I don't know how many people are watching the debate in the House of Commons on the setting up of the Committee to investigate the Damian Green arrest. So far there is only one word for it. Unedifying. Virtually all contributions so far have been partisan. This should be a debate in which the House of Commons comes into its own. So far, it has been anything but that.
Use this as an open thread to comment on the debate as it progresses.
UPDATE: Disgraceful speeches from Dobson and Kaufman. Ignorant and insulting. Ming Campbell, Andrew Mackinlay and Michael Howard have been truly outstanding. Mackinlay in particular.
I am watching it and I have to say I am glad that the opposition lost the motion to extend the debate to 6 hours which would have not been able to avoid the impression of self-indulgent navel gazing.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. A totaly sham so far. MPs should realise that they aren't in the House to support the government's every whim, but to represent the rights of their constituents. Parliamentary privilege is not there to protect MPs from the law, but to protect the rights of the people of this country from the arbitary power of the Crown and the executive. Some Labour MPs need to reflect on why they stood for Parliament...
ReplyDeleteAgreed. A totaly sham so far. MPs should realise that they aren't in the House to support the government's every whim, but to represent the rights of their constituents. Parliamentary privilege is not there to protect MPs from the law, but to protect the rights of the people of this country from the arbitary power of the Crown and the executive. Some Labour MPs need to reflect on why they stood for Parliament...
ReplyDeleteHowever, as I type Gordon Prentice has just spoken about the opportunity for the committee to sit in camera...thank God for some constructive non-partisanship...bring on David Winnick and Geraldine Smith...perhaps they'll continue this common sense approach against this despicable motion.
Frank Dobson is an utter clown. A former Secretary of State for Health!!!! mind boggles doen't it!
ReplyDeleteA part of all the talent...less
My God, Frank Dobson is awful!
ReplyDeleteThe debate so far is pretty dire.
On a lighter note,I think I'm in love with Teresa May.
Frank Dobson should be ashamed of himself.
ReplyDeleteSome good interventions from the labour side of the house... Although Dobbo is making quite a terrible speech now... How can any member of the Privy Council has so little understanding of the issues at stake...
ReplyDeleteGood speech of Richard Sheppard on the business motion... maybe a bit to emotional, but with a clear grasp of the situation.
I do think that Dobson was putting himself up as one of the wise men!!
ReplyDeleteTo think that people actually voted for that fool!!
Dobbo is terrible.
ReplyDeleteBob Marshall Andrews' point just before the timetabling motion division was spectacular though. Apparently the labour whips had 'boxed' the debate rather than underlining it. A new and somewhat sinister development.
The main debate is bound to be slightly partisan. On the non-partisan front, I did like the exchange between Frank Field and Theresa May about their support for Ming Campbell's proposal.
Good point made by Allan Beith too
ReplyDeleteDoes Dobson really not understand what is wrong with saying that Damian Green had a "standing order arrangement" with a civil servent?
ReplyDeleteSurely this is the worst kind of abuse of parliamentary privilege - making accusations inside the Chamber that would be completely unacceptable outside, not to raise an issue that matters to their constituents or of national importance, but purely to smear a political opponent. He is a disgrace and should have been forced to withdraw his remarks.
Maybe thats why most people think he's a bad Speaker.
ReplyDeleteHe should have been forced to withdraw those awful remarks.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the House is burdened with a Speaker who is neither articulate nor strong enough to uphold the age old rights and traditions of our Parliament.
This past week has demonstrated that the doubts many people had since the resignation of the admirable Lady Boothroyd were, in fact, well and justly founded.
There is not, nor has there ever been, any convention that the Speakership alternate between the two main parties. That just happened to happen for a time by a series of flukes, supremely the failure of the Tories to get their act together in 1992, which set the tone for their antics throughout that Parliament, and at least arguably ever since.
