govt won a vote. You don't see that every day.
Commons now back in session for third reading. Mace up.
Chris Leslie asks a point of order. He is trying to move a manuscript amendment for report stage. Deputy Speaker Elaanor Laing quite confused. Lots of objections from the Commons benches.
It's a confusing situation. Commons not used to doing things this fast. "Because the knife has fallen, amendments are not suitable for discussion at this time," Laing concludes.
MPs about to vote on third reading. Laing swaps out for Bercow. They may shout it through.
Nope. It's a division.
That was all a bit chaotic.
OK, if this goes through, we're on course for a general election on December 12th. House will sit until next Wednesday.
I remain a little suspicious that the govt will bring forward the WAB in the time available before then. Quite mad to do so of course, and completely against their commitments not to do so, but neither of those things are barriers to them doing things.
On the plus side: it will be this parliament, not the next one, which picks the next Speaker.
Goes without saying that the bill is very likely to pass.
It will then go the Lords, where they can amend it. There'll be a bit of jostling there. My understanding is Lords don't have programme motions and expect more time to scrutinise.
However, the unelected Chamber is unlikely to mess with what the elected Chamber is arranging for elections, of all things, and especially when it is implicit in the bill that they wish to proceed at speed.
This is a rare moment guys. Something is actually happening. Shit is about to change.
Unless we end up in a hung parliament of course. But you know. Things *might* change.
Bill passes
Ayes: 438
Noes: 20
Ayes: 438
Noes: 20
The election is on. It's happening.
Mogg is about to tell the Commons what it'll be doing until it is dissolved.
Series of points of order first. Soubry says that in private most agree that "a majority of backbenchers on all sides do not want a general election". She is right, probably, but odd given the vote that just happened.
She says fear has marked the end of this parliament.
Mogg up.
Business tomorrow is a general debate on the Grenfell report, then remaining stages on the NI budget bill. Says he'll make a further statement tomorrow regarding business for the rest of the week.
Labour accepts the business.
Sheerman: "There is a feel today that his statement isn't very full. He doesn't mention what's going to happen in the election of the Speaker. He has said nothing about PMQs this week. Could he fill us in a little more detail about what the hell is going on?"
Mogg says all normal sessions will continue as before. "I accept that I am not giving further business but this is fairly normal at the end of a parliament when we will have to look at what items have to be washed up and dealt with."
Ok that's it for the Chamber for tonight. Full report on what just happened in a bit. I'm going to write it up while chinning that wine.
Election 2019: Remainers have just been saved from what looked like near-certain defeat. They now have one last chance at victory politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/10/…
Full report on the shenanigans in parliament today and why opponents of Brexit have a lot to fight for.
Remainer's worst outcome is exactly the same as it was last week. But their best outcome has just markedly improved.
Right, now I'm going to drink this wine and eat this weird vegetarian haggis the missus bought. Night all.
