Most US Presidents have done dubious pardons – Clinton re Marc Rich and Joe Biden re Hunter Biden etc.

But as the libertarian Cato Institute point out, Trump’s pardons are in a different league:

Biden’s pardons eliminated roughly $680,000 in financial penalties (fines, restitution, and forfeitures) owed to victims or the government. In contrast, Liz Oyer, the former lead pardon attorney of the United States, has calculatedthat Trump’s second-term pardons have forgiven criminal debts of more than $1.5 billion. This staggering sum—composed of money owed to crime victims and to government treasuries—has been zeroed out by presidential edict.

$1.5 billion owed, wiped out by the President. This is more than a thousand times as much as before.

Trump has normalized the pardoning of disgraced politicians, such as former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez (who orchestrated a spree of state-sponsored drug trafficking leading to a 45-year prison term), Nevada legislator Michele Fiore (who embezzled $70,000 out of a police memorial fund for personal expenses like rent and plastic surgery), Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins (who handed out badges to untrained businessmen in exchange for $75,000 in bribes), and Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada (who defrauded state government with a fake-payee kickback scheme).

The Honduran pardon especially is unbelievable.

Trump pardoned Paul Walczak (who evaded millions of dollars in taxes) after Walczak’s mother raised millions of dollars for MAGA candidates and paid a million dollars to dine with the president at Mar-a-Lago. Trevor Milton—the securities fraudster mentioned above—donated $1.8 million to Trump’s campaign before a presidential pardon wiped out all $660 million of his restitution obligations. (That is, if nothing else, an impressive ROI.) 

Indeed, an excellent return on investment – for the criminal, not the justice system.

Another Trump pardon recently immunized Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar (D) and his wife from prosecution for receipt of bribes. Trump evidently hoped Cuellar would return the favor by switching parties to the GOP; when that didn’t happen, the president released an angry statement on Truth Social, criticizing Cuellar for “Such a lack of LOYALTY, something that Texas Voters, and Henry’s daughters, will not like. Oh’ well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy!” Previous presidents would surely take offense at the suggestion that a pardon could be traded for something of value; Trump took offense apparently because Cuellar didn’t hold up his end of the trade. 

He doesn’t even pretend!

At least the specter of corruption in previous presidential administrations (Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, or Biden’s pardon of his son) appeared to be an exception to the rule. Today, however, the evidence is piling up that, for this president, corruption is the rule, not the exception.

Yep.

Chuck Norris has died aged 86. Some facts about Chuck Norris:

• When Chuck Norris arrived at the gates of Heaven, St. Peter showed his ID to Chuck Norris.
• Chuck Norris got Coronavirus. Now the Coronavirus is in isolation.
• Chuck Norris doesn’t have any enemies. Well, not anymore.
• Jaws stays on the beach when Chuck Norris swims. .
• Chuck Norris was once run over by a tank. He refused to pay for it.
• Chuck Norris was given a Tonka truck for his 5th birthday, the result is the Grand Canyon.
• Chuck Norris went to a feminist rally and came back with his shirt ironed and holding a sandwich.
• Chuck Norris found the last digit of pi.
• Chuck Norris once walked away from a fight with two broken ribs and a dislocated arm. He hasn’t given them back yet…
• North Korea’s borders are closed to prevent Chuck Norris from entering.
• Chuck Norris’ hands are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Feel free to include your favourite ones in comments.

The Education Select Committee released a report into harms online and young people. They found:

• That the Government establish an independent national regulator for online safety in New Zealand
• That the Government progress its consideration of restricting social media access for under-16-year-olds,
• Ban “nudify” apps and prohibit the creation and distribution of non-consensual
  deepfake sexual imagery

The last recommendation. is sensible, and I doubt anyone opposes it.

On balance I support restricting social media for under 16 year olds, so long as it canoe done in a way that doesn’t require NZers to scan in their ID to use social media.

I don’t support a government regulator for the Internet. The Australian version has become a monster. We have Netsafe which does a good job, and CERT.

