Dawn Butler did the right thing. But so did the Speaker by suspending her from Parliament for calling Boris Johnson a liar - and not suspending Johnson. Let me explain (pls don’t reply unless you read the thread) 1/12
Democratic governance depends on debates and facts. But honest debate can’t be guaranteed. Rules and practice can only promote and encourage. 2/
A rule allowing the Speaker to suspend Johnson for his statements would make the Speaker the arbiter of political truths. It would pretend that they can be decided as if by an impartial judge. 3/
It’s VOTERS who are the judges of whether politicians have told political lies, or made empty promises. Acting as if Johnson’s lies are merely improper debating conduct is bad politics. 4/
But the Speaker is well-placed to enforce rules about debating conduct. And those rules are important to promote honest debate. 5/
Calling “liar” in Parliament is a tactic which *as a rule* hurts honest debate. It allows liars to throw it around too, instead of being under pressure to talk facts. 6/
But *sometimes* breaking the rules of debate promotes honesty. There is a a national consensus that the Prime Minister is a constant liar. And for Parliament’s legitimacy and our wider public arguments, that needed to be said. 7/
And Dawn Butler said it well. Not as an angry riposte. But calm and clear. Deliberately knowing she would be suspended. 8/
That doesn’t mean the acting Deputy Speaker should have ignored Butler. Doing so would have made the Speaker the judge of political truths and promote the generally anti-truth debating tactic (see tweets above). 9/
So the Speaker had to punish Butler to uphold the rules of debate; Butler was still right to speak out. The rules don’t need changing and the Speaker shouldn’t be criticised. 10/
But the Speaker’s rule doesn’t apply to the media. The voters are entitled to frank arguments about the PM’s honesty. For journalists not to say “lies” and “liar” *there* look prissy and false - especially when even Johnson doesn’t genuinely disagree that he is a liar. 11/
So don’t criticise the Speaker. Those who oppose the liar Johnson lost the political arguments in the Tory Party and the country. The Speaker can’t change that. Only the voters can. 12/12
Why did @dAaronovitch agree to review - and celebrate - a book promoting the anti-trans movement, when he admits to knowing nothing about Bilek, the anti-semite celebrated by the anti-trans movement, who promotes the conspiracy theory of trans-humanism? Why didn’t he do his job?
On the same day Aaronovitch paraded his ignorance, the gender critical Proud Boys and QAnoners protested at Wi Spa, because a Christian activist invented a tale about a trans woman.
The anti-trans campaigners attacked a Guardian journalist. See thread.
From its creation in 1801 until 1962, the UK had no legal controls on free movement from the British colonies / empire to the UK, when *limited* controls were introduced 2/3
On 1 Jan 1973 UK ended this partial free movement for the colonies, and replaced it with free movement for the EEC. Until 30 Dec 2020. 3/3
Everyone granted leave to remain under UK’s EU Settlement Scheme is told by the Home Office that the “leave is issued in accordance with … the Withdrawal Agreement”. So is Colin right here? 1/
Law can be complex, but much complexity is avoidable, done by lawyers maybe well-meaning to “protect” clients from it / don’t want to use limited resources explaining. But egalitarian, public interest lawyering means making law comprehensible & accessible.
I know that very often my clients don’t think they will “get it”. But when I take time to explain it - they often do. Ofc, explaining may have to go beyond the law, to the motivations / biases of Gov decision-makers and judges. +
I spent time yesterday apologising to a client about how, a long time ago, when they were the partner of a client I didn’t take the time to make sure they understood the legal arguments we were making for them. +
Napier Barracks was deliberate. Immigration Ministers deliberately created a shortage of dispersal accomm during the pandemic, then used that as an excuse for urgently placing people in a barracks. Without safeguards.
In March 2020, senior civil servants urged Ministers to use the pandemic to drop their policy of allowing local authorities to veto placing asylum-seekers in empty flats and houses.
Ministers didn’t accept that advice. +
Instead, Ministers used their powers to create new temporary accommodation sites - regardless of local authority wishes.
Suitable for stays of days at most, asylum-seekers were forced to stay for months. +