I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Problem there is, the only place Nads is more conspicuously absent than HoC is her constituency
Indeed, and I am not defending her on that. Her time as an MP has not improved the country or her constituency as far as I'm concerned. But she is far from the only MP that that has applied to. Or probably even currently applies to.
I am looking forward to her leaving parliament, along with her mate Jacob Rees-Worm. But this is not the way to do it.
JRM losing his seat could be the salvation of the Tories after the election. Someone pointed out yesterday that he's the Corbyn of the Tories. This is a very good comparison. Loved by the grassroots, but perplexing and not entirely serious to the electorate. With him as leader Labour would be odds on for a second term.
Then again the other likely options aren't exactly thrilling. Mordaunt might be OK in a Teresa May kind of way. Badenoch has proved to be decidedly underwhelming. And God help them if they turn to a newly elected David Frost. He makes JRM seem like a serious politician.
Or the boats woman.
It's dire.
To be fair her approval among members is very low, unlike JRM or Frost, so I don't think she would be a contender. Same was true of Priti Patel. Often seems to be the case with Home Secs, in both parties. Only May seems to have bucked that trend.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
Hmm. Maybe. If you wanted to find people who could quickly learn Japanese or other regional languages, then multi-lingual soldiers would be a good place to start. Any native Japanese speakers had been interned.
As for the Belgian lawyer painting rocks, there has always been a question about what to do with men highly skilled in civvy street but with no military experience. The BBC made a documentary about it: see Captain Ashworth in It Ain't Half Hot Mum, the lawyer or bank manager posted to look after the platoon's admin and banking safely away from the sharp end.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I think that's pretty much my position. I condemn Dorries' behaviour: but that does not mean the proposals in the threader are correct or just.
It's pretty common for councillors to have a minimum 'turning-up' requirement - my local council it is one meeting in 12 months - why should MPs not be held to the same standards?
Perhaps they should (although as I say, the constituency angle makes it more complex). But those rules need to be agreed on (why six months? What exceptions for illness? What about constituency work? What punishments?) and not rushed in, and especially not applied retrospectively.
The apparent FT quote from Bryant also shows how meaningless this is, and that it is not meant to actually address the issue, but an individual.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
I seem to have a different understanding of "anyone else" to you.
I don't think you do. But it's the stuff that surrounds it. Why September? Why six months as the period of non-attendance? Why that punishment (which triggers a recall)?
All seem clearly targeted at her situation.
If they make it much shorter than six months given the amount of time off they get for recesses it could become quite embarassing. The punishment seems quite lenient to me, claiming money for a job you make zero attempt at doing feels close to fraud in my eyes.
Why is not attending parliament 'not doing your job', whilst the MP could not take a single step within their constituency for a year and still be doing their job?
There are a whole load of issues with this that this measure does not address, and it needs looking at wholesale. Again I ask: what job does an MP do?
The rules should be formed around the answer to that question. I want MPs to have greater links with constituencies, not lesser.
Problem there is, the only place Nads is more conspicuously absent than HoC is her constituency
Indeed, and I am not defending her on that. Her time as an MP has not improved the country or her constituency as far as I'm concerned. But she is far from the only MP that that has applied to. Or probably even currently applies to.
I am looking forward to her leaving parliament, along with her mate Jacob Rees-Worm. But this is not the way to do it.
JRM losing his seat could be the salvation of the Tories after the election. Someone pointed out yesterday that he's the Corbyn of the Tories. This is a very good comparison. Loved by the grassroots, but perplexing and not entirely serious to the electorate. With him as leader Labour would be odds on for a second term.
Then again the other likely options aren't exactly thrilling. Mordaunt might be OK in a Teresa May kind of way. Badenoch has proved to be decidedly underwhelming. And God help them if they turn to a newly elected David Frost. He makes JRM seem like a serious politician.
People thought that about Corbyn but he got a hung parliament in 2017 even if he led Labour to a landslide defeat in 2019.
If a Starmer government was unpopular and the economy poor even a Rees Mogg led Tory opposition could make poll gains.
Steve Barclay, Tom Tugendhat and James Cleverly will also likely run for Conservative leader if Sunak loses the general election next year
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
I don't understand the excitement about all this. it's just Sir Chris flying a rather amusing kite.
A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy. I am very comfortable with classifying nads as a desperate disease.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
A sad day for the pioneers of the dog-drawn mg.
The taller dog is surely asking for trouble? Unless it has evolved some sort of interrupter gear.
I think the MG was just lifted off and the tripod folded out for action. You can see the tripod on the cart - painted differently from the cart metalwork, which has a fixed clamp holding the barrel in position and preventing traverse. One couldn't operate a crew-served Maxim properly on the cart, anyway, with the wheels getting in the way.
A more ad hoc version with mg ready to be lifted out with tripod in place, poor old single pooch doing the pulling though. Looks like a French Hotchkiss.
Reminds me of Boy Scouts, only the Scouts did the pulling. My troop still had such a cart, though fortunately had entered the internal combustion engine era when I gained my woggle.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
Don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. Isn't there something banning laws in Scotland from being applied retrospectively? I have a dim memory that's the case...