ReplyDeleteLabour would certainly win any Speakership election in this Parliament, on a three-line whip in all but name. Harriet Harman clearly wants to replace Michael Martin with a New Labour Speaker (any ideas as to who, exactly?) instead of an orthodox Catholic with a working-class, provincial background who has remained economically on the Left.
The Tories are prepared to go along with this, with a view to replacing the New Labour Speaker with a New Labour Tory Speaker (any ideas as to who, exactly?) if they win the General Election.
For now, forget Michael Martin.
For now, forget Damian Green.
This scheme is bigger than either of them.
And it must be stopped.
If the police are to be totally independant and it would be wrong for the government to intervene in police investigations, why isn't more being made of the intervention of the government of the Saudi Arabian arms deals? I am open to the fact that I may be mixing my kettles of fish, but if I were on the Tory benches I would be making much of it.
ReplyDeleteKaufman's way past his sell-by date, isn't he?
ReplyDeleteWhat a prat Kaufman is. I don't think he knows what he's trying to say.
ReplyDeleteWV = ejecon
Please can someone put him out of his misery and send him to the Lords!
ReplyDeleteGerald Kaufmann is making an speech that is totally not based on facts. His attacks on Dominic Grieve are cheap and show contempt to the place he speaks in.
ReplyDeleteMartin's not going anywhere until the election. I suspect he may reconsider carrying on after though.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why Frank stuck his oar in (very naughty I agree). Chris Bryant started out as Frank's agent oddly enough. Just coincidence maybe. To be fair though, if the tories wanted to do "parliamentary" then they'd've kept the insufferable Nigel Evans in his box.
Looks like the right will be represented on the committee by Bob Spink and the DUP.
Not terribly edifying.
Rubbish accusations of 'tory' class warfare from Kaufman, he's a disgrace (and not just because he's quite posh sounding).
ReplyDeleteA dumb assed Telegraph headline allows that idiot Kauffman to lie about what Dominic Grieve has actually said and then go on to deliver the most facile remarks I have heard in parliament in a long time and that included Harmans opening speech - so it must have been bad.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of pillocks they have become over at the Telegraph
Menzies Campbell making a good speech. Thats as good as I've heard him for along time.
ReplyDeleteKaufman is playing for a seat in the Lords.
ReplyDeleteHe is the man that has consistantly placed the politics of Israel before those of Manchester. An awful man who has never put honour before politics.
Menzies Campbell is just about the first person today to get parliament to sit down and listen.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with the sentiments expressed above: thank god the motion failed. If this were going on until 8.30 this evening, it would have been the hugest waste of Parliament's time.
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
ReplyDeleteAndrew Mackinlay MP (Lab) asks for leaks to be sent to him on rice paper in future so he can eat them before the police come.
Ming Campbell nicely raised the ghosts of John Biffen and Robin Cook as Leaders and a damning comparison with Harman. Useful.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Mackinley...great speech. The first person to raise Article 9 and the fact that MPs are members of the High Court of Parliament. Sir Ming and now Mr Mackinley...are we starting to hear sense at last!?
ReplyDeleteAndrew McKinlay has talked some sense. One of very few this afternoon to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe motion and terms of reference of this committee show this government's arrogance and utter contempt for Parliament. And does anybody embody this better than the arrogant and smirking Ms. Harperson?
ReplyDeleteThe speeches from the Labour benches are pathetic. What a complete and utter buffoon Frank Dobson is. As for Gerald Kauffman...oh dear, oh dear! Thank Heavens for Ming Campbell, who has raised the tone at last.
I must add I was very impressed with Teresa May. I had never previously rated her but she was excellent - very combative and authoritative, with barely controlled anger.
Loads of common sense, some humour and a lot of passion from McKinlay.
ReplyDeleteWell done that man!
Andrew Mackinley was great. Harman wouldn't look at him when he'd finished.
ReplyDeleteOliver, (& others)
ReplyDeleteAndrew Mckinley has just made himself a friend of mine. A good contribution.
