Nikki da Costa
@nmdacosta
Followers
9K
Following
17K
Media
484
Statuses
6K
Ex Director of Legislative Affairs No10. Focus on parliament and Westminster. Think before you legislate! My postings on this site are my own personal views.
Joined June 2024
5 Sept - PMB ballot 17 Sept - Starmer says there will be a bill 3 Oct - Leadbeater announces her bill
đ¤Keir Starmer, 17 Sept 2024: âIt looks like after the draw, a[n assisted suicide] bill may come forward nowâ. But Kim Leadbeater didnât announce her Bill until 3 Oct. How was Starmer so confident? Did Number Ten really not influence Leadbeater?
12
114
223
So unedifying. Kitâs version of mine is bigger than yours? If you have to say itâŚ
And while I have enormous respect for you, David, our respective votes are not equivalent in constitutional character. I vote with electoral authority, you vote with a revising function that should not ultimately be decisive. An asymmetry central to the principle of primacy.
3
1
12
It's not about being ready someday, it's about being ready every day. Train at home with your own personal VR shooting simulator.
175
320
3K
Thereâs something bizarre about a Conservative MP overturning the whole constitution to try to force through this Assisted Su*cide bill. He knows there are constitutional means to do this: for the Commons to re-pass the bill in the next session & then use the Parliament Act.
And while I have enormous respect for you, David, our respective votes are not equivalent in constitutional character. I vote with electoral authority, you vote with a revising function that should not ultimately be decisive. An asymmetry central to the principle of primacy.
5
6
77
In late 2023, Keir Starmer was solemnly intoning âcountry before partyâ about every five minutes. We now know he was also planning to introduce a major social reform by the most reckless legislative means possibleâwhile hiding his involvementâto give himself âpolitical coverâ.
4
52
129
Also worth noting, if Kit is going to start in this vein, that assisted dying was in neither Labour's nor the Conservatives' manifestos, and for good reason the Salisbury Convention applies only to a) government legislation that was b) in the manifesto.
And while I have enormous respect for you, David, our respective votes are not equivalent in constitutional character. I vote with electoral authority, you vote with a revising function that should not ultimately be decisive. An asymmetry central to the principle of primacy.
1
3
36
The Cline CLI lets you run tasks headlessly from the terminal and integrate Cline anywhere. You can use him to power GitHub Actions, Discord bots, video game characters, and Linear tickets.
3
5
69
"Park opening hours: 0800 to 1600." "Ah, but this rule refers only to the hours of 0800 to 1600, so at other times it must be open."
@HCH_Hill Salisbury concerns deference to a governmentâs programme, not PMBs. Citing it here rather makes the point. with PMBs, the constitution relies solely on the hierarchy between an elected and an unelected House and Iâm genuinely alarmed that anyone thinks that hierarchy is in doubt
1
4
55
No. The specific limits on the House of Lords would be redundant if there was a general requirement that it must always yield to the Commons. The Lords is under no duty to approve a non-manifesto Private Members Bill. See:
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Assisted Dying Bill has been approved by the House of Commons. But unless the Parliament Act is invokved, it also needs the approval of the House of Lords if it is to become law. What constitutâŚ
A neat rhetorical move, but constitutionally upside down. The Lordsâ limits exist because the primacy of the elected House must be insulated from an unelected chamber, not because that primacy is in doubt. The settlement works to prevent precisely the scenario you imply.
6
69
241
But conversely the Lordsâ limits arenât non-existent because we recognise having some limits on Commonsâ powers is valuable. The guiding principle of the constitution is sovereignty of Parliament as a whole - that doesnât require totally unrestrained power for the Commons.
A neat rhetorical move, but constitutionally upside down. The Lordsâ limits exist because the primacy of the elected House must be insulated from an unelected chamber, not because that primacy is in doubt. The settlement works to prevent precisely the scenario you imply.
0
4
20
Mr âJudge Plusâ (wrongly) talking of rhetorical moves
A neat rhetorical move, but constitutionally upside down. The Lordsâ limits exist because the primacy of the elected House must be insulated from an unelected chamber, not because that primacy is in doubt. The settlement works to prevent precisely the scenario you imply.
4
11
78
Stir up the group chat with a "letâs go to Florida this weekend đâ
1
4
66
No, not rhetoric, but constitutional law. Lord Falconer has called for the House of Lords to vote down Commons private memberâs bills in the past.