A guest post by a reader:

The Prime Minister wants a culture of ‘yes.’ A New Zealand that builds. An RMA replacement premised on the enjoyment of property rights. He has said so many times, in many rooms, and with great conviction. 

Good on him. It is what would-be homeowners need, too.

But Auckland’s actual homeowners got upset about apartments. Then the Prime Minister discovered the word ‘impose.’

Here is what happened. Housing Minister Chris Bishop directed Auckland Council to plan for two million homes. Residents in leafy National strongholds like Remuera, Mt Eden and Botany were furious. 

David Seymour, the man who spent a decade fighting for property rights and against the RMA’s culture of ‘no,’ became one of the most prominent opponents of intensification in his own electorate. Not in my backyard, Minister.

The PM heard the feedback. He slashed the target to 1.6 million and told the Herald that suburban intensification ‘should go away.’ So far, so political. Governments listen, governments adjust. Nothing new. 

But then Luxon revealed what he really thinks about property rights and zoning. He did not want, he explained, to ‘impose intensification’ on people.

Read that again.

Intensification is not something imposed on people. It is something property owners do with their own land. When your neighbour builds a townhouse, that is not the state imposing anything on you. That is your neighbour exercising the very property right the Government’s RMA replacement is supposed to protect.

By framing building as imposition, the Prime Minister has, apparently inadvertently, articulated a principle that demolishes the foundation of his own reform. If a landowner simply building on their own land counts as imposing on the neighbourhood as a whole, then the neighbourhood has grounds to object. It is exactly how the RMA works now. It is exactly what the replacement was supposed to fix.

Seymour said, ‘Not in my backyard (electorate).’ Luxon replied, ‘Understood, we will remove your constituents’ right to build.’ The property rights champion and the property rights Prime Minister, dancing a perfect tango to undermine the property rights reform.The old RMA gave everyone a veto over everyone else’s land. The new one promised to end all that. Instead, the Prime Minister has just explained why it should continue. He is simply too pleased with his own reasonableness to realise it.

The Herald reports:

Dr Isabelle Chambefort, general manager – energy at Earth Sciences New Zealand (formerly GNS Science), makes it clear minerals have always been critical.

“Humanity has been developed around mining.

“It has been the keystone of civilisation. It gave economic stability and gave us an increase in our technology.”

Since ochre and flint played their early part in human development, minerals with names like vanadium, germanium and zirconium have taken up the “critical” mantle.

“With the transition away from fossil fuels to more renewable energy, it is highly demanding on new materials, new minerals and new elements.”

The anti mining activists think we should leave everything in the ground, and just import it all from China. I think that is daft. In fact it is critical we are as self reliant as possible when it comes to critical minerals. Here’s a few on the list just published by the Government.

• Zirconium: Fuel cells, auto catalysts, bearings
• Antimony: Defence, electric vehicles (EVs), medical
• Cesium: Cancer treatments, electronics, optics, aerospace, photovoltaic cells
• Cobalt: Battery and energy storage applications, steel alloys, fertiliser and livestock health
• Copper: Power transmission, electronics, EVs, fertiliser and livestock health
• Zinc: Anodising, corrosion protection, fertiliser and livestock health

As the rules based order fades, it becomes even more vital we mine as much as we can of the critical minerals we need, rather than rely on supply chains that can disappear within days.

I saw this online:

CANZUK International has released a comprehensive public opinion analysis examining attitudes toward a proposed CANZUK alliance among citizens in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. …

New Zealand: 75% Support

In New Zealand, 75% favored participation in a CANZUK alliance, with only 18% opposed and 7% unsure.

I was interested in which polling company was used for the NZ portion, as I assumed it was a poll. But you had to download the full report to find the following:

The methodology employed digital sentiment analysis, a modern, large-scale approach that synthesises weighted favourability signals from a broad range of public discourse. This included social media comments, likes, shares, reposts, news articles, op-eds, editorials, informal online polls, and digital petition activity.

