Is there a chance of a recall petition based on the fact she has resigned in name only, and may not be representing her constituents but just herself? Her argument seems to be she is only staying on to get the information about why she was denied a peerage - nothing about doing her actual job or representing the people who elected her. If I were the local Tory party I'd be seething and worrying that every day that passes the attacks become easier - that Tories are self interested and don't care about you little people, see how your last MP spent the last x months of her time in parliament shouting only about herself.
It would appear that the multiple reports in the media that she had stated that she was resigning (as an MP) with immediate effect were wrong.
Must be a bit galling in fairness that this 29 year old who's never done anything worth doing as far as we can judge gets a peerage and she doesn't.
It's also rather bizarre.
I would say it's bringing the Lord's into disrepute but that ship has not so much sailed as is crossing the equator for the second time on its voyage round the world via the Strait of Magellan.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Is there a chance of a recall petition based on the fact she has resigned in name only, and may not be representing her constituents but just herself? Her argument seems to be she is only staying on to get the information about why she was denied a peerage - nothing about doing her actual job or representing the people who elected her. If I were the local Tory party I'd be seething and worrying that every day that passes the attacks become easier - that Tories are self interested and don't care about you little people, see how your last MP spent the last x months of her time in parliament shouting only about herself.
None, since she’d have to be suspended for Parliament for that to even be an option.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
This one of the presents I received from my eldest.
He said it was apt given my love of history and Dad jokes/puns.
Shades of that scene in Excalibur where Uther (Gabriel Byrne) is impregnating Igraine (Katrine Boorman) wearing a full suit of armour.
Must have been bloody painful for poor Boorman to shoot that scene, leaving aside the fact that to quote Austin Powers the sheer logistics of it defy imagination.
Is there a chance of a recall petition based on the fact she has resigned in name only, and may not be representing her constituents but just herself? Her argument seems to be she is only staying on to get the information about why she was denied a peerage - nothing about doing her actual job or representing the people who elected her. If I were the local Tory party I'd be seething and worrying that every day that passes the attacks become easier - that Tories are self interested and don't care about you little people, see how your last MP spent the last x months of her time in parliament shouting only about herself.
None, since she’d have to be suspended for Parliament for that to even be an option.
(Or a custodial prison sentence (including a suspended sentence), or a conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims.)
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
She seems to attract a level of opprobrium, especially from her own side, that isn't really commensurate with her underlying offensiveness. I can't help wondering whether there is an element of sexism and snobbishness at work.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
My dad didn't think much to her recent speech bigging up Shaun Bailey (The other one) that he went to in person. She's obviously pressing the flesh for a run at the post Rishi LOTO job though.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
She seems to attract a level of opprobrium, especially from her own side, that isn't really commensurate with her underlying offensiveness. I can't help wondering whether there is an element of sexism and snobbishness at work.
No more than the equally ghastly Rees Mogg and you'd be hard put to attach those tired old chestnuts to him.
Unless Nadine gets elevated to the Lords or gets a clear explanation as to why she was rejected for a peerage and surprisingly accepts it then yes I think she will now stay as an MP to spite the 'liberal establishment' until the next general election.
So with Mid Beds off the LDs will I assume just focus on the Somerton and Frome by election for now
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
Starmer was on the radio this morning saying he will not distribute honours when he is PM. I think that includes Rishi's resignation list.
Neither Blair nor Brown had a resignation honours list but blocking Rishi's would be radical. People get frightfully hung up over an MBE for whichever SpAd taught the Prime Minister how to use a contactless payment card.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
She seems to attract a level of opprobrium, especially from her own side, that isn't really commensurate with her underlying offensiveness. I can't help wondering whether there is an element of sexism and snobbishness at work.
No more than the equally ghastly Rees Mogg and you'd be hard put to attach those tired old chestnuts to him.
Rees-Mogg seems to me to be worse but get a lot less blue on blue hate. He was actually precisely the comparator I had in mind when making the comment.
Whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis (I do think a lot of it is still the economy), it isn't great reading for Tories.
(My argument is that those homeowners are still pretty likely to know and care about other people in their generation who have not been able to get on the housing ladder and still rent / live with family)
I also think climate change is a big issue, and that the internet has had more of an impact on the dissolution of a clear national identity than "woke indoctrination" from schools
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
Being able to resign MPs against their will would be so useful
“Today, I’ve resigned all the members opposite. Now for some voting.”
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
What is a tweet, if not writing?
Informal writing, not formal.
