I think Chope is demonstrating why total devotion to a principle regardless of context is dumb. I can actually respect him wanting to force government to adhere to democratic principle, god knows far too often these days government is exceeding it's mandate and getting away with it unopposed.
On the other hand the world is not black and white and you have to choose the hills you want to die on. Opposing a "less sexual assault please!" bill because you're a stickler for procedure is just stupid. Perhaps it should have occurred to him that possibly the mechanism for just pushing through uncontroversial bills exists because not everything needs to be debated. If a bill is so unambiguously necessary that everyone on both sides of the isle agrees perhaps we shouldn't waste time blethering about it.
His principle is absolute shit. He claims to be libertarian but voted against Gay Marriage and more liberal Sunday Trading laws.
He's a reactionary twat who treats parliament like a Golf Club committee meeting.
Seems consistent with most self-proclaimed libertarians I've stumbled across. They're only ever libertarian up to a certain point, then the right-wingedness comes out.
Seems consistent with most self-proclaimed libertarians I've stumbled across. They're only ever libertarian up to a certain point, then the right-wingedness comes out.
"Libertarianism within the confines of my rightwing conservative values"
I don't think he's demonstrating total devotion to principle unless he can say he's opposed every private member's bill possible. Does he hang around Parliament shouting OBJECT every time one is bought up? I think someone dug up that he's sponsored just under 50 private member's bills himself.
In that case fuck him.
I mean jeez it's not even particularly progressive. It's not like we thought sexual assault was fine and dandy in the 50's either.
Prepare for disappointment. Sexual assault was hilarious right up until at least the mid-80s
I think Chope is demonstrating why total devotion to a principle regardless of context is dumb. I can actually respect him wanting to force government to adhere to democratic principle, god knows far too often these days government is exceeding it's mandate and getting away with it unopposed.
On the other hand the world is not black and white and you have to choose the hills you want to die on. Opposing a "less sexual assault please!" bill because you're a stickler for procedure is just stupid. Perhaps it should have occurred to him that possibly the mechanism for just pushing through uncontroversial bills exists because not everything needs to be debated. If a bill is so unambiguously necessary that everyone on both sides of the isle agrees perhaps we shouldn't waste time blethering about it.
His principle is absolute shit. He claims to be libertarian but voted against Gay Marriage and more liberal Sunday Trading laws.
He's a reactionary twat who treats parliament like a Golf Club committee meeting.
So, a libertarian?
+3
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Is there any obstacle to just passing the bill not as a "private member" bill?
So the Lords voted, and the Grieve amendment is back in, will come to a vote in the Commons tomorrow (Tuesday). Couple of the rebels have confirmed that they're definitely voting for it this time (again), in particular Philip Lee and Heidi Allen.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2018
william hague again proving to be the least stupid of the current lot. i am glad grieve followed through; i heard him speak last year on various brexit related things and he seemed genned up and sensible
torygraph front page in spoiler referring to marijuana debate and hagues contribution
The thing I like about the whole Grieve thing is that he retabled the amendment in the Lords immediately after the first vote and before the rebels met with May
Almost like he knew he was going to need an insurance policy
It would be nice to think that one positive outcome of the economic catastrophe that brexit is shaping up to be will be that we can't afford expensive luxuries like the war on drugs any more.
Of course that probably means that we'll just go back to old fashioned, cheaper methods of oppressing minorities and dissidents, like the police just fucking beating the shit out of them* for being mouthy trouble-makers that no-one likes. You know: "doing more with less".
(*and then making them pay for their own medical care.)
The thing I like about the whole Grieve thing is that he retabled the amendment in the Lords immediately after the first vote and before the rebels met with May
Almost like he knew he was going to need an insurance policy
grieve knew it was stupid from the beginning but i think is (perhaps admirably, given how overflexible many others have turned out to be) rigid in his approach to getting things done
it will be interesting to see how things turn out in the next few weeks as the amount of infighting is about to reach an all time high as the brexiters are asked to do 11 impossible things before breakfast in order to get the proceedings moving forward, hence this brexit dividend puffery that dear theresa is blowing up them
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Is there any obstacle to just passing the bill not as a "private member" bill?
(whatever that is, wonders the ignorant yank)
Most new laws are made by the government, and presented to parliament as public bills
A private member's bill is a law proposed by member of parliament (or the Lords) who is not a government minister
So no obstacle in principle, but it needs a government minister to introduce it (which tbf May has said will happen)
I don't understand his complaint about democratic process then
How is it more democratic to require a government minister to introduce bills, as opposed to letting anyone do it?
