So the Ming Campbell amendment failed by only four votes. Had the LibDems actually told the Tories and the other parties about it earlier and their whips had got their act together, things could have turned out very differently. Despite that, the Government should be embarrassed by it. Sadly, this government is almost beyond embarrassment.
The Conservatives have now joined the LibDems in pulling out of the Speaker's Committee, which clearly wasn't going to be a Speaker's Committee at all. They are right to do so. They should now invite some senior Labour figures to join them in setting up a "Mirror" committee. How about this...
Ken Clarke
David Davis
Sir Ming Campbell
Angus Robertson
Ian Paisley
Andrew Mackinlay
Charles Clarke
The three hour debate showed the House at its best and worst. There were some dreadful speeches and some great speeches. Sir Ming Campbell and Andrew Mackinlay were perhaps the two highlights. Sir Gerald Kaufman and Frank Dobson were the polar opposite.
And finally a word about Theresa May. She gets a lot of flack, often from her own side, but she played a blinder today. She was reasonable, eloquent and exposed all the various weaknesses of Harriet Harman's arguments. All credit to her.
40 comments:
It would be really funny if Jacqui Smithy were