Advanced artificial intelligence tools—incorporating natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning models—were used to classify sentiment, detect contextual nuance (including sarcasm and mixed views), and weight contributions from verified geographic sources. Unlike traditional probability-based polling (e.g., random-digit-dial telephone surveys or stratified online panels), this method draws on organic, unprompted conversations rather than prompted responses.

Sentiment analysis can be very useful and interesting. I know the Trump campaign relied on it greatly. I am a fan of sentiment analysis.

However I am not a fan of presenting sentiment analysis as what most people would think is a poll result. Saying in NZ 75% favoured participation implies a scientific poll.

What they should have said is something along the lines of

“Online sentiment analysis in New Zealand found 75% of comments were favourable towards CANZUK”. You shouldn’t have to download the full report to find it it wasn’t actually a poll.

An Area Standards Committee of the Law Society fined Stephen Franks and Franks Ogilvy for, well being lawyers. They sent a letter on behalf of their client to health professionals involved in “gender affirming care”.

The ASC found that they had “used a legal process for an improper purpose”, censured them and fined them.

I have no doubt that the decision to censure them was related to the policy position of their clients.

They appealed to to Legal Complaints Review Officer, who overturned the decision. He noted:

The very purpose of a lawyer or firm sending a letter on behalf of a client is, in many if not most instances, to endeavour to lend weight to whatever concern, position or purpose the client seeks to express or advance. That is what lawyers do. This is why a client comes to its lawyer and says, “we need a lawyer’s letter about this”. This cannot conceivably be improper in principle.

Except to woke activists who think certain topics are beyond debate.

Advocacy organisations and lobby groups seek to put pressure on those holding opposing views and/or engaging in practices they consider objectionable in every walk of life all the time. Numerous, obvious examples solely in the health care field include abortion, assisted dying, recreational drug use, fluoridation, vaccination, blood transfusion and so on. Gender-related health care services are in no special category. Examples outside the health care sector are similarly legion.

Such a good ruling from the LCRO.

To exert pressure on a health care provider to refrain from undertaking medical procedures that a relevant interest group objects to, on whatever grounds, is legitimate provided the means of doing so is lawful. A lawyer writing a letter on behalf of a lobbyist client expressing the client’s views on a policy issue and on potential future legal developments in the field and asserted legal risks associated with it is a lawful activity.

The Committee’s finding that the applicants’ purpose in doing so was not proper, in terms of the first limb of r 2.3, cannot stand.

The members of the Area Standards Committee should be ashamed they weaponised the law so badly in their decision. Well it was a split decision, so the majority members anyway.

A journalist asked Nicola Willis whether she would advise people to “ease back on the accelerator” or consider working from home due to higher petrol prices.

Nicola explicitly said she was “very reluctant to adopt the role of the schoolma’am telling people what to do with their own lives”. She went on to say that people will make their own choices based on their circumstances. That NZers are sensible. So she was explicitly saying, no she won’t tell people what to do.

She carried on and said most Kiwis already know you can save fuel if your car weighs less, or you drive slower. Again this was in the context of her saying they don’t need to be told this by the Government.

So what does Labour do? They run a campaign taking the last few words of her answer, to make it look like she is telling people to drive slower etc.

It is a tactic of desperation.

As most readers will know, Stuff ran a story that said PM Luxon had asked the Samoan Government to give him a title.

This was a hugely damaging story. Anyone who read that would think incredibly poorly of Luxon.

It was false. This is beyond doubt. This has been confirmed by both Governments.

Now to be fair to Stuff, the Samoan PM did say that the NZ High Commissioner said that Luxon had asked for it. So that was newsworthy.

However where Stuff went wrong, was rushing out a story before they got a response from Luxon, MFAT etc. There was no journalistic justification for this. This was not an urgent story. Once upon a time media would put a negative allegation to someone for comment, before running a story. Why did Stuff not wait for a response from Luxon’s office and/or MFAT?