Gerry Adams (IIRC) had formally written a letter of resignation to The Speaker.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
Being able to resign MPs against their will would be so useful
“Today, I’ve resigned all the members opposite. Now for some voting.”
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
She wanted to defer the peerage to the end of this parliament.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Unless Nadine gets elevated to the Lords or gets a clear explanation as to why she was rejected for a peerage and surprisingly accepts it then yes I think she will now stay as an MP to spite the 'liberal establishment' until the next general election.
So with Mid Beds off the LDs will I assume just focus on the Somerton and Frome by election for now
A much easier by election for them to win. Recent history of LD holding the seat in a number of GEs.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
Stellar leadership there.
It's not a government issue it's a house of commons one, hence rishi is just one of 650 MPs for this purpose. Plus it's much more damaging for Johnson to lose an unwhipped vote. Sunak is doing this right.
Unless Nadine gets elevated to the Lords or gets a clear explanation as to why she was rejected for a peerage and surprisingly accepts it then yes I think she will now stay as an MP to spite the 'liberal establishment' until the next general election.
So with Mid Beds off the LDs will I assume just focus on the Somerton and Frome by election for now
A much easier by election for them to win. Recent history of LD holding the seat in a number of GEs.
Indeed, the LDs even held Somerton and Frome in 2010, narrowly beating Annunziata Rees Mogg despite the Conservatives winning most seats UK wide and a majority of seats in England.
People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"
Quite persuasively, in my view.
Have they been officially published? I keep refreshing the DoE page but can't see them directly
The proposals as published by The Sun make no sense whatsoever. Hopefully its The Sun spouting hateful bollocks as normal, but who knows?
EG that those who change pronouns shouldn't be able to take part in competitive sport? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Saying that biological males can't compete in female categories makes perfect sense. But if a biological female or male wants to be called eg "they" and compete in their own biological category then there is no reason that should be denied.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis (I do think a lot of it is still the economy), it isn't great reading for Tories.
(My argument is that those homeowners are still pretty likely to know and care about other people in their generation who have not been able to get on the housing ladder and still rent / live with family)
I also think climate change is a big issue, and that the internet has had more of an impact on the dissolution of a clear national identity than "woke indoctrination" from schools
The Tories didn't even win under 35s in 2015 and 2019 when they won a majority.
That age group will almost always mostly vote Labour regardless of personal circumstances (just as most over 65s even in council housing and on the state pension voted Conservative in 2019 and are still voting Tory).
However if Labour get in and inflation and interest rates remain high and higher earners see their tax rise then that will see some under 35s go Tory without the Tories needing to do anything
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"
Quite persuasively, in my view.
Have they been officially published? I keep refreshing the DoE page but can't see them directly
The proposals as published by The Sun make no sense whatsoever. Hopefully its The Sun spouting hateful bollocks as normal, but who knows?
EG that those who change pronouns shouldn't be able to take part in competitive sport? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Saying that biological males can't compete in female categories makes perfect sense. But if a biological female or male wants to be called eg "they" and compete in their own biological category then there is no reason that should be denied.
The thing is that most positions held by "gender criticals" don't make sense, and much of it is just the policing of gender by the reinforcement of gender stereotypes rather than the deconstruction of them.
I can't imagine any sensible policy - because at the end of the day any sensible policy would state "if a teacher believes a student is at risk by being outed they should accept it as a safeguarding risk" and that would seem to be anathema to the entire plan. I would say if a student is out at school but not at home automatically suggests that there is a safeguarding issue - because otherwise the child would be out at home. Children are more likely to know the reaction by parents than the teachers would, so of course you should be led by the pupil and not the parent.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?
Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Aiui she was (with characteristic thoughtlessness) wanting to take the peerage but wait till the end of this parliament to do so.
Either that or an sinister forces biased against scousers born into ‘poverty’ (I suspect a degree of self-mythologising there; though relative to most of her Con mates I daresay it feels like poverty).
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
Can Rishi just resign her? There's a precedent: a Sinn Fein MP that resigned didn't want to participate in the Chiltern Hundreds convention, so the Govt of the day just appointed them and some time later appointed someone else, and job done.
The Sinn Fein MP had formally resigned as an MP in writing, which got interpreted as asking for the Chiltern Hundreds.
What is a tweet, if not writing?
Informal writing, not formal.
Gerry Adams (IIRC) had formally written a letter of resignation to The Speaker.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
People on Twitter (yes, I know...) are calling the new government guidelines to schools a 'New Section 28' or 'Section 28+"
Quite persuasively, in my view.
