This nonsense about Conservative absentees is a complete red herring.
It would have been even worse if the motion had narrowly passed; what was needed was cross-party consensus, which Cameron worked hard to get (and thought he had got), as in previous occasions over many decades.
So we have just witnessed a near-perfect whipping operation?
Rory clearly has strong feelings on the sanctity of marriage:
I think his odds of being the next, or a future, anything have rather lengthened.
Let's just analyse the facts in that story.
Woman works for (soon-to-be) MPs charity. Woman separates from husband. Woman and husband divorce. Woman later moves in with now-MP.
Do we have any evidence that the separation occurred because of Stewart? People get divorced all the time, and yes, sometimes people get together with people they knew before.
An article long on insinuation and short on fact.
If you're playing that game, we all know Ed Miliband's views on the sanctity of marriage. Only do it when it looks like it's politically advantageous ...
Are you taking the view that the motions were the same or are you taking the view that the Labour one had a higher hurdle to bombing?
The latter, so presumably Labour preferred to rule out bombing in all circumstances than to accept the possibility of action going ahead with that hurdle not being met (although with the protection of a second vote). Fair enough, or at least it would have been fair enough if they'd said that earlier.
Are you taking the view that the motions were the same or are you taking the view that the Labour one had a higher hurdle to bombing?
The latter, so presumably Labour preferred to rule out bombing in all circumstances than to accept the possibility of action going ahead with that hurdle not being met (although with the protection of a second vote). Fair enough, or at least it would have been fair enough if they'd said that earlier.
So parliament probably supports Labour's motion, and doesn't support the Tories' one. What's the procedural impossibility in scheduling a vote on Labour's motion?
"Not filled with sympathy for Rory. Last October after the helicopter crash we had no way of getting people on and off the rig for several weeks and one of the Stewardesses missed her own wedding"
Richard makes a good point.
Is it really acceptable for Rory Stewart to attend his sisters wedding and miss a vote which could result in UK forces fighting in Syria?
What about the weddings and funerals that the soldiers will miss while they are obliged to act on the vote that Stewart missed?
It's worth reading his call for military action on his blog. 'Crucial' apparently unlike his vote.
This nonsense about Conservative absentees is a complete red herring.
It would have been even worse if the motion had narrowly passed; what was needed was cross-party consensus, which Cameron worked hard to get (and thought he had got), as in previous occasions over many decades.
So we have just witnessed a near-perfect whipping operation?
Rory clearly has strong feelings on the sanctity of marriage:
I think his odds of being the next, or a future, anything have rather lengthened.
Let's just analyse the facts in that story.
Woman works for (soon-to-be) MPs charity. Woman separates from husband. Woman and husband divorce. Woman later moves in with now-MP.
Do we have any evidence that the separation occurred because of Stewart? People get divorced all the time, and yes, sometimes people get together with people they knew before.
An article long on insinuation and short on fact.
If you're playing that game, we all know Ed Miliband's views on the sanctity of marriage. Only do it when it looks like it's politically advantageous ...
It's not about how things are, it's about how it looks. War or peace, life or death vote on his (as he never ceases to remind us) chosen specialised subject of ME conflict. He was unlucky, obviously, but if I were him I'd have missed that wedding.
woger.. missed thaT bit ... UK forces fighting in Syria... when did that happenn...or is it just the usual bullshine from you and RT. Stick to commercials wog.. reality is a little too much for you.
So parliament probably supports Labour's motion, and doesn't support the Tories' one. What's the procedural impossibility in scheduling a vote on Labour's motion?
In this case, Labour failed to persuade the House that its amended version was better than the government version of the motion. Parliament voted against Labour's amendment, so it's a bit of a stretch to say it supports it.
Anyway the procedure is that you table a motion, any amendments are voted on first, and then you vote on the motion. You don't get an opportunity to say you didn't really mean it the first time.
