Peers are set to impose a fresh defeat on the prime minister. The Safety of Rwanda bill will return to the upper chamber on Wednesday, with peers expected to seek to amend the legislation yet again.
Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache when the Rwanda deportation bill returns to the House of Lords.
Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache when the Rwanda deportation bill returns to the House of Lords, with peers set to impose a fresh defeat on the prime minister. The Safety of Rwanda bill will return to the upper chamber on Wednesday, with peers expected to seek to amend the legislation yet again. It comes after MPs overturned all attempts by the House of Lords to change Mr Sunak's deportation legislation. This is a significant setback for Mr Sunak as he had hoped that flights to Kigali would take off this spring, but further delays by peers could push back until June.
Is there any chance that Rishi Sunak's government will be able to pass the Rwanda deportation bill without facing further defeats in the House of Lords?
Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache when the Rwanda deportation bill returns to the House of Lords, with peers set to impose a fresh defeat on the prime minister.
The Safety of Rwanda bill will return to the upper chamber on Wednesday, with peers expected to seek to amend the legislation yet again. It comes after MPs overturned all attempts by the House of Lords to change Mr Sunak's deportation legislation.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Rishi Sunak has maintained his hope of flights to Kigali taking off this spring despite further delays by peers. However, it is not clear from the article whether or not these flights will actually take place and if so when they will do so.
The Safety of Rwanda bill seeks to rule it a 'safe' country in British law, blocking asylum seekers from being able to appeal deportations.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the government saw off 10 amendments from peers and accusing them of trying to wreck the legislation. This is a form of ad hominem attack as it attacks the character or motives of those who disagree with him rather than addressing their arguments directly.
The Safety of Rwanda bill seeks to rule it a 'safe' country in British law, blocking asylum seekers from being able to appeal deportations.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Archie Mitchell and he has a clear political bias. He uses language that dehumanizes asylum seekers by referring to them as 'illegal migrants' and portrays their actions as a threat to society. The author also implies that those who oppose the Rwanda bill are trying to block it, which is not accurate.
The author implies that those who oppose the Rwanda bill are trying to block it
The author refers to asylum seekers as 'illegal migrants'
The author uses language that dehumanizes and portrays their actions as a threat
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Archie Mitchell has a conflict of interest on the topics of Rishi Sunak, safety of Rwanda bill, asylum seekers and deportation to Rwanda. He is also affiliated with Charlie Falconer who may have an interest in these issues.
Rishi Sunak risks fresh Rwanda vote battle in Lords after Commons boost
The safety of the controversial bill was called into question by peers, including former home secretary Charles Falconer.
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author uses the statement 'Subscribe to unlock this article' as a way of persuading readers that they should trust and pay for the Financial Times content.
> Subscribe to unlock this article
Bias
(0%)
The article contains a monetary bias. The author uses language that implies the financial success of the FT is important and desirable.
<> Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.<
<> Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device.<>
, Labour vowed to oppose the government's plans in a crucial vote on Wednesday.
Rishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache when the Rwanda deportation bill returns to the House of Lords, with peers set to impose a fresh defeat on the prime minister.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Rishi Sunak's policy of sending migrants to Rwanda faces further delays after Labour vowed to oppose the government's plans in a crucial vote on Wednesday. This statement implies that there was no opposition before this point which is not true as it has been widely criticized since its announcement. Secondly, the author uses selective reporting by only mentioning that Rishi Sunak hopes for success with the policy to translate into a boost in polls and does not provide any evidence of such an effect or even discuss other potential outcomes. Lastly, there is no disclosure of sources mentioned in this article.
The author uses sensationalism by stating that Rishi Sunak's policy faces further delays after Labour vowed to oppose the government's plans.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when the author quotes Rishi Sunak saying that everyone is trying to block them. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the situation as a 'jarring few weeks' for Sunak.
>Rishi Sunak’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda faces further delays after Labour vowed to oppose the government’s plans in a crucial vote on Wednesday. <The prime minister said that “everyone is trying to block us” and insisted that flights to Kigali would take off by the end of May.
>Sunak is hoping that success with the Rwanda policy will translate into a much-needed boost in the polls, after a jarring few weeks. <The Times reported on Monday that the Home Office had identified 150 migrants out of Related articles
Bias
(75%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes migrants by referring to them as 'migrants' instead of people. The use of the word 'blocked' also implies a negative connotation towards those who oppose the policy.
> Rishi Sunak’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda faces further delays after Labour vowed to oppose the government’s plans in a crucial vote on Wednesday. <
Rwanda wants two-month pause after first migrant flight arrivals
The prime minister said that “everyone is trying to block us” and insisted that flights to Kigali would take off by the end of May.