Did no one at Stuff think how unlikely it was that the claim was true, and that they should wait for a response before running a story that would lower the view of the PM in the eyes of anyone who saw it?

As it happened, the Samoan PM was wrong, or confused, or just making things up. If Stuff had waited for a response from MFAT and Luxon’s office, then they would have been able to run an accurate story. But instead they ran a story that many saw, and not all will have seen the later story. Even now there are many on social media who are quoting the original story, and spreading it.

It seems some claims need to be authenticated before publishing, but not others.

Nicola Willis wrote:

Chris Hipkins has let the truth slip about Labour’s Covid spending.

On Newstalk ZB yesterday he admitted the Labour Government would have gone ahead with many of its spending decisions even without the cover of the pandemic.

That matters, because the Covid Royal Commission found about half of the $60 billion spent in the name of the pandemic went on unrelated programmes and projects.

Both the Royal Commission and Treasury say that spending pushed up the cost of living and government debt.

In other words, the pandemic became a convenient excuse to spend taxpayers’ money on things Labour wanted to do anyway.

And if Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori get another chance, they’ll do it again: borrow more, spend more, tax more.

This is a very important point. They used the tragedy of a global pandemic to raid taxpayers pockets for a spending splurge. They spent $30 billion meant for Covid-19 recovery on every pet project they had. This meant that National inherited a permanent structural deficit, and increasing debt.

Now as we face a potential oil crisis due to the Iran conflict, the Government has less ability to cushion us from this global shock, because of what Hipkins and Robertson did.

They promised in 2017 to keep spending below 30% of GDP. I thought 28% would have been a better cap (our long-term average) but hey both Labour and Greens said they would cap it at 30%, and I could live with that.

They used the excuse of Covid-19 to load an additional $30 billion of non-covid expenditure onto the books, and blew spending up to 34% of GDP – a level way way in excess of our tax take. It was an act of economic sabotage that leaves us today much more vulnerable to the Middle East crisis that we would have been.

It is the inevitable consequence of a non-adversarial fact-finding system that no matter how competent and diligent the fact-finder, mistakes are made in the findings. For example, in my case the IPCA said that I was 2-3 metres from the edge of the kerb when I was arrested, whereas in fact I was five metres exactly (I measured it). The IPCA also made various other minor errors in the report, including for example the following:

[150] We accept that, when Police first saw Lucy, she was holding a sign above her head and shaking it as Police describe, because she wanted the protestors to notice her and read her sign. That’s why she was there. Being noticed is the purpose of any protest or counter-protest.

The IPCA also said in para 84 that I was “waving” my sign.

In fact I did not wave around my sign. Even if I had wanted to (and to be honest waving signs around is not my style) I did not have time to because the Police started assaulting me within seconds of my arrival without speaking to me first. But it did not occur to the IPCA to ask me whether I was waving it. That is now problematic because another police officer has now come forward with a statement saying that I was “jousting” my arms up and down before the Police engaged with me, and accordingly said that my body language did not appear peaceful. In fact none of this is true.

More importantly however, the IPCA found that some of the officers who arrested me (although by no means all) did so in good faith. This is because one of them before the second video came out of my arrest told the IPCA that I was not yelling (which contradicted the evidence of the other officers). The reason that she did that was because telling the truth about that aspect of the evidence (when at the time if she had said that I was yelling I would not have been able to prove otherwise) meant that she had a massive credibility boost, and she knew that she would accordingly be given the benefit of the doubt that the arrest itself was in good faith. This strategy succeeded.

However, this could not have happened if I had been made aware of the IPCA’s thinking on the matter, because I could have pointed out that aspects of the officer’s evidence were untrue. For example, she says that Senior Sergeant Vaughan Perry was speaking to me before the police started assaulting me, which I believe that I can prove is not true. (I shall not go into the evidence in that regard now.) She said that because she was one of the people who assaulted me and she wanted to justify doing so, whereas she knew that assaulting me without speaking to me first would be illegal. There are a number of other aspects of her evidence which are also (in my opinion) provably untrue.