Have they been officially published? I keep refreshing the DoE page but can't see them directly
The proposals as published by The Sun make no sense whatsoever. Hopefully its The Sun spouting hateful bollocks as normal, but who knows?
EG that those who change pronouns shouldn't be able to take part in competitive sport? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Saying that biological males can't compete in female categories makes perfect sense. But if a biological female or male wants to be called eg "they" and compete in their own biological category then there is no reason that should be denied.
The thing is that most positions held by "gender criticals" don't make sense, and much of it is just the policing of gender by the reinforcement of gender stereotypes rather than the deconstruction of them.
I can't imagine any sensible policy - because at the end of the day any sensible policy would state "if a teacher believes a student is at risk by being outed they should accept it as a safeguarding risk" and that would seem to be anathema to the entire plan. I would say if a student is out at school but not at home automatically suggests that there is a safeguarding issue - because otherwise the child would be out at home. Children are more likely to know the reaction by parents than the teachers would, so of course you should be led by the pupil and not the parent.
The guidance is, I believe, deliberately provocative to move the national debate to a field where the Tories feel safe.
The competitive sport bit is weird and of dubious legality, however.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
No, that's of course correct. But exhibit A - young Mr Benn - was for an hereditary peerage and since Blair's 'reform' in the late 1990s, these are no longer automatically members of the Lords.
I know that. What I was saying was that becoming a member of the Lords automatically means you leave the commons. Even if you don't want it to (although in that case why accept a peerage)?
Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
What was interesting is that the Macmillan Government then introduced legislation to allow peers to renounce their titles within a certain period. This was intended to remedy the injustice to Tony Benn, but it also had the effect of then allowing both Home and Hailsham to do the same and thus become viable contenders for the Tory Leadership in November 1963. A law with unintended consequences....
Nads has already made excuses on Twitter as to why she can't quit yet. Suspect that she won't be sent the full unredacted messages (does she believe these will prove she has been diddled?) and therefore won't resign.
Have read the linked guidance from the Sun. Hopefully, that's just the Sun's spin on it and the official stuff will be more nuanced. But if that is anywhere near the policy that will be imposed, then I'll find another job. I won't be alone. My whole career has been about keeping children safe. I will not be outing them to potentially violent parents for Tory culture war comfort. Good luck filling the teacher vacancies.
If a kid is exhibiting mental health issues it is your duty to alert the parents
Should you alert a parent if their child is gay?
Should you alert the parents if you know the issue is connected to the parents?
Why would being gay be an "issue" and why could it be connected to teh parents.
The question is not whether being gay is an issue, the question is whether the parents believe being gay is an issue and how they would then treat the child.
Surely if it is obvious at school then it would be obvious at home or am I being naive.
A child with ignorant parents might feel safe to come out to their friends or teacher before they do to their parents.
I've honestly never heard of it. Trying to find out now what it's all about.
Most reliable source for weapons system losses on both sides in the Ukraine conflict. Fact checks, geolocates, confirms and weeds out duplicates from all the reports/videos online.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
He's like a pound shop Major.
However I don't like Labour's north sea oil and gas policies one bit* - this is the biggest barrier between me and a Lab vote at the next GE currently.
* I note he's managed to annoy those on the other side of me (Pump it all) this morning with the 'Won't oppose Rosebank?' too.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis (I do think a lot of it is still the economy), it isn't great reading for Tories.
(My argument is that those homeowners are still pretty likely to know and care about other people in their generation who have not been able to get on the housing ladder and still rent / live with family)
I also think climate change is a big issue, and that the internet has had more of an impact on the dissolution of a clear national identity than "woke indoctrination" from schools
The Tories didn't even win under 35s in 2015 and 2019 when they won a majority.
That age group will almost always mostly vote Labour regardless of personal circumstances (just as most over 65s even in council housing and on the state pension voted Conservative in 2019 and are still voting Tory).
However if Labour get in and inflation and interest rates remain high and higher earners see their tax rise then that will see some under 35s go Tory without the Tories needing to do anything
The average age of voters is increasing all the time, which gives the Tories extra room to convince people to vote for them.
Any sign of a private deal between Nad and Rishi to hang on for a peerage when parliament is dissolved?
I get this vague idea he doesn't like her.
Does anyone?
Even Boris just used her.
As it happens, I found her very likeable when I had lunch with her, some years ago. Robert Smithson likes her, too.