I'd also argue the "must attend by such-and-such a date" makes it even clearer that it's targeted at her. There's no reason to say that if it's a hard-and-fast generic rule that MPs should attend at least once every six months.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
Don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. Isn't there something banning laws in Scotland from being applied retrospectively? I have a dim memory that's the case...
I'd also argue the "must attend by such-and-such a date" makes it even clearer that it's targeted at her. There's no reason to say that if it's a hard-and-fast generic rule that MPs should attend at least once every six months.
There's a strong but not irrebuttable presumption against interpreting statute law as applying retrospectively in English law but this is irrelevant in 2023 to a law made in 1801, absolutely irrespective of what people have done with it since.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
I don't understand the excitement about all this. it's just Sir Chris flying a rather amusing kite.
A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy. I am very comfortable with classifying nads as a desperate disease.
It'll be funny, for low values of 'funny', if Sandpit gets conscripted due to bureaucratic error or malfeasance.
Perhaps they’ll send me for F-16 training. I always wanted a go in something a bit faster than a Cessna 172.
I have a good friend who was my classmate when I went to school in Belgium. He was and is somewhat of an intellectual powerhouse who studied law at UC Louvain, coming top of his class. When he had to do his national service in the Belgian armed forces they had some sort of rudimentary computer system which matched a conscriptee's qualifications and aptitudes to the roles available. This program took an amazingly talented law graduate and set him to mowing lawns and painting rocks white at the base in Leopoldsburg.
TBF, that is the Belgian armed forces.
Not only them.
An elderly (now late) American relative of mine was once telling me about his experiences in US Army Intelligence in the Second World War. I asked him where he was posted. He answered:
"You should know the answer to that. I was born in Germany, speak German and French fluently and knew that part of Europe well, so obviously I was posted to ... Asia".
I did a double take at the end of that sentence. But in those days I was younger, had not worked in government and so did not realise that the impenetrable stupidity of large bureaucracies is constant everywhere.
I wasn’t thinking of military obtuseness, but rather that Belgium doesn’t have much in the way of armed forces at all.
A sad day for the pioneers of the dog-drawn mg.
The taller dog is surely asking for trouble? Unless it has evolved some sort of interrupter gear.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
I don't understand the excitement about all this. it's just Sir Chris flying a rather amusing kite.
A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy. I am very comfortable with classifying nads as a desperate disease.
I wouldn't say there's 'excitement'; it's just that there's not much else going on to divert us from the threader's topic. We need aliens to land and prove that Leon is just a figment of an intergalactic AI's imagination.
Your last line is a common sort of view. It sorta fails when someone else sees *you* (or me, or anyone else) as the desperate disease.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
You think "must attend by such-and-such a date" implies a date in the past?
I'm failing to understand the principled objection to this.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
Don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. Isn't there something banning laws in Scotland from being applied retrospectively? I have a dim memory that's the case...
I'd also argue the "must attend by such-and-such a date" makes it even clearer that it's targeted at her. There's no reason to say that if it's a hard-and-fast generic rule that MPs should attend at least once every six months.
I think you've got a bee in your bonnet about defending that your initial reaction was correct despite everyone else saying contrary.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
Don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. Isn't there something banning laws in Scotland from being applied retrospectively? I have a dim memory that's the case...
I'd also argue the "must attend by such-and-such a date" makes it even clearer that it's targeted at her. There's no reason to say that if it's a hard-and-fast generic rule that MPs should attend at least once every six months.
On first point, dunno, sorry!
And on your second point, the statement is incomplete - it coujld be and indeed surely must be relative to some specified and described event, such as the opening of the Parliamentary session. Else the procedure would be instantly obsolete. Doesn't make sense otherwise.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
You think "must attend by such-and-such a date" implies a date in the past?
I'm failing to understand the principled objection to this.
I'm naturally wary of measures emerging as a result of irriration at one particular person.
It can be ok, if thought through properly to establish formal boundaries where perhaps informal ones had previously held sway, but he doesn't seem to have had a concern about absenteeism until this moment.
I'd be more inclined to back it if the proposed suspension were less than 10 days, since it would punish without provoking a recall petition, which makes it look like a device to kick people out.
I say that as someone who thinks Dorries is acting like a child because she was denied a sweety.
Assuming her Wikipeida biography is roughly correct, Dorries sounds like a most interesting person, one I might have voted for were I a British citizen in her constituency.
Yes, she should be doing her job. But her employers -- the voters in her constituency -- should take care of that problem, not her colleagues in the House of Commons.
Assuming, of course, that she is not obstructing the workings of the House by her absence.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
I don't understand the excitement about all this. it's just Sir Chris flying a rather amusing kite.
A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy. I am very comfortable with classifying nads as a desperate disease.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
Don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. Isn't there something banning laws in Scotland from being applied retrospectively? I have a dim memory that's the case...
I'd also argue the "must attend by such-and-such a date" makes it even clearer that it's targeted at her. There's no reason to say that if it's a hard-and-fast generic rule that MPs should attend at least once every six months.
I think you've got a bee in your bonnet about defending that your initial reaction was correct despite everyone else saying contrary.