Accordingly, the IPCA is not minded at present to prosecute her for her actions. When I heard that this was the decision I kicked up a fuss and asked to be heard on the matter, but it is much harder to get the IPCA to change its findings retrospectively than it would have been if I had heard about it before the IPCA report came out. The Police by contrast get to see IPCA reports in advance where adverse comment is made, so they can provide comment of their own.

I do not hold it against the IPCA that they overlooked a slippery witness such as she: I see it as an ordinary consequence of a non-adversarial fact-finding system, rather than an indictment on IPCA competence. Mistakes will inevitably be made when both sides are not properly heard. In my opinion, the law needs to be changed to allow complainants to see IPCA reports in advance of publication, to avoid problems exactly like this. It is not fair that the Police get to see IPCA reports in advance of publication where adverse comment is made about them, but not complainants.

In the meantime, it is important that the public know that the IPCA’s articulation of the facts in public reports tends to favour Police, not because the IPCA are biased but because of the way the system works. (I note of course that IPCA staff did not choose this system.) When the Police can comment to their heart’s content (and when complainants have to fight blindfold with our hands tied behind our backs) that is simply the inevitable consequence. Unfortunately, I don’t think most complainants appreciate this, and so (I suspect) tend to attribute small mistakes in IPCA reports to IPCA sympathy for Police. It is yet another reason for widespread public distrust in the IPCA.

The Medical Council has proposed a statement on cultural competence that is basically a political litmus test. It is outrageous overreach, and an example of why Parliament needs to rein in all these regulatory bodies.

No one would object to a statement that doctors must be respectful of all cultures and beliefs, while undertaking their medical duties. But this goes far further. Extracts are:

• “Historical and ongoing colonisation means that Māori are prevented from accessing resources that promote good health and experience much higher exposure to health harms compared to non-Māori.” – This is a political assertion, not a medical fact. It is true Maori have worse health outcomes, but saying it is due to colonisation is a political statement
• “using your professional privilege and influence to work in partnership with Māori to identify and dismantle unfair systems and power imbalances that undermine hauora Māori.” – this means you must agree with our view of the world, and actively campaign for what we believe

The Taxpayer’s Union has done a report listing 103 ways local government can save money. Some of the more significant ones which I support are:

• Install water meters
• Avoid excessive advertising
• Do regional shared services
• Don’t rebrand
• Stop postal billing
• Sell unused assets
• Pay market rates for jobs, no more
• Stop corporate welfare
• Leave social housing to central government
• Let the ETS reduce greenhouse gas emissions

In this part, I look at how often urgency has been used to bypass select committee consideration of a bill, and also how often the 6 months standard consultation period has been reduced.

This practice is what should most strongly be pushed back. Bypassing select committee robs the public of the ability to submit on laws, and also for technical improvements to be identified.

This data, from the Clerk’s Office excludes money bills, or bills that the House (by leave) or Business Committee agreed to bypass select committee. So this is just bills that would normally go to select committee.

2015 was an unacceptably high year with 10 bills bypassing select committee. Then from 2017 to 2019 it was at more modest levels. It did rise to six in 2019 which is still quite high. Now in 2020 it went to 11, but many would agree that the Covid-19 emergency meant some (but not all of these) had to be done urgently.

However very high levels continued in 2021 and 2022 at 9 and 13. In 2023 there were 4 passed before the election and six afterwards. I do think you can justify a small number of law changes under urgency after an election, when they are repealing laws as part of a manifesto commitment.

But in 2024 it has been a huge 15 and 13 bills that bypassed select committee. This is way too many. Basically National passed 28 bills without select committee in two years, and Labour did 22. This is not a competition you want to win.

In any calendar year I would expect that the number of bills that bypass select committee due to urgency should be less than five as it was from 2016 to 2018.