A neat rhetorical move, but constitutionally upside down. The Lordsâ limits exist because the primacy of the elected House must be insulated from an unelected chamber, not because that primacy is in doubt. The settlement works to prevent precisely the scenario you imply.
3
31
147
Nonsense. We need the Lords to do their job properly.
NEW: In a joint letter, senior peers including 3 former cabinet secretaries and 3 former Lords speakers have warned peers not to use procedural manoeuvres to thwart the assisted dying bill. With 1,100+ amendments tabled, they warn the reputation of Parliament is on the line.
4
5
48
Even if the Bill got Royal Assent tomorrow, it wouldn't come into force for another 4 years (2029/30). And since this is for people who have 6 months left to live, it's impossible that the Lords taking an extra few months would make a difference Nonsense emotional blackmail
Assisted dyingâs disgraceful delay While peers obstruct the bill, many like my brother Nicholas are condemned to suffer By Jonathan Dimbleby
14
191
927
This is politics, not procedure. Thatâs legitimate, all the signatories are politicians, but itâs dishonest to pretend itâs merely constitutional advice. Any government has a simple answer to fix this: put the bill in a manifesto and win an election. That neutralises the Lords.
NEW: In a joint letter, senior peers including 3 former cabinet secretaries and 3 former Lords speakers have warned peers not to use procedural manoeuvres to thwart the assisted dying bill. With 1,100+ amendments tabled, they warn the reputation of Parliament is on the line.
13
49
319
One click, and your data could be exposed to AI agentsâforever? Inga Cherney, threat researcher and member of Cato CTRL, discusses how to develop a Zero Trust mindset when working with AI, and how to steer clear of hanging permissions in AI agents.
2
2
45
The simple fact is that the Lords takes longer than the Commons. Rule of thumb for business managers is 1.5 times as long in Committee. And then half that time again in Report. The Commons Public Bill Committee - of just 23 MPs - spent 11 days on line-by-line scrutiny 5/
0
4
27
And remember that Kim Leadbeater deliberately chose to waste December 2024 and January 2025. They didn't get started until end of January. They ate the clock now they want the time they frittered (with no explanation) back 4/
1
5
30
Constitution C'ttee: "Degree of deliberation, assessment and scrutiny is therefore significantly less than we would expect [for equivalent]...This is especially concerning given the subject matter of the Bill...close and detailed scrutiny... is particularly important. 3/
1
4
18
Which is why two Lords Committee's have been damning about the Bill The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded the bill âleave[s] so much to delegated legislation that there is insufficient detail or principle evident for proper Parliamentary scrutiny.â 2/
2
7
21
The deficiencies of Private Memberâs Bill process, and supporters' unreasonable expectations, do not justify curtailing scrutiny. They've cut corners since Day 1: The drafter said: "we didn't have time to go into all the detail...to make... provision on the face of the bill.â
NEW: In a joint letter, senior peers including 3 former cabinet secretaries and 3 former Lords speakers have warned peers not to use procedural manoeuvres to thwart the assisted dying bill. With 1,100+ amendments tabled, they warn the reputation of Parliament is on the line.
5
63
183
This article in the Sunday Times fundamentally misstates the constitutional role of the Lordsâbased, it seems, on an equally misleading open letter from former Cabinet Secretaries and others who ought to know better. The correct position is set out here:
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Assisted Dying Bill has been approved by the House of Commons. But unless the Parliament Act is invokved, it also needs the approval of the House of Lords if it is to become law. What constitutâŚ
A bizarre article in the Sunday Times: âAny attempt by the Lords to block a bill backed by the Commons would breach long-established constitutional conventionsâ. But there are no applicable conventions here. Lords are free to vote down this Bill.
10
63
203
Again? They accidentally send to the onside journalist of choice before it is actually sent to the recipients. How unfortunate!
This letter, presumably for Peers, is dated 7 December but an ITV journalist had & publicised it on 6 December. Is that good reputationally? The date is as misleading as the letter's claims. The Lords Constitution Committee & Hansard Society have ruled Peers CAN reject the Bill.
4
63
241
There are various limits on the Lordsâ powers, both legal and conventional. If it were true that âRespect for the primacy of the Commons is not optional; it is the foundation of our parliamentary legitimacyâ, none of them would be necessary. This letter both overstates and
NEW: In a joint letter, senior peers including 3 former cabinet secretaries and 3 former Lords speakers have warned peers not to use procedural manoeuvres to thwart the assisted dying bill. With 1,100+ amendments tabled, they warn the reputation of Parliament is on the line.
18
104
389