Also how does that intersect with whether there's a debate?
so the core problem is that parliament has limited time and very stupid procedures
there are 3 basic ways of getting private members bills heard in parliament. the first is basically having it drawn first out of a hat, the second involves being first through the door into a specific office on specific days of the week
and being unable to speak in support of your bill during parliamentary time (this is exactly as stupid as it sounds and has resulted in mps sleeping outside those offices) and the third is the so-called "ten minute rule" (10 minutes to suggest your bill, then somebody gets up and argues against it for 10 minutes)
the problem here is that because there is an, in total, limited quantity of time dedicated to pmbs and there is an order to how they are handled (random draw first x 7, presentation second and then a limited amount of time for ten minute speeches)
this means there is almost never adequate scrutiny, almost all are ignored almost all of the time and many never even get debated. on the other hand if all the backbenchers in a party want to be difficult they can basically force the government to accept a piece of legislation (hypothetically)
so what this means is that its hard to know which ones will get discussed, there is no relation to the merit of the proposal, it is not clear what these bills contain often, they are given no time to be debated adquately, many mps think they are a waste of time and often the government hates them to begin with
f i e s t a
rather like the voting procedures, it would be quite easy to modernise and make this saner but parliament.jpg
The UK will be kicked out of the European Arrest Warrant deal after Brexit, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said.
The warrant allows EU members to request the arrest and detention of criminals in other countries without extradition talks between them.
The UK wants to stay part of the system when it leaves the EU next March.
But Mr Barnier said the UK could not, because of its desire to leave the EU's court and free movement scheme.
His words are not likely to go down well with the UK's Brexit Secretary David Davis, who earlier this month singled the European Arrest Warrant out as one of the cornerstones of post-Brexit security co-operation with the EU.
Who could have predicted that leaving the EU and all it implies would include leaving the bits of being in the EU that were really useful?!
I don't think he's demonstrating total devotion to principle unless he can say he's opposed every private member's bill possible. Does he hang around Parliament shouting OBJECT every time one is bought up? I think someone dug up that he's sponsored just under 50 private member's bills himself.
In that case fuck him.
I mean jeez it's not even particularly progressive. It's not like we thought sexual assault was fine and dandy in the 50's either.
Prepare for disappointment. Sexual assault was hilarious right up until at least the mid-80s
And until 1991R vs R if married at the time. Seems plausible the views of elderly Tory MPs may not reflect the current moral Zeitgeist.
I'm sure the voluble ire of Corbyn's supporters and Momentum will be turned on those Labour MPs who vote with the government today on the Brexit bill amendment. I mean, you'd think they'd be at least as mad at these rebels as they are at, say, Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips is a prominent woman who is aggressively outspoken, is at least part of it. I've seen it on Facebook, at least some of them think she's an uptight nag and we all know why.
By all accounts, the Labour whips are trying to convince their MPs to vote against the government on the meaningful vote (on previous vote, whipped to abstain, and five Labour MPs rebelled and voted with the government).
Basically the government are trying to bundle all amendments together such that there is one vote for or against the whole bundle, on the assumption that this confuses matters enough that a majority will not be willing to vote for it.
The thrust of the concession is that the government amendment states that the motion voted upon following the government presenting the deal is "in neutral terms".
Most have interpreted that as meaning that it cannot be amended within the rules of procedure. However, the government position is that the decision as to whether or not a motion is drafted "in neutral terms" is made by the speaker, not by the drafters of the motion, and as such the government motion already gives parliament a meaningful vote.
So, can thoroughly kicked. A neutral observer may be tempted to ask why the government went to quite such lengths to forestall an amendment when their official position is that it duplicates provisions already in place.
Scuttlebutt is that Bercow has said before that he does not believe such a motion could possibly be drafted in neutral terms, so if you're assuming sinister motives on the party of the government, the next thing they need to do is remove the speaker and replace him with a brexiteer by the leaving date.
It's not like they haven't already made a couple of abortive attempts to push him out. Last month Andrea Leadsom tried to nail him for calling her a 'stupid woman', which is unfortunate, and a bit sexist, but probably not firing material.
The government knew Northern rail passengers would face major disruption two years ago, an MP has claimed.
Wigan MP Lisa Nandy said she had been handed Department for Transport emails in which officials discuss "propagating myths" to divert attention from route closures.
Ms Nandy said in the emails "officials describe key Northern routes as valueless, discuss classic handling strategies for members of parliament, discuss whether to throw a sop to Northern passenger groups and debate whether to propagate myths in order to divert public attention from agreed planned route closures."
She asked why the government had "withheld this key information" from the house and the public.