Now another thing we are seeing more and more of is the House instructing a select committee to report a bill back in less than the standard six months timeframe. Now again there are times when this can be justified. Not every law needs months of submissions and consideration. Also a reduced select committee process is superior to no select committee process at all. Even a two week period to submit is better than nothing. However a shorter period should be the exception, not the rule.

So the proportion of bills that had a normal select committee process was 58% in 2015, around 80% from 2016 to 2018, and then a big drop to 44% in 2019. Since then it has rarely been over 50%.

A 3 to 5 months report back isn’t a huge shortening of time. But those with under 3 months are challenging. They often will have only a week or two for submissions.

So what proportion of bills had no or a very short select committee process. In 2016 to 2018 it was around 10% (ignoring the short post-election period). In 2019 it was 22%, then 40% in Covid-19 2020 and in the high 20s from 2021 to 2023. In 2024 it was 30% and in 2025 dropped back to 16%.

I started collecting this data because I was concerned that the National-led Government has been using urgency too often, and bypassing or shortening select committee too often. And I believe they clearly have been. However I was surprised to see that the Labour Government in 2021 and 2022 wasn’t much better (and with far less attention paid to it). 2020 was a justifiable reason for use of urgency, but not 2021 and 2022.

Hopefully 2026 will see less use of urgency, especially to bypass select committee.

The standard hours of the House are 17 hours a week, of which four hours are used for question time and general debate. The Government in its own right can do an extended sitting for four hours. The Business Committee can extend it even further.

It could even be time to look at making Wednesday and Thursday morning house sittings routine. That would be preferable to having so much urgency.

The Post reports:

Former wife of Labour leader Chris Hipkins, Jade Paul, has posted a series of unsubstantiated personal claims about their relationship on social media – claims Hipkins says he “reject[s] entirely”.

In a social media post referencing Labour’s election campaign themes of health, housing and jobs, Paul described a number of alleged incidents from their time together and criticised the behaviour of men in positions of power.

The claims portray Hipkins in a very negative light. As noted by the media, he has rejected them entirely.

The background:

The British-born public servant made the post on Sunday evening while on holiday in Fiji with their young son and daughter. The Post asked for her permission to report on her allegations.

The couple married at Premier House in 2020 after around six years together. Then-Finance Minister Grant Robertson was best man and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern also attended the garden wedding.

She has said in a story on Stuff that asked if she would comment “No, other than I stand by everything I’ve said in the post.”

Now it is not unusual for a relationship to end badly, and a partner to feel aggrieved. I think it is very unfortunate for things to play out in public, especially with children involved.

But the unusual thing here is what Hipkins said three years ago:

“A year ago, my wife and I made the decision that we would live separately, that we would do everything we can to raise our children together.

“We remain incredibly close. She’s still my best friend. …”

Now it is very very hard to reconcile what Hipkins said in 2023, with what Paul is saying today. Either Hipkins was lying in 2023 when he said Paul was still his best friend and they were incredibly close, or something has happened since then so that they have gone from being best friends to threatened defamation lawsuits.

I generally think media should not report on personal issues around politicians. In 2006 Labour MPs harangued Don Brash in the House about Diane Foreman, and media reported on the affair. and chased him around the country seeking a response from him. They shouldn’t have.

It is a more difficult call when a family member states things in a public forum. The David Lange affair was not reported on until Lange’s wife and mother went to the media about it. That made it hard to ignore!

NB: As the allegations are contested, please do not link to them or summarise them in the comments. Doing so will get you suspended.

John Davidson has Tourette syndrome. He has the variety where he uncontrollably yells out offensive things. It isn’t what he is really thinking. It is just part of who he is. He has campaigned for awareness of this condition and was awarded an MBE. When he received it from QEII he exclaimed “f**k the queen”. She had been briefed and didn’t react, and just congratulated him on his award. He called the then Prince Charles an effing parasite, and again no reaction.