Just the usual PB argument while waiting for the latest green lizard alien. At least he hasn't gone back to edit his original text withotu admitting it, unlike one or two of us.
Assuming her Wikipeida biography is roughly correct, Dorries sounds like a most interesting person, one I might have voted for were I a British citizen in her constituency.
Yes, she should be doing her job. But her employers -- the voters in her constituency -- should take care of that problem, not her colleagues in the House of Commons.
Assuming, of course, that she is not obstructing the workings of the House by her absence.
Oh, excellent point, things do work more smoothly without her. Perhaps we could pay double for anyone who supported Boris to stay away?
Assuming her Wikipeida biography is roughly correct, Dorries sounds like a most interesting person, one I might have voted for were I a British citizen in her constituency.
Yes, she should be doing her job. But her employers -- the voters in her constituency -- should take care of that problem, not her colleagues in the House of Commons.
Assuming, of course, that she is not obstructing the workings of the House by her absence.
I do broadly agree, although there is a potential caveat there where someone has already announced they won't be standing again, there will not be an opportunity for the voters to cast their judgement on an absentee MP. They basically get 1,2,3 whatever years to coast.
Councillors have to attend at least one meeting every six months unless the absence is approved by their council, and I cannot see MPs agreeing to a similar rule (councillors also cannot be suspended from in the same way), but people like Dorries or O'Mara who are doing nothing, openly, either in or out of the House, I can understand the impulse to do something about it, even if we should be wary of unintended consequences.
There is another possible advantage to modular homes, assuming they are designed correctly. It should be possible to make homes that are almost as easy to move as the trailers so common in the US.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
If someone's ill behaviour is the inspiration for a wider change in order to ensure no one else can abuse the system in the same way etc then I don't think it is inherently unreasonable, but it would have to be done carefully and said change must be clearly justified on its merits, the sort of thing that should have been done anyway even had X not forced peoples' hands/
I don't see how that is the case here, it's Dorries behaving like a toddler and seemingly Bryant trying too hard to checkmate her.
I’m with JJ as far as the undesirability of retrospective legislation is concerned.
This, though, is Parliament policing itself - with both the requirement of a majority vote of the House and, if the MP is to be removed, a vote of the MP’s own constituents. Not the same thing at all.
If they were to say: "There is a new rule, which means that anyone who does not vote in this house for six months gets subjected to a recall," that would be one thing. I'd disagree with it (or at least there needs to be lots more details and caveats), but it'd be okay. MPs know the new rule and will try to keep within it.
But this says: "Suddenly, we're inventing a rule (or using an archaic one in a rather unusual way) that means that anyone who has not voted in the house in the last six months gets subjected to a recall", then that's retrospective and bad IMO.
It's retrospective because it's being applied to behaviour in the past.
Don't think it is. Past behaviour is being used as an *illustration* of the problem. Obviously, if it is continued, e.g. MP X fails to come back to work, then the situation will be different.
Edit: NB the header - 'force' Ms Dorries to resign or come back to work. That deals with the future. Not the past.
The following is apparently from the FT. I don't get the FT, so cannot say it's veracity, but IMV it's clearly meant to be retrospective.
"Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”."
But surely that leaves completely open the deadline for attendance, which could be 6 months + 1 day in the future.
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
Don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. Isn't there something banning laws in Scotland from being applied retrospectively? I have a dim memory that's the case...
I'd also argue the "must attend by such-and-such a date" makes it even clearer that it's targeted at her. There's no reason to say that if it's a hard-and-fast generic rule that MPs should attend at least once every six months.
I think you've got a bee in your bonnet about defending that your initial reaction was correct despite everyone else saying contrary.
My 'initial reaction' was: "I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong."
I stand by that, given the little evidence we have. In fact, given what we have seen, I think it's odd to think Bryant *wasn't* targeting her given his alleged words.
If I was going to take a similar unkind tone, I might suggest that perhaps people are putting their dislike of Dorries / the Conservatives ahead of what is right.
There is another possible advantage to modular homes, assuming they are designed correctly. It should be possible to make homes that are almost as easy to move as the trailers so common in the US.
Assuming her Wikipeida biography is roughly correct, Dorries sounds like a most interesting person, one I might have voted for were I a British citizen in her constituency.
Yes, she should be doing her job. But her employers -- the voters in her constituency -- should take care of that problem, not her colleagues in the House of Commons.
Assuming, of course, that she is not obstructing the workings of the House by her absence.
Oh, excellent point, things do work more smoothly without her. Perhaps we could pay double for anyone who supported Boris to stay away?
The issue with a situation like Dorries being, of course, that she certainly won't stand in the next election. So the voters have no ways to kick her out. It's the equivalent of dossing around during your notice period at work.
Assuming her Wikipeida biography is roughly correct, Dorries sounds like a most interesting person, one I might have voted for were I a British citizen in her constituency.
Yes, she should be doing her job. But her employers -- the voters in her constituency -- should take care of that problem, not her colleagues in the House of Commons.
Assuming, of course, that she is not obstructing the workings of the House by her absence.
I do broadly agree, although there is a potential caveat there where someone has already announced they won't be standing again, there will not be an opportunity for the voters to cast their judgement on an absentee MP. They basically get 1,2,3 whatever years to coast.