In response, Theresa May said she would not comment on "leaked" documents
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+3
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The government knew Northern rail passengers would face major disruption two years ago, an MP has claimed.
Wigan MP Lisa Nandy said she had been handed Department for Transport emails in which officials discuss "propagating myths" to divert attention from route closures.
Ms Nandy said in the emails "officials describe key Northern routes as valueless, discuss classic handling strategies for members of parliament, discuss whether to throw a sop to Northern passenger groups and debate whether to propagate myths in order to divert public attention from agreed planned route closures."
She asked why the government had "withheld this key information" from the house and the public.
In response, Theresa May said she would not comment on "leaked" documents
Wowzer, that's some quality dickish behavior.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It used to be that any time I heard about train trubs, I'd be thinking, "Well, the Airedale route I take is fine, barring the odd strike."
Since the timetable change, I have dealt with at least one late or cancelled train a week. Curse my complacency. It makes me glad I'll be swapping to a bus commute once I move (longer on the route but almost a third of the price, more frequent, and with WiFi and air conditioning)
I don't even know what to hope for anymore. At this point maybe we want May to get everything she wants, make the most shambolic brexit she can then we have a more compelling case for rejoining in ten years.
I am surprised the Tory rebels even bothered to make a fuss in the first place if they were going to fold this easily.
I don't even know what to hope for anymore. At this point maybe we want May to get everything she wants, make the most shambolic brexit she can then we have a more compelling case for rejoining in ten years.
I am surprised the Tory rebels even bothered to make a fuss in the first place if they were going to fold this easily.
Oh boy, they fell for it again? It was bad enough the first time. Anyone following the negotiations can see that may does the same thing every time: Agree to something, it reaches the brexiteers, they kick up a fuss, deny they ever agreed to anything. She's entirely untrustworthy (as is the entire cabinet). The only way to get a firm commitment was to vote in a legally binding amendment and they've thrown away that chance - and for what? To save the government a bit of embarrassment? Spoon of salt in the ocean at this point.
Oh boy, they fell for it again? It was bad enough the first time. Anyone following the negotiations can see that may does the same thing every time: Agree to something, it reaches the brexiteers, they kick up a fuss, deny they ever agreed to anything. She's entirely untrustworthy (as is the entire cabinet). The only way to get a firm commitment was to vote in a legally binding amendment and they've thrown away that chance - and for what? To save the government a bit of embarrassment? Spoon of salt in the ocean at this point.
No it's more like the Tory rebels had their bluff called. If they'd continued they would have probably brought down the government, they weren't willing to do so because they'd likely end up losing their jobs.
It's such a fundamental aspect of how a Cabinet, and by extension, our Parliamentary system should work that it remains staggering that the Government are happy to just chip along with a care in the world for the damage it causes.
After debates, consultation and other considerations, the Cabinet agrees a position. If a member of it is still opposed to the stance it has adopted, they resign. The Cabinet is meant to be one united body. Having unresolved fractures and disputes means that the Cabinet hasn't actually made a decision.
Allowing Boris Johnson to just swan about doing whatever the fuck he wants makes a mockery of our democratic system and he really needs to shit or get off the pot.
Allowing Boris Johnson to just swan about doing whatever the fuck he wants makes a mockery of our democratic system and he really needs to shit or get off the pot.
He certainly should, but he won't, and no one will force him to.
Boris doesn't give one short fuck about the extra runway at heathrow and he never did, it was just words he said that were politically convenient at the time. No divisions will be created.
Government minister resigned today so he could vote against the third runway at Heathrow on Monday.
Boris Johnson will, as everyone and their dog and me predicted, be out of the country on very important business.
Hadn't he (or someone official) already said he'd be out of the country on very important business on the day of the vote despite at the time not knowing when the vote would take place?
Posts
His principle is absolute shit. He claims to be libertarian but voted against Gay Marriage and more liberal Sunday Trading laws.
He's a reactionary twat who treats parliament like a Golf Club committee meeting.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Steam | XBL
"Libertarianism within the confines of my rightwing conservative values"
Prepare for disappointment. Sexual assault was hilarious right up until at least the mid-80s
So, a libertarian?
(whatever that is, wonders the ignorant yank)
torygraph front page in spoiler referring to marijuana debate and hagues contribution
Almost like he knew he was going to need an insurance policy
Of course that probably means that we'll just go back to old fashioned, cheaper methods of oppressing minorities and dissidents, like the police just fucking beating the shit out of them* for being mouthy trouble-makers that no-one likes. You know: "doing more with less".
(*and then making them pay for their own medical care.)