A film on his life, I Swear, was up for six BAFTA Awards. He was in the audience for it. The entire audience had been warned he was in attendance, and his condition means he may exclaim things. And so he did. He yelled out the N word at two black presenters. Now it is one thing to curse the Queen to her face, but the usual suspects decided that he must really be a closest racist and proceeded to rip into him.

The irony is great. All these lovelies were at the awards to praise a film highlighting his disability, But when he displayed the very same disability, many of them were horrified and condemned him.

The furore reminded me of a hilarious Southpark episode ages ago when Cartman found out about Tourette’s, and pretend to have it so he could be, well, Cartman.

As a keen follower of Parliament, one of the issues I have tracked in the past has been use of urgency. Back in around 2011 I was concerned about the amount of urgency being used, and actually worked with Grant Robertson and Trevor Mallard to publicise its use and overuse. I am told that campaign was part of the following reduction in urgency.

I’ve been meaning to do a follow up for some time, as there has been a lot of urgency in the last two years.

Now I am not one of those who think all use of urgency is bad. If urgency just involves the House sitting later at night, that isn’t a bad thing. The urgency which I think is most problematic is when select committee processes are entirely bypassed. This is generally bad as it robs the public of a say, and eliminate the ability of submitters to point out flaws in the bill.

There are sometimes reasonable grounds to bypass select committee. Budget or tax measures. A simple repeal. A change that was widely debated and submitted on in the very recent past – so all the issues are known. But these should be the exception. In Part 2, I will get more into this.

In Part 1 I wish to look first just as how many hours the House is sitting each year, and what proportion of these are in urgency.

I tend to think more sitting hours is not a bad thing. I want MPs passing laws. There is always a big back log of bills on the order paper. So we can see that 2024 and 2025 were some of the longest house sessions with 566 and 644 hours respectively. The average is 508 hours.

Now let us look at what proportion of the total hours were under urgency.

Here I have divided years with a change of government up into pre and post election. The short sessions after the 2008 and 2023 elections saw a high use of urgency as the incoming Governments repealed on introduced laws or bills in line with their manifestos. I don’t have a big issue with that. So let’s focus on the other years.

In 2009 and 2010 urgency was over 20% of the House sitting time. After extended sittings came in, it was generally 10% or less. In 2020 it rose to 30%, for obvious Covid-19 reasons. In 2021 and 2022 it was 11% to 13%. However prior to the 2023 election it was 25% in 2023. In 2024 it was 28% and in 2025 it hit a high of 32%. So last year almost one in three hours of the House was in urgency.

If we look at raw numbers, they are:

So over 150 hours of urgency in 2024 and over 200 hours in 2025. They are both record numbers.

Now again, not all urgency is bad. In Part 2 I will go into how often urgency was used to have bills avoid select committees. That is the use of most concern.

The Telegraph reports:

A short video went viral last weekend that briefly restored my faith in British policing. It showed a female Metropolitan Police officer standing alone in Whitechapel, surrounded by a crowd of angry Muslim men, calmly defending the right of a Christian street preacher to preach.

“In this country, we have freedom of speech,” she told them. The officer then added: “I understand that you guys don’t want to hear it, so I would just recommend that you walk away and don’t listen to him. He’s not in your home.” This was met with incredulity by the men, who seemingly could not believe the officer wasn’t immediately placing the preacher in handcuffs.

Hoping to spur her into action, one of them pointed out they were in “a Muslim area”. Happily, this ridiculous argument did not cut the mustard with the unblinking officer. There is no such thing in law as a “Muslim area” into which Christian preachers are forbidden to trespass.

I don’t know the officer’s name – the Metropolitan Police have declined to comment – but she deserves a medal. What she demonstrated, under considerable pressure, was a good grasp of the law: that a person preaching peacefully in a public place is exercising a right protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and that the feelings of offended bystanders, however loudly expressed, are irrelevant. Unfortunately, she is the exception rather than the rule.

Once upon a time, a UK police officer correctly understanding and applying the law around freedom of speech would have been unremarkable. But today, it is a rarity as more and more street preachers are arrested for saying something someone finds offensive.