Councillors have to attend at least one meeting every six months unless the absence is approved by their council, and I cannot see MPs agreeing to a similar rule (councillors also cannot be suspended from in the same way), but people like Dorries or O'Mara who are doing nothing, openly, either in or out of the House, I can understand the impulse to do something about it, even if we should be wary of unintended consequences.
Another example of where STV with multi-member constituencies would deal with this sort of issue. At the moment if you're a lazy MP then that may make a small difference in an ultra-marginal constituency, but at a GE you are the only choice for someone who supports your party so most of them are going to vote for you anyway. If you're in a safe seat then you have nothing to worry about of course.
If on the other hand you are one of 3 or 4 candidates for your party and the others have demonstrated themselves to be harder working and more conscientious, then you're unlikely to get into parliament under STV unless you are in an extremely one-sided constituency.
Anyone interested in the Community Shield?? No, me neither 😆
Has anyone ever?
In the happy days when Man U were in the Charities Shield almost every year there was a reasonably strong correlation between winning it and having a less than stellar season. The years when they lost, they usually won the league.
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
The owners should be forced to rebuild it as was, including the crookedness. One suspects the owners are familiar with crookedness.
Sorry to go all Mumsnet here on PB, but this is a sensational and simple food combination everyone should know about: gooseberries and strawberries. E.g. make a gooseberry kissel (quickly boil gooseberries in a little water with a little sugar and a teaspoon of cornflour or potato flour); cool it in the fridge and cut some strawberries into it. Enjoy with a dollop of yoghurt.
There is another possible advantage to modular homes, assuming they are designed correctly. It should be possible to make homes that are almost as easy to move as the trailers so common in the US.
The problem has never been building technology, it's always been planning permission. The American dream of buying a plot of land and building a house is literally impossible in the UK. Every inch of UK soil, including the littoral, is governed by somebody who you must ask permission to build something, and the answer is usually "no". There's a reason why we have poor(ish) farmers with acres of worthless land, who could become millionaires overnight if they could only get planning permission
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
Assuming her Wikipeida biography is roughly correct, Dorries sounds like a most interesting person, one I might have voted for were I a British citizen in her constituency.
Yes, she should be doing her job. But her employers -- the voters in her constituency -- should take care of that problem, not her colleagues in the House of Commons.
Assuming, of course, that she is not obstructing the workings of the House by her absence.
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
"Five people have been arrested after a protest halted the Men's Elite Road Race at the UCI Cycling World Championships in Scotland.
The event was paused with just over 190km (118 miles) of the 271km (168 miles) remaining, with the Edinburgh to Glasgow route blocked west of Falkirk."
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
It’s an old phrase for buildings that burn down where the owners might prefer to build something else but can’t get permission or want a nice insurance payout. Not a particularly correct phrase but there you go.
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
It’s an old phrase for buildings that burn down where the owners might prefer to build something else but can’t get permission or want a nice insurance payout. Not a particularly correct phrase but there you go.
Yes - sorry again, if it's an old phrase it's obviously fine.
OT Sweden vs USA in the Women's World Cup on ITV at the moment. England are currently favourites from Spain. I'm starting to think Japan might win it.
On footy, I still can't see why Coventry are 5/1 today away at Leicester KO 1200. The M69 Derby is a feisty one, albeit not played for 10 years or so. I would think evens fair odds considering how Coventry only narrowly missed out on promotion in the playoff final and Leicester are at best a team in transition, with no reliable goalscorer.
Off shortly, so hope I am wrong and that it is a comfortable victory for us.
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
OT Sweden vs USA in the Women's World Cup on ITV at the moment. England are currently favourites from Spain. I'm starting to think Japan might win it.
On footy, I still can't see why Coventry are 5/1 today away at Leicester KO 1200. The M69 Derby is a feisty one, albeit not played for 10 years or so. I would think evens fair odds considering how Coventry only narrowly missed out on promotion in the playoff final and Leicester are at best a team in transition, with no reliable goalscorer.
Off shortly, so hope I am wrong and that it is a comfortable victory for us.
Well timed cash out at 60 min by me.
I think you'll get automatic tbh, it's a good sign when the opposition (us) gives a top performance but you still win.
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
OT Sweden vs USA in the Women's World Cup on ITV at the moment. England are currently favourites from Spain. I'm starting to think Japan might win it.
On footy, I still can't see why Coventry are 5/1 today away at Leicester KO 1200. The M69 Derby is a feisty one, albeit not played for 10 years or so. I would think evens fair odds considering how Coventry only narrowly missed out on promotion in the playoff final and Leicester are at best a team in transition, with no reliable goalscorer.
Off shortly, so hope I am wrong and that it is a comfortable victory for us.
Well timed cash out at 60 min by me.
I think you'll get automatic tbh, it's a good sign when the opposition (us) gives a top performance but you still win.
It's wide open I think. We will have more exits, and lack a reliable striker. Vardy is past it, except as impact sub.
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
At least unlike the Notts PCC, he did (I assume) not get himself banned from driving by committing road crimes whilst he was campaigning for the position as Police and Crime Commissioner.
