Rishi Sunak no doubt issued a sigh of relief last week when he saw off a threatened large-scale rebellion to see his Rwanda bill get through the Commons.
The next, day, however, he was in bullish mood, urging “the opposition in the appointed House of Lords” not to “try and frustrate the will of the people as expressed by the elected House”.
Read more: Rishi Sunak insists the Tories are 'completely united'
Today one of our readers argues that the PM is seeking to avoid serious scrutiny of the bill.
Denis Bruce of Bishopbriggs writes:
"How desperate must the Prime Minister be when he tells the upper chamber not to defy the will of the people?
"He is putting himself abroad as the champion of the people's wishes and presenting the revising chamber as the villains of the piece.
"His not-so-veiled threat to the unelected members of the House of Lords looks like an attempt to coerce them into giving his flagship bill an easy passage through the Upper House.
"It is almost as though he is casting the Lords in the same classification as he holds lefty lawyers to make them targets for the ire of the supporters of his Rwanda bill.
"I wonder just how many of those in the swollen House of Lords owe their preferment to Conservative governments?
Subscribe to our Letter of the Day newsletter
"The PM's attempt to influence the outcome of the bill's passage through the Lords reeks of a desire to subvert our unwritten constitution. Clearly he would rather mark his own homework than subject it to the serious scrutiny of that house.
"Such metaphorically strong-arm tactics will win him plaudits amongst those who long for the flights to Rwanda to begin but he diminishes himself in the eyes of those who believe in the importance of abiding by international law.
"His deflectionary tactic may play well in taking the heat off himself, pinning the blame on the usual suspects and winning him much-needed electoral popularity in the decisive year ahead.
"Lord Carlile's comment that this Government is going down a dangerous road with its manipulation of the law to suit its own ambition to remain in power, should not go unheeded."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel