Speaker rejects Tory rebels’ foreign aid amendment

© Provided by The Guardian Photograph: House of Commons/PA

An attempt by rebel Conservative MPs to reverse foreign aid cuts has been thwarted after the House of Commons Speaker ruled their amendment was out of scope, but said the government must bring a vote on the issue.

Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary who led the rebel push said he had received clear advice from the clerks that the amendment would be acceptable and said the rebels would have won by a majority of at least nine MPs.

However, the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, said he had deemed that the amendment was not in scope of the bill, saying he had received advice from senior clerks. He said the government should bring the matter separately to the house, to test the will of MPs.

Hoyle said he would accept a request for an emergency debate on the issue – expected to take place on Tuesday – but any vote would be non-binding. He said he expected the government to quickly bring forward a vote on the decision to make the cut and hinted he would facilitate a binding vote if the government refused to bring one.

© Photograph: House of Commons/PA Sir Lindsay Hoyle said he would accept a request for an emergency debate on the issue – expected to take place on Tuesday – but any vote would be non-binding.

“I hope the government will take on that challenge and give this house the due respect that it deserves,” he said. “And if not, we will then look to find other ways in which we can move forward.”

One former minister said that rebels would apply for an emergency debate but also bring their amendment again “at the next possible opportunity … All this does is delay the inevitable. They know we have the numbers.”

Video: Question Time member accuses Tim Martin of supporting Brexit to ‘line his own pockets’ (The Independent)

Question Time member accuses Tim Martin of supporting Brexit to ‘line his own pockets’

SHARE

SHARE

TWEET

SHARE

EMAIL

Click to expand

Roger Stone claims Steve Bannon blackmailed Trump to get pardon Roger Stone claims Steve Bannon blackmailed Trump to get pardon The Independent

San Juan mayor:’Puerto Rico is Trump’s Katrina’ San Juan mayor:’Puerto Rico is Trump’s Katrina’ The Independent

Audits, Recounts And Lawsuits: Why We’re Still Looking At 2020 Ballots Seven months after the 2020 election, ballots are still under the microscope in a handful of states, and election experts worry the continued challenges are eroding confidence in our elections. “Just because January 6 happened and the insurrectionists were not successful, we are not out of the woods yet on this. And the longer that this kind of farce audit and continued questioning of the election is allowed to continue, the more danger that we are in,” said Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. In Arizona, the state Senate launched an audit in Maricopa County in April. But the voting machines had already been tested twice, and the 2.1 million ballots were already subject to three audits. All of those checks showed the 2020 election results were fair and accurate. But Maricopa County’s ballots are undergoing yet another inspection.  “Do you know what they’re looking for? Or what they think they’re going to find?””I think at the end of the day, what this is designed to do is continue to undermine the integrity of our elections, put questions in people’s minds that they can’t trust future elections, and lay the groundwork for not only doing this in other states with regard to the 2020 election, but setting up future election challenges,” said Hobbs.Arizona isn’t alone. The Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly hired former police officers to investigate the 2020 election. Cheboygan County, Michigan officials want to allow an outside group to audit their voting machines.  And in Georgia, a group of residents filed a lawsuit to get access to Fulton County’s mail-in ballots.”We don’t know until we’ve actually seen them. But there appear to be tens of thousands that could be potentially counterfeit. And that could have been enough to switch the results here in Georgia,” said Garland Favorito, one of the petitioners in the Fulton County case. They believe examining ballot markings and paper folds will prove that fraudulent votes were counted. But David Becker from the Center for Election Innovation & Research says benign reasons could explain what they think is fraud.”There are tons of reasons ballots might not be folded. It might be that a mail ballot was actually returned by hand. And it might be that it was returned in a different kind of envelope that was given,” said David Becker, Executive Director and Founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research.Favorito’s case relies on affidavits, as did many of the lawsuits related to the 2020 election. The people who signed those sworn statements presumably believe the accusations they’re making are true, but affidavits that haven’t been cross-examined or analyzed aren’t exactly hard evidence. “Everyone who’s looked at these affidavits, every court has found that the people didn’t know what they were talking about. They didn’t actually allege anything that was fraudulent or a problem, or they actually got facts wrong,” said Becker. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is confident in the 2020 election results. His office completed a Risk Limiting Audit which included a hand count of the state’s 5 million ballots. But he supports the citizen effort in Fulton County, saying the ballot inspection would “provide another layer of transparency.”Small discrepancies are to be expected with election audits, but sometimes they can uncover concerning errors. That’s what happened in Windham, New Hampshire, with a race for state representative. Out of 10,000 ballots cast, the initial recount found 300 more votes for some candidates, and 100 less for another. The investigation determined the problem stemmed from how the ballots were folded.All told, none of the various recounts, audits or legal challenges have impacted the results of the presidential election. Experts say that should give voters more confidence, not less.”We’re seeing better vote-casting methods with paper ballots. We’re seeing more audits with better methodology. Things are trending in the right direction. So the evidence is all stacked in, yes, our elections are getting more secure,” said Ben Adida, the executive director of VotingWorks. Despite that, polling shows large numbers of Republican voters still don’t trust the 2020 election results. And it so far seems unlikely any number of audits or recounts will change that.”It happens in a democracy there’s a winning side and there’s a losing side. But I think it has to start with truth. And to be honest, also that benefits the losing side. A side that has lost an election, and then misdiagnoses the reason that they lost, is doomed to continue losing elections,” said Becker.  The Independent

UP NEXT

It is understood supporters in the Lords are also examining how the issue could be brought to a vote.

Mitchell told the House of Commons: “The government frontbench are treating the Houses of Parliament and the Commons with disrespect. Had we secured a vote on the new clause tonight I can assure the house it would have secured the assent of the house by not less than a majority of nine and probably around 20 votes.

“In the week of British chairmanship of the G7 the government’s failure to address this issue will undisputedly mean that hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths will result. It is already attracting criticism from all round the other members of the G7.”

The planned rebellion, backed by at least 30 Conservative MPs including the former prime minister Theresa May and led by Mitchell, followed the announcement last year that the amount of money spent on overseas aid would be cut from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%, amounting to a reduction of about £4bn.

Other supporters included the former ministers Jeremy Hunt, Karen Bradley, Tobias Ellwood, Johnny Mercer and David Davis, senior backbenchers including Bob Neill and Bob Blackman, and the 2019 intake member Anthony Mangnall.

However, MPs had made clear they hoped to reach a compromise with the government, saying the amendment would be pulled if there was agreement to restore the 0.7% commitment in 2022.

Earlier, Mitchell said he believed his amendment was a “totally-in-order new clause that reaffirms the promise that we all made just 18 months, every single one of us elected to the House of Commons, the promise we made not to cut aid”.

He said: “Throughout all these seven months, the government has not been willing to bring a vote to the House of Commons, because they’re frightened they’re going to lose it, and I think they’re right, I think they’re very likely to lose it because those of us who made the solemn promise are not going to allow the books in Britain to be balanced on the backs of the poorest people in the world.”

In the run-up to the announcement, wavering Tory MPs were called by the prime minister and by the chief whip, Mark Spencer, and one Tory said Spencer and the Commons leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg, were applying “pressure” over the selection of the amendment.

Ministers have said the aid cut is necessary as a temporary measure – though they did not say for how long it would be in place – because of the economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic.

Johnson’s spokesman refused to say what personal lobbying of prospective rebels the prime minister had been doing behind the scenes. He added ministers were committed to returning to 0.7% spending levels “as soon as the fiscal situation allows”.