I've heard similar about Suella Braverman.
Almost all politicians are quite personable when you meet them in real life. The ones who aren't are really the exception.
Margaret Thatcher was very nice to me when I met her once. She was intense though.
Wow, I can imagine. I would have loved to have met Thatch. She terrified me as a child! I have met her predecessor and successor as PM, as well as Blair, Cameron and Johnson, and (perhaps the next PM) Starmer.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Rishi Sunak must pick a side on Boris Johnson and “show some leadership” by voting on a report by the privileges committee today, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The prime minister this morning ducked questions about whether he would attend this afternoon’s debate, and is widely expected to abstain, along with most ministers. Allies of Johnson are preparing to condemn the findings of the report and warn it sets a precedent for political targeting of other ministers, but it remains unclear whether they will force a vote.
Sunak said that the privileges committee, which said Johnson should have got a 90-day suspension if he were still an MP, had “done their work thoroughly, and I respect them for that”.
But he refused to say whether he would vote, saying today’s debate was “a matter for the House, not for the government, and that’s why each individual colleague will make up their own mind when the time comes”.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Why has her peerage been blocked, anyway? I mean, whatever one thinks of her she is not obviously less qualified for the role than other recent appointees and arguably more qualified than at least one of them.
Because she would not commit to stand down as an MP.
Why would she need to? Peers automatically forfeit their seats in the Commons (exhibit A - Tony Benn).
Although today, Viscount Stansgate would still remain an MP.
Yes, but we're talking about being members of the Lords. You can't take a life peerage and stay in the Commons, surely?
Which is why she wasn't given the life peerage.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
Well, that's nonsensical because anybody who becomes a member of the Lords automatically ceases to be a member of the Commons. There is no need to resign from that point of view.
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
Anyone who has been elevated to the Lords directly from the Commons has been given the Chiltern Hundreds etc first, not just been elevated and thus ceased to be an MP.
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
Easy, you have to accept a peerage, you can't be forced to take it.
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
Yes, and from all reports she didn't accept it, as she refused to accept that she'd be resigning as an MP, which was a precondition of accepting it. Her fault.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
The story as told is that no-one told her this couldn't be done until it was too late for her to change her mind, and, when she was told, she tried to accept that and do differently, but was told it was too late.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
@tamcohen PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
He didn't show for the Paterson vote, either.
Sunak: A profile in courage
He's like a pound shop Major.
However I don't like Labour's north sea oil and gas policies one bit* - this is the biggest barrier between me and a Lab vote at the next GE currently.
* I note he's managed to annoy those on the other side of me (Pump it all) this morning with the 'Won't oppose Rosebank?' too.
That's Starmer. Sunak is doing a very good job in my view he's just a bit naive about the politics bit and not learning fast enough.
I think there's something else going with Sunak and Gove opposing it today. They're worried about precedent and creating an open goal for Labour to refer minister after minister to the Privileges Committee. They worry they'd be doing it over Covid all the way to the GE to create story after story.
I don't necessarily agree with that but it does shed some light on why.
Anyhoo, today's the day I think a Labour majority is the most likely outcome.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising. The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
Comments
Some of us have already spent our Lib Dems gain Mid Beds winnings.
But how dense is Nads.
1) She believed Boris Johnson
2) She has a different understanding of what immediate effect means to the rest of the UK.
It's also rather bizarre.
I would say it's bringing the Lord's into disrepute but that ship has not so much sailed as is crossing the equator for the second time on its voyage round the world via the Strait of Magellan.
Even Boris just used her.
Eating a kangaroo’s bunghole live on TV still isn’t the most embarrassing thing Dorries has ever done.
Take a bow.
He said it was apt given my love of history and Dad jokes/puns.
Must have been bloody painful for poor Boorman to shoot that scene, leaving aside the fact that to quote Austin Powers the sheer logistics of it defy imagination.
I've no idea what it says. Hopefully something good ...
@tamcohen
PM says he doesn’t want to “ influence anyone” when asked how he’d vote on the report into whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.
He was speaking as a left Watford hospital where he joined staff on a night shift.
So with Mid Beds off the LDs will I assume just focus on the Somerton and Frome by election for now
https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1670006524947595265?s=20
Whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis (I do think a lot of it is still the economy), it isn't great reading for Tories.
(My argument is that those homeowners are still pretty likely to know and care about other people in their generation who have not been able to get on the housing ladder and still rent / live with family)
I also think climate change is a big issue, and that the internet has had more of an impact on the dissolution of a clear national identity than "woke indoctrination" from schools
“Today, I’ve resigned all the members opposite. Now for some voting.”