Most new laws are made by the government, and presented to parliament as public bills
A private member's bill is a law proposed by member of parliament (or the Lords) who is not a government minister
So no obstacle in principle, but it needs a government minister to introduce it (which tbf May has said will happen)
grieve knew it was stupid from the beginning but i think is (perhaps admirably, given how overflexible many others have turned out to be) rigid in his approach to getting things done
it will be interesting to see how things turn out in the next few weeks as the amount of infighting is about to reach an all time high as the brexiters are asked to do 11 impossible things before breakfast in order to get the proceedings moving forward, hence this brexit dividend puffery that dear theresa is blowing up them
I don't understand his complaint about democratic process then
How is it more democratic to require a government minister to introduce bills, as opposed to letting anyone do it?
Also how does that intersect with whether there's a debate?
so the core problem is that parliament has limited time and very stupid procedures
there are 3 basic ways of getting private members bills heard in parliament. the first is basically having it drawn first out of a hat, the second involves being first through the door into a specific office on specific days of the week
and being unable to speak in support of your bill during parliamentary time (this is exactly as stupid as it sounds and has resulted in mps sleeping outside those offices) and the third is the so-called "ten minute rule" (10 minutes to suggest your bill, then somebody gets up and argues against it for 10 minutes)
the problem here is that because there is an, in total, limited quantity of time dedicated to pmbs and there is an order to how they are handled (random draw first x 7, presentation second and then a limited amount of time for ten minute speeches)
this means there is almost never adequate scrutiny, almost all are ignored almost all of the time and many never even get debated. on the other hand if all the backbenchers in a party want to be difficult they can basically force the government to accept a piece of legislation (hypothetically)
so what this means is that its hard to know which ones will get discussed, there is no relation to the merit of the proposal, it is not clear what these bills contain often, they are given no time to be debated adquately, many mps think they are a waste of time and often the government hates them to begin with
f i e s t a
rather like the voting procedures, it would be quite easy to modernise and make this saner but parliament.jpg
And until 1991R vs R if married at the time. Seems plausible the views of elderly Tory MPs may not reflect the current moral Zeitgeist.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Keir Starmer working overtime on those five.
(Guardian deputy political editor)
However there are shenanigans afoot:
(Telegraph)
Basically the government are trying to bundle all amendments together such that there is one vote for or against the whole bundle, on the assumption that this confuses matters enough that a majority will not be willing to vote for it.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The thrust of the concession is that the government amendment states that the motion voted upon following the government presenting the deal is "in neutral terms".
Most have interpreted that as meaning that it cannot be amended within the rules of procedure. However, the government position is that the decision as to whether or not a motion is drafted "in neutral terms" is made by the speaker, not by the drafters of the motion, and as such the government motion already gives parliament a meaningful vote.
So, can thoroughly kicked. A neutral observer may be tempted to ask why the government went to quite such lengths to forestall an amendment when their official position is that it duplicates provisions already in place.
Scuttlebutt is that Bercow has said before that he does not believe such a motion could possibly be drafted in neutral terms, so if you're assuming sinister motives on the party of the government, the next thing they need to do is remove the speaker and replace him with a brexiteer by the leaving date.
The 'stupid' part is absolutely accurate, though.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Politics at its finest.
Northern rail: 'Ministers warned of timetable chaos'
Wowzer, that's some quality dickish behavior.
Since the timetable change, I have dealt with at least one late or cancelled train a week. Curse my complacency. It makes me glad I'll be swapping to a bus commute once I move (longer on the route but almost a third of the price, more frequent, and with WiFi and air conditioning)
I am surprised the Tory rebels even bothered to make a fuss in the first place if they were going to fold this easily.
No it's more like the Tory rebels had their bluff called. If they'd continued they would have probably brought down the government, they weren't willing to do so because they'd likely end up losing their jobs.
Boris Johnson will, as everyone and their dog and me predicted, be out of the country on very important business.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
After debates, consultation and other considerations, the Cabinet agrees a position. If a member of it is still opposed to the stance it has adopted, they resign. The Cabinet is meant to be one united body. Having unresolved fractures and disputes means that the Cabinet hasn't actually made a decision.
Allowing Boris Johnson to just swan about doing whatever the fuck he wants makes a mockery of our democratic system and he really needs to shit or get off the pot.
He certainly should, but he won't, and no one will force him to.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Hadn't he (or someone official) already said he'd be out of the country on very important business on the day of the vote despite at the time not knowing when the vote would take place?
That f'n guy.
Steam | XBL
Every decision he has made since then has been to that effort. We only have Michael Gove to thank that that aspiration has not yet been fulfilled.
What a horrible position to be in.
Uh... this seems bad?