And fail to have the self-respect to tell anyone about it.
"Five people have been arrested after a protest halted the Men's Elite Road Race at the UCI Cycling World Championships in Scotland.
The event was paused with just over 190km (118 miles) of the 271km (168 miles) remaining, with the Edinburgh to Glasgow route blocked west of Falkirk."
There should be a German compound noun for the faint sympathetic sadness you feel when an ambitious new restaurant opens in your hood and you KNOW it is the wrong business in the wrong location
New high end Japanese right at the top of Parkway. Where no one goes except people determined to get to Regent’s Park or the Zoo. Zero passing trade
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
There should be a German compound noun for the faint sympathetic sadness you feel when an ambitious new restaurant opens in your hood and you KNOW it is the wrong business in the wrong location
New high end Japanese right at the top of Parkway. Where no one goes except people determined to get to Regent’s Park or the Zoo. Zero passing trade
It's the easiest thing in the world to get right - just pack some sandwiches and sit outside your proposed new site, and count. Only thing is who drops in to a high end restaurant as passing trade, now online booking is universal? Shirley handy for the opera is the test?
Bizarrely there seem to be about a dozen listed "Crooked Billets" etc around the country. So if your house is out of true keep quiet about it. Plant sloping trees around it.
Rutherglen vibes from Labour people: early days but pretty positive. They seem confident. DYOR.
TY. LAB will certainly want to keep expectations low publicly but privately will be looking for a large win 20% +. Up to and including 2010 they would typically win this seat with a majority of up to 40%.
There is another possible advantage to modular homes, assuming they are designed correctly. It should be possible to make homes that are almost as easy to move as the trailers so common in the US.
Much of the price, on that website, is location, I think.
That last is park-homes, which are a somewhat different animal.
One type of modular home are something like Space 4, which have been fairly advanced timber frame factory made homes (capacity 8000 per year) which get to weatherproof stage very quickly. Made from around 2000. Now part of Persimmon.
Or there is this sort of thing for a loft upgrade:
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
"It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after being duly chosen, cannot relinquish his or her seat; and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire is appointed to an office under the Crown, which legally vacates the seat and obliges the House to order a new writ."
It's supposed to go like this:
1. Dorries writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asks to be appointed to an office of profit under the crown. 2. He appoints her to one. 3. The Tory chief whip moves a motion to hold a by-election. 4. The Speaker orders the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery [3] to issue a writ.
Lindsay Hoyle is being made to look a right fanny.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tory chief whip Simon Hart, former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, is involved in the piss-taking here. Same goes for Jeremy Hunt.
Note to Dorries: if you want to resign, girl, f***ing resign.
Notes
1) Bryant is probably thinking of distances measured in miles from the Carfax tower in Oxford.[2] 2) If any Cambridge graduates - or dropouts or failures - are reading this, that's a bit like the belltower of Great St Mary's. 3) Fact Of The Day: the current clerk of the crown in chancery, Antonia Romeo, used to be (in effect) the British ambassador to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
I'm not a fan of laws brought in (or reintroduced) to target one person. Chris Bryant is wrong.
From NigelB earlier:
"Note that Bryant's suggestion is part of a package of reforms he's advocating for Parliament. It's not solely targeted at Dorries."
Yes, I read that afterwards. But it's not how the threader is written, and I stand by my comment.
As a matter of interest, is there a list of MPs' attendance? There is data for votes, but what about attendance?
(And as the late Stuart Bell showed, attendance in the press lobby does not mean you are actually doing the job in your constituency...)
How can you stand by your comment when it is based on a false premise?
There have been lots of MPs in recent years who have gone missing from the Commons (the most obvious example in my mind was Jared O'Mara, elected as Labour MP), so it is nonsensical to say that this reform is being proposed to target one individual.
Obviously Mike is interested in it from the angle of the betting on the hypothetical Mid Beds by-election, but I don't think that is upper most in Chris Bryant's mind. You do him a disservice.
Because "Introducing laws to target one person" is a bad idea.
And the threader indicates that's what it is.
Another poster claims this change is part of a wider package, but does not provide a link for that assertion. In addition, if Bryant is selling a package of changes on the basis of getting at one MP, then that is also wrong.
Bryant is not introducing a new law just for one person. From the FT:
Criticising Dorries as an “absentee MP”, Bryant said that when MPs returned to parliament in September it would be “perfectly legitimate . . . to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire — and, for that matter, anybody else who hasn’t turned up for six months — must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”.
Yes, it will also apply to others afterwards (of course), but it is evidently targeted at her. Because he names her.
I don't like Dorries. I can't say how good or bad she has been as a constituency MP, but IMV she has not been a good parliamentary MP, and I disagree with many of her views. But changing the rules to get at her is wrong IMO.
It is quite certain, that if such a mechanism was used against an MP they like, a large number of those in favour of this would discover that “this is a special case”, “harassment” and “dictatorship”.
Lawyers, in their wife’s kimonos, would be striking heroic poses on the steps of the Supreme Court.
The 1801 law seems interesting wrt the wording. I assume 'Town' means London. Does this mean that MPs living in London would be exempt, because they are not out of 'town'? It seems too archaic to be useful (IANAL).