What is all telling is how many empty seats there are in the house.
ReplyDeleteClive Efford, on the other hand, came across as an arrogant fool.
ReplyDeleteGod that woman is appalling!
ReplyDeleteThe face the "Right Honorable" Leader of the House made when Frank Field suggested that she listen to the consensus showed utter contempt.
Obviously the govt. now has no desire to come out of this affair with any honour or credit.
Bring on the next general election!
Oliver Drew - that was Clive Efford. Arrogant, as I said.
ReplyDeleteEfford's an idiot. Frank Field is making Harman look even more uncomfortable. Excellent stuff!
ReplyDeleteOliver Drew said...
ReplyDeleteAnother idiot...what is Sir Gerald Kaufman talking about? I'm totally confused by his 'argument'.
Kermit is a very confused person. I once saw him in Speaker's Court wearing a huge beret and a cloak. He looked for all the world as though he'd just got out of a coffin.
The leader of the opposition is now speaking. Sorry. David Davis who SHOULD be the leader is speaking.
ReplyDeleteHe is reading a letter from a former policeman -who I know- this letter is spot on.
David Davis tearing Kaufman's points to pieces - nice
ReplyDeleteGood grief you've got more gumption than me - my TV blew itself up whne Dobbo came on.
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing, and in particular Labour's approach, brings to mind one of Bernard's irregular verbs in Yes, Prime Minister:
ReplyDelete"I give confidential briefings; you leak; he is being prosecuted under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act".
Except they couldn't make the Official Secrets Act stick, so had to fall back on a 19th century catch-all.
Keith Vaz speaking now...
ReplyDeleteIt seems like for once he is not totally supportive of the government.. it is any case a better speech then he made on 42 days.... maybe his peerage still has to wait....
but congratulations to him on his rediscovered independence!
Ha.
ReplyDeleteKen Clarke's speech started out proclaiming the glories of bi-partisanship, and celebrating the improving nature of the debate.
Unfortunately, he has relapsed.
Anyone else feel that the magic has been broken?
This is an excellent speech from Ken Clarke.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you totally. Ken is showing why he should have been Leader of the Conservatives and PM years ago!!!
Harperson looked rather uncomfortable when Kenneth Clarke talked about when she was at the NCCL.
ReplyDeleteThoughtful contribution from Ken Clarke....
ReplyDeleteI am truly surprised by the bipartisanship of Denis McShane and Keith Vaz. Too bad the government is not accepting the motion of Menzies Campbell, although I do believe they are now heading to a defeat in the division that is on now.
ReplyDelete@ Oliver Drew
ReplyDeleteIn the short term, you are right, but I think that in the longer run it won't be embarrassing for the government. It shows there is still a sometimes independent HoC and that will hopefully make the government more aware of the fact they only have power as long as they can command support in the House.. that would not be embarrassing, that would be democracy... although this government probably thinks democracy is embarrassing.
4 bloody votes. Just three more MPs with the balls and the conscience to say that what is happening is wrong and there might have been some chance of a genuine inquiry.
ReplyDelete@ Oliver Drew
ReplyDeleteI think we are in total agreement. Labours general attitude to the HoC as an institution needs improvement.
Just four votes between it is also quite an embarrassment for the government is they like a bipartisan committee...
sir Patrick's point of order was a bit early, but interessting!
Here's a thought... if the Speaker feels his statement is not put in practice by the Harman motion and that he is thus defeated in the House... will he resign?
ReplyDeleteWell that's that - nearly.
ReplyDeleteComedy from the Tory who shouted resign. Hey ho - another stich up.
I have heard some pathetic speeches from life-long backbenchers but Dobson was a Minister and Kaufman is supposed to be an intellectual. Irrespective of the merits of the matter being debated both should be deselected by their constituency parties as they are both obviously in their dotage.