I imagine there's nothing procedurally impossible about scheduling a new debate and new vote on a similar motion (if the Speaker agrees - I'm not certain of the exact parliamentary conventions here). But it's hard to see the justification for this; we've had the vote.
This nonsense about Conservative absentees is a complete red herring.
It would have been even worse if the motion had narrowly passed; what was needed was cross-party consensus, which Cameron worked hard to get (and thought he had got), as in previous occasions over many decades.
So we have just witnessed a near-perfect whipping operation?
Rory clearly has strong feelings on the sanctity of marriage:
I think his odds of being the next, or a future, anything have rather lengthened.
Let's just analyse the facts in that story.
Woman works for (soon-to-be) MPs charity. Woman separates from husband. Woman and husband divorce. Woman later moves in with now-MP.
Do we have any evidence that the separation occurred because of Stewart? People get divorced all the time, and yes, sometimes people get together with people they knew before.
An article long on insinuation and short on fact.
If you're playing that game, we all know Ed Miliband's views on the sanctity of marriage. Only do it when it looks like it's politically advantageous ...
It's not about how things are, it's about how it looks. War or peace, life or death vote on his (as he never ceases to remind us) chosen specialised subject of ME conflict. He was unlucky, obviously, but if I were him I'd have missed that wedding.
How it looks depends very much on how you write the story.
I don't really get poetry. It was a big thing a century or three ago but not so much anymore. It mostly strikes me as pretentious and wanky. So I wasn't really attuned to the Seamus Heaney thing and all the noise now he's dead. Anyway, one or two obits included some of his 'hits' and all my worst suspicions were confirmed. It's tosh. I was feeling all uncivilised and then I see our own SeanT has said exactly the same thing in the DT blogs and now I feel my cultural antenna is tip top again!
(I was once with a French friend in the national gallery and we found ourselves in front of a famous classical piece - can't remember who but a very famous one. Titian? Rembrandt? Can't remember. But there was alot going on - angels, cherubs, naked people in odd poses, sky, clouds, animals, symbolism of god knows what. Jean Francois looked at it for a minute, turned to me and said: 'What a mess.' I suddenly felt better. That's probably the best and most accurate bit of art criticism the piece ever received).
Comments
Woman works for (soon-to-be) MPs charity.
Woman separates from husband.
Woman and husband divorce.
Woman later moves in with now-MP.
Do we have any evidence that the separation occurred because of Stewart? People get divorced all the time, and yes, sometimes people get together with people they knew before.
An article long on insinuation and short on fact.
If you're playing that game, we all know Ed Miliband's views on the sanctity of marriage. Only do it when it looks like it's politically advantageous ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23931479
"Not filled with sympathy for Rory. Last October after the helicopter crash we had no way of getting people on and off the rig for several weeks and one of the Stewardesses missed her own wedding"
Richard makes a good point.
Is it really acceptable for Rory Stewart to attend his sisters wedding and miss a vote which could result in UK forces fighting in Syria?
What about the weddings and funerals that the soldiers will miss while they are obliged to act on the vote that Stewart missed?
It's worth reading his call for military action on his blog. 'Crucial' apparently unlike his vote.
Stick to commercials wog.. reality is a little too much for you.
Anyway the procedure is that you table a motion, any amendments are voted on first, and then you vote on the motion. You don't get an opportunity to say you didn't really mean it the first time.
I imagine there's nothing procedurally impossible about scheduling a new debate and new vote on a similar motion (if the Speaker agrees - I'm not certain of the exact parliamentary conventions here). But it's hard to see the justification for this; we've had the vote.
(I was once with a French friend in the national gallery and we found ourselves in front of a famous classical piece - can't remember who but a very famous one. Titian? Rembrandt? Can't remember. But there was alot going on - angels, cherubs, naked people in odd poses, sky, clouds, animals, symbolism of god knows what. Jean Francois looked at it for a minute, turned to me and said: 'What a mess.' I suddenly felt better. That's probably the best and most accurate bit of art criticism the piece ever received).
Ooh I'm a goth!