The answer seems quite simple to me: let voters decide. We have regular elections in this country. If an MP does something very wrong, they can be subjected to recall. Otherwise, let the voters decide at an election.
But this also requires data on attendance to be publicly available - however you define 'attendance'.
There should be a German compound noun for the faint sympathetic sadness you feel when an ambitious new restaurant opens in your hood and you KNOW it is the wrong business in the wrong location
New high end Japanese right at the top of Parkway. Where no one goes except people determined to get to Regent’s Park or the Zoo. Zero passing trade
It's the easiest thing in the world to get right - just pack some sandwiches and sit outside your proposed new site, and count. Only thing is who drops in to a high end restaurant as passing trade, now online booking is universal? Shirley handy for the opera is the test?
The new owners have obviously invested serious money. The premises was an estate agents - and all its neighbours are estate agents, still. And for a good reason. The is the end of Parkway where Camden meets Primrose Hill and people are thinking, "oooh, this is a nice area, I wonder how much property is" as they head to the Tube from the park. You very often see people staring at the pics of houses and flats in the windows
What these people are NOT thinking is "mm, if only there was an upscale Japanese fusion restaurant right here"
The sadness is that two restaurants 200m further down Parkway, at the busy end, have closed (expired leases), those sites would have been ideal. Up here? No
I could have saved the owners £50-100k if they'd asked me
But maybe they will prove me wrong.. maybe it will be SO good it will get critics raving and queues outside....
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
"It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after being duly chosen, cannot relinquish his or her seat; and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire is appointed to an office under the Crown, which legally vacates the seat and obliges the House to order a new writ."
It's supposed to go like this:
1. Dorries writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asks to be appointed to an office of profit under the crown. 2. He appoints her to one. 3. The Tory chief whip moves a motion to hold a by-election. 4. The Speaker orders the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery [3] to issue a writ.
Lindsay Hoyle is being made to look a right fanny.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tory chief whip Simon Hart, former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, is involved in the piss-taking here. Same goes for Jeremy Hunt.
Note to Dorries: if you want to resign, girl, f***ing resign.
Notes
1) Bryant is probably thinking of distances measured in miles from the Carfax tower in Oxford.[2] 2) If any Cambridge graduates - or dropouts or failures - are reading this, that's a bit like the belltower of Great St Mary's. 3) Fact Of The Day: the current clerk of the crown in chancery, Antonia Romeo, used to be (in effect) the British ambassador to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
Well, the issue is that she won't apply. The right fanny is Sunak, who as the Crown for these purposes can appoint her to the C Hundreds whether she applies for it/them or not. I believe there's a precedent.
ETA it seems you have to nest blockquotes or they just screw up the quoting
"It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after being duly chosen, cannot relinquish his or her seat; and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire is appointed to an office under the Crown, which legally vacates the seat and obliges the House to order a new writ."
It's supposed to go like this:
1. Dorries writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asks to be appointed to an office of profit under the crown. 2. He appoints her to one. 3. The Tory chief whip moves a motion to hold a by-election. 4. The Speaker orders the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery [3] to issue a writ.
Lindsay Hoyle is being made to look a right fanny.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tory chief whip Simon Hart, former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, is involved in the piss-taking here. Same goes for Jeremy Hunt.
Note to Dorries: if you want to resign, girl, f***ing resign.
Notes
1) Bryant is probably thinking of distances measured in miles from the Carfax tower in Oxford.[2] 2) If any Cambridge graduates - or dropouts or failures - are reading this, that's a bit like the belltower of Great St Mary's. 3) Fact Of The Day: the current clerk of the crown in chancery, Antonia Romeo, used to be (in effect) the British ambassador to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
You're missing what must be blindingly obvious to everyone else. The procedure you're recommending is initiated by Dorries writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Bryant is suggesting another procedure by which Dorries can be forced out against her will. Think about it, and maybe get a friend to explain it to you ...
So the new owners have a substantial lump of insurance money to fund their redevelopment and are not bothered by any pesky listed building considerations. What could possibly be suspicious about that?
This needs a police investigation. If this is arson and connected with the recent and very controversial sale, then those found to be responsible should have the book thrown at them.
Screw sending shoplifters to Chateau d´Íf, it is exactly this kind of wilful and greedy vandalism that deserves a real custodial sentence.
"It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after being duly chosen, cannot relinquish his or her seat; and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire is appointed to an office under the Crown, which legally vacates the seat and obliges the House to order a new writ."
It's supposed to go like this:
1. Dorries writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asks to be appointed to an office of profit under the crown. 2. He appoints her to one. 3. The Tory chief whip moves a motion to hold a by-election. 4. The Speaker orders the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery [3] to issue a writ.
Lindsay Hoyle is being made to look a right fanny.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tory chief whip Simon Hart, former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, is involved in the piss-taking here. Same goes for Jeremy Hunt.
Note to Dorries: if you want to resign, girl, f***ing resign.
