Democracy needs checks and balances. But the undemocratic composition of the Lords deprives it of basic legitimacy
Almost everyone agrees the government’s Rwanda bill is a bad idea. Its effects on deterring immigration will be trivial. It fails to show that Rwanda will be a humane recipient of migrants. It delivers appalling value for huge sums of public money, and is a mere sop to rightwing voters. All these are reasons why the House of Commons should not have voted in its favour. But it did so, repeatedly, at the request of the elected government of the day. That request was made in order to meet the pledge Rishi Sunak made to “stop the boats”, despite polling showing that support for the Rwanda bill was low.
It follows a reverse last year of that policy in the supreme court, where the bill was found to be unlawful, necessitating the present bill to overrule its predecessor. The government desperately wants its bill to allow some deportation to take place this summer, which is why it has resisted a flurry of amendments passed by the House of Lords.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