I do think that Nadine goes overboard in her enthusiasm for Johnson, but that doesn't make her unpleasant.
Quite persuasively, in my view.
Gerry Adams (IIRC) had formally written a letter of resignation to The Speaker.
They only lost it as recently as 2015
EG that those who change pronouns shouldn't be able to take part in competitive sport? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Saying that biological males can't compete in female categories makes perfect sense. But if a biological female or male wants to be called eg "they" and compete in their own biological category then there is no reason that should be denied.
The convention it seems is you have to commit to resign as an MP in order to get a life peerage. She didn't. That's her own responsibility and nobodies fault but her own.
That age group will almost always mostly vote Labour regardless of personal circumstances (just as most over 65s even in council housing and on the state pension voted Conservative in 2019 and are still voting Tory).
However if Labour get in and inflation and interest rates remain high and higher earners see their tax rise then that will see some under 35s go Tory without the Tories needing to do anything
I think there is a great deal more to this than meets the eye, but at least there is one good outcome - come the next election she will no longer be part of national life.
I can't imagine any sensible policy - because at the end of the day any sensible policy would state "if a teacher believes a student is at risk by being outed they should accept it as a safeguarding risk" and that would seem to be anathema to the entire plan. I would say if a student is out at school but not at home automatically suggests that there is a safeguarding issue - because otherwise the child would be out at home. Children are more likely to know the reaction by parents than the teachers would, so of course you should be led by the pupil and not the parent.
Which was true until the removal of automatic hereditary peerages in the 1990s and is why Benn despite refusing to take his seat in the Lords still had his commons seat declared vacant and was not allowed to remain an MP even though he won the by-election with a 13,000 majority.
Either that or an sinister forces biased against scousers born into ‘poverty’ (I suspect a degree of self-mythologising there; though relative to most of her Con mates I daresay it feels like poverty).
So no, its not a nonsense. Its a reasonable safeguard in fact to ask any MP "do you want to cease to be an MP and become a Lord" and require an unequivocal yes before they become a Lord, otherwise what's to stop Rishi Sunak announcing that Sir Keir Starmer is now Lord Starmer?
She was offered the elevation but rejected it. She didn't realise she was rejecting it. That's her own stupidity, not anybody else's.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1667182498042740742
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1670723829713215489
That seems a genuinely ridiculous system if correct. What's your source for it, if you don't mind my asking?
The competitive sport bit is weird and of dubious legality, however.
The source is multiple reporting at the time, no links now.
I fear today will be suboptimal for my stress levels.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1669060242552811520
And what a six from Root!
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
Take the pressure to them.
After all, it is Twitter.
Fact checks, geolocates, confirms and weeds out duplicates from all the reports/videos online.
Which is an enormous undertaking.
Getting the sense Sunak doesn’t really care much about standards in public life.
However I don't like Labour's north sea oil and gas policies one bit* - this is the biggest barrier between me and a Lab vote at the next GE currently.
* I note he's managed to annoy those on the other side of me (Pump it all) this morning with the 'Won't oppose Rosebank?' too.
NEW
The average two year fixed rate mortgage has just passed through the 6% threshold. Up to 6.01% according to Moneyfacts. Highest level since 2000. But still rising.
The coming mortgage squeeze now looks like being as bad if not worse than the late 1980s…
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1670710441645834240
Rishi Sunak must pick a side on Boris Johnson and “show some leadership” by voting on a report by the privileges committee today, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
The prime minister this morning ducked questions about whether he would attend this afternoon’s debate, and is widely expected to abstain, along with most ministers. Allies of Johnson are preparing to condemn the findings of the report and warn it sets a precedent for political targeting of other ministers, but it remains unclear whether they will force a vote.
Sunak said that the privileges committee, which said Johnson should have got a 90-day suspension if he were still an MP, had “done their work thoroughly, and I respect them for that”.
But he refused to say whether he would vote, saying today’s debate was “a matter for the House, not for the government, and that’s why each individual colleague will make up their own mind when the time comes”.
On the face of it sounds like she was stitched up.
I think there's something else going with Sunak and Gove opposing it today. They're worried about precedent and creating an open goal for Labour to refer minister after minister to the Privileges Committee. They worry they'd be doing it over Covid all the way to the GE to create story after story.
I don't necessarily agree with that but it does shed some light on why.