Notes
1) Bryant is probably thinking of distances measured in miles from the Carfax tower in Oxford.[2] 2) If any Cambridge graduates - or dropouts or failures - are reading this, that's a bit like the belltower of Great St Mary's. 3) Fact Of The Day: the current clerk of the crown in chancery, Antonia Romeo, used to be (in effect) the British ambassador to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
You're missing what must be blindingly obvious to everyone else. The procedure you're recommending is initiated by Dorries writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Bryant is suggesting another procedure by which Dorries can be forced out against her will. Think about it, and maybe get a friend to explain it to you ...
You should try a bit harder to understand my post.
Bryant's trying to flog his book BTW. He's saying wait 6 months until she hasn't turned up (taking us until at least October, because she voted in April), go for a 10+ days suspension, then hold a recall petition. It's idiotic to talk about reintroducing an 1801 rule to deal with this joker.
This needs a police investigation. If this is arson and connected with the recent and very controversial sale, then those found to be responsible should have the book thrown at them.
Screw sending shoplifters to Chateau d´Íf, it is exactly this kind of wilful and greedy vandalism that deserves a real custodial sentence.
Penalty: rebuild it exactly as it was, then have change of use planning permission refused.
"It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after being duly chosen, cannot relinquish his or her seat; and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire is appointed to an office under the Crown, which legally vacates the seat and obliges the House to order a new writ."
It's supposed to go like this:
1. Dorries writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asks to be appointed to an office of profit under the crown. 2. He appoints her to one. 3. The Tory chief whip moves a motion to hold a by-election. 4. The Speaker orders the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery [3] to issue a writ.
Lindsay Hoyle is being made to look a right fanny.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tory chief whip Simon Hart, former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, is involved in the piss-taking here. Same goes for Jeremy Hunt.
Note to Dorries: if you want to resign, girl, f***ing resign.
Notes
1) Bryant is probably thinking of distances measured in miles from the Carfax tower in Oxford.[2] 2) If any Cambridge graduates - or dropouts or failures - are reading this, that's a bit like the belltower of Great St Mary's. 3) Fact Of The Day: the current clerk of the crown in chancery, Antonia Romeo, used to be (in effect) the British ambassador to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
You're missing what must be blindingly obvious to everyone else. The procedure you're recommending is initiated by Dorries writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Bryant is suggesting another procedure by which Dorries can be forced out against her will. Think about it, and maybe get a friend to explain it to you ...
You should try a bit harder to understand my post.
Bryant's trying to flog his book BTW. He's saying wait 6 months until she hasn't turned up (taking us until at least October, because she voted in April), go for a 10+ days suspension, then hold a recall petition. It's idiotic to talk about reintroducing an 1801 rule to deal with this joker.
Your belittling sarcasm is immensely tedious.
No. Your post still doesn't make sense. But by all means carry on trying, if you think it's worth it.
Comments
In any case, ISTR it's not unknown for the (Conservative?) Government to pass retrospective legislation when it wants to do so. Didn't it do something of the sort with (in its view) dole scroungers?
Asked at the Edinburgh Fringe if he would consider running for the mayoralty, he replied: "Well let's have a think about it, shall we?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66416568?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_type=web_link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_format=link&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_id=344CD988-33A9-11EE-AF81-5C005C3BE886&at_medium=social
As for the Belgian lawyer painting rocks, there has always been a question about what to do with men highly skilled in civvy street but with no military experience. The BBC made a documentary about it: see Captain Ashworth in It Ain't Half Hot Mum, the lawyer or bank manager posted to look after the platoon's admin and banking safely away from the sharp end.
Swans are apparently not very traffic-aware, as one decided to lie down on the warm tarmac.
If a Starmer government was unpopular and the economy poor even a Rees Mogg led Tory opposition could make poll gains.
Steve Barclay, Tom Tugendhat and James Cleverly will also likely run for Conservative leader if Sunak loses the general election next year
A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy. I am very comfortable with classifying nads as a desperate disease.
I'd also argue the "must attend by such-and-such a date" makes it even clearer that it's targeted at her. There's no reason to say that if it's a hard-and-fast generic rule that MPs should attend at least once every six months.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/code-of-conduct-9781526663573/
Your last line is a common sort of view. It sorta fails when someone else sees *you* (or me, or anyone else) as the desperate disease.
And on your second point, the statement is incomplete - it coujld be and indeed surely must be relative to some specified and described event, such as the opening of the Parliamentary session. Else the procedure would be instantly obsolete. Doesn't make sense otherwise.
Edit: dole scrounger legislation is here.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06454/SN06454.pdf
(Obviously applied to Scotland, but never heard of it being challenged as against local laws.)
It can be ok, if thought through properly to establish formal boundaries where perhaps informal ones had previously held sway, but he doesn't seem to have had a concern about absenteeism until this moment.
I'd be more inclined to back it if the proposed suspension were less than 10 days, since it would punish without provoking a recall petition, which makes it look like a device to kick people out.
I say that as someone who thinks Dorries is acting like a child because she was denied a sweety.
Yes, she should be doing her job. But her employers -- the voters in her constituency -- should take care of that problem, not her colleagues in the House of Commons.
Assuming, of course, that she is not obstructing the workings of the House by her absence.