ReplyDeleteTypical! After such as great, well thought out debate from some of the most senior and experienced MPs on all benches, and some amazing examples of strident Parliamentary bipartisanship, the govt. manages to screw the House over yet again!
ReplyDeleteThe Labour MPs who voted with the govt. should be ashamed of themselves. They are obviously non-entities looking after themselves without any interest in the ancient rights and privileges of the House.
The sooner they are voted out of that place the better!
Theresa!! What a star!
ReplyDeleteI suggest [as a Lib Dem] that the main outcome of today will be that it has thrown us LDs into the arms of the Tories [not somewhere I have ever wished to go].
ReplyDeleteAs the next election could still turn out to be a damn close run thing for the Tories, and their majority after it slim or none, this newfound closeness may have real consequences in 2010 when this affair, possibly still unresolved, has been forgotten.
I was pleased to see that we managed to get our withdrawal from this phoney committee in first!
I see Labour as the ultimate philosophical expression of Evil, but i'll give them their due, they ain't going to let principle get in the way of power! They have learned lessons from Enoch Powell and the Maastricht debates - two occasions when the governing party tore themselves to pieces over a point of principle. Not that road for New Labour!
ReplyDeleteDavid said 509. I would like to see just how Vaz voted! That man has more sides than a fifty pence piece!
ReplyDeleteAn Honourable Government would look at that vote and accept that, although they had a majority, to carry on with their proposal would not be democratic.
Mind you I do hope they form a committee including Kaufman, Dobson, Skinner, such great orators and parliamentarians.
What a total shower!
"Labours general attitude to the HoC as an institution needs improvement."
ReplyDeleteThey're not the ones refusing to accept the result of the vote.
@ Jimmy: some votes do not have legitimacy... some results are better compared with communist elections that democratic votes that one would expect at Westminster of all places...
ReplyDelete"some votes do not have legitimacy... "
ReplyDeleteWhat was that about Stalinism?
You might want to give that veneer of respect for parliament a second coat because it's coming off.
So you were entirely convinced by the imperishable eloquence of Kaufman and Dobson then, Jimmy ?
ReplyDeleteWhy? Are the votes handicapped according to level of erudition displayed in the debate? Parliament, which we are told is sacrosanct (terms and conditions apply it would seem) has spoken. Just imagine the reaction here if Harman had announced a Labour boycott if they didn't like the way the vote went.
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not. However, winning a vote is not the same as doing the right thing or having any moral authority. Winning a vote is one thing, winning the argument quite another and I think the argument was comprehensible lost this evening.
ReplyDeleteI should state that I have no interest in the outcome whatsoever, since I am not British and do not live in the UK either, but just someone who is interested in democracy and international constitutional law...
>>Are the votes handicapped according to level of erudition displayed in the debate<<
ReplyDeleteAs so often, you are confusing two issues.
That the government won the vote, albeit narrowly, isn't a matter of debate, but given their performance in the debate, we can draw our own conclusions as to the motivations of the whipped and craven majority who voted on their side.
It would have been scarcely less edifying had the government speakers spent the entire debate with their fingers in their ears chanting Nananananananannananna...
It is perfectly possible to win a vote, but lose the argument.
>>Just imagine the reaction here if Harman had announced a Labour boycott if they didn't like the way the vote went.<<
On the basis of today's performance, I'm not sure anyone would care.
Oliver,
ReplyDeleteI suspect it's a wise precaution but even if it isn't, it's not such an inherently unreasonable one as to justify a boycott. Besides, if it gets dropped in Jan/Feb (certainly a plausible scenario) it's all going to look a bit foolish. One could also make the point that if the govt really did want to stifle an inquiry (and it's far from clear why as the inquiry is not into anything the government has done) they would need to have it concluded prior to the earliest likely election date, which would seem to militate against too much foot dragging.
You're right about Kaufman. What an incredible s*** that man truly is. Wish I lived in his constituency so that I could work ceaselessly to get rid of him.
ReplyDelete