Councillors have to attend at least one meeting every six months unless the absence is approved by their council, and I cannot see MPs agreeing to a similar rule (councillors also cannot be suspended from in the same way), but people like Dorries or O'Mara who are doing nothing, openly, either in or out of the House, I can understand the impulse to do something about it, even if we should be wary of unintended consequences.
(The Boxabl homes might already be an example: https://www.boxabl.com/ )
I stand by that, given the little evidence we have. In fact, given what we have seen, I think it's odd to think Bryant *wasn't* targeting her given his alleged words.
If I was going to take a similar unkind tone, I might suggest that perhaps people are putting their dislike of Dorries / the Conservatives ahead of what is right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66421163
For example -
https://www.parkleisure.co.uk/our-parks/cornwall/par-sands/holiday-homes-for-sale?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=googleplaces-par-sands
Much of the price, on that website, is location, I think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/66420407
If on the other hand you are one of 3 or 4 candidates for your party and the others have demonstrated themselves to be harder working and more conscientious, then you're unlikely to get into parliament under STV unless you are in an extremely one-sided constituency.
E.g. make a gooseberry kissel (quickly boil gooseberries in a little water with a little sugar and a teaspoon of cornflour or potato flour); cool it in the fridge and cut some strawberries into it. Enjoy with a dollop of yoghurt.
I'm on Leicester but biting my nails.
"He added that the lane up to the pub off Himley Road between Dudley and Himley had been blocked, leaving firefighters unable to get their vehicles up close to the blaze."
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/dudley/2023/08/06/fire-engulfs-the-crooked-house-pub---flames-and-smoke-seen-pouring-out-of-iconic-building/
"WITNESS: 'The Lane up to the Crooked House Pub had been blocked leaving firefighters unable to get their vehicles up to the fire'
He was right ⤵️"
https://twitter.com/updates_brumz/status/1688161363397341184?s=20
Recently revived in THE BEAR (season 2) so I think it is permissible
"Five people have been arrested after a protest halted the Men's Elite Road Race at the UCI Cycling World Championships in Scotland.
The event was paused with just over 190km (118 miles) of the 271km (168 miles) remaining, with the Edinburgh to Glasgow route blocked west of Falkirk."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66404777
https://forward.com/culture/372158/why-do-people-call-arson-jewish-lightning-and-is-it-anti-semitic/
Great game. I think I will enjoy this season, so much better than Rodgers-ball to watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_FA_Charity_Shield
And fail to have the self-respect to tell anyone about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/06/bus-neglect-national-failure-public-policy-motorists
New high end Japanese right at the top of Parkway. Where no one goes except people determined to get to Regent’s Park or the Zoo. Zero passing trade
Bizarrely there seem to be about a dozen listed "Crooked Billets" etc around the country. So if your house is out of true keep quiet about it. Plant sloping trees around it.
One type of modular home are something like Space 4, which have been fairly advanced timber frame factory made homes (capacity 8000 per year) which get to weatherproof stage very quickly. Made from around 2000. Now part of Persimmon.
Or there is this sort of thing for a loft upgrade:
Let me be of some assistance. What you want is in Paragraph 3.22 of Erskine May:
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5412/chiltern-hundreds-and-manor-of-northstead/#footnote-item-6 It's supposed to go like this:
1. Dorries writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asks to be appointed to an office of profit under the crown.
2. He appoints her to one.
3. The Tory chief whip moves a motion to hold a by-election.
4. The Speaker orders the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery [3] to issue a writ.
Lindsay Hoyle is being made to look a right fanny.
It wouldn't surprise me if Tory chief whip Simon Hart, former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, is involved in the piss-taking here. Same goes for Jeremy Hunt.
Note to Dorries: if you want to resign, girl, f***ing resign.
Notes
1) Bryant is probably thinking of distances measured in miles from the Carfax tower in Oxford.[2]
2) If any Cambridge graduates - or dropouts or failures - are reading this, that's a bit like the belltower of Great St Mary's.
3) Fact Of The Day: the current clerk of the crown in chancery, Antonia Romeo, used to be (in effect) the British ambassador to Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
His record of failure in Labour politics is pretty remarkable.
“Town” is London *as it was* in 1801
What these people are NOT thinking is "mm, if only there was an upscale Japanese fusion restaurant right here"
The sadness is that two restaurants 200m further down Parkway, at the busy end, have closed (expired leases), those sites would have been ideal. Up here? No
I could have saved the owners £50-100k if they'd asked me
But maybe they will prove me wrong.. maybe it will be SO good it will get critics raving and queues outside....
ETA it seems you have to nest blockquotes or they just screw up the quoting
Screw sending shoplifters to Chateau d´Íf, it is exactly this kind of wilful and greedy vandalism that deserves a real custodial sentence.
Bryant's trying to flog his book BTW.
He's saying wait 6 months until she hasn't turned up (taking us until at least October, because she voted in April), go for a 10+ days suspension, then hold a recall petition.
It's idiotic to talk about reintroducing an 1801 rule to deal with this joker.
Your belittling sarcasm is immensely tedious.
[On top of any other punishment]
“Let’s have a think about X” is *not* the same as “I will think about X”.
The former means “that’s a bloody stupid idea” and the latter means that he will consider it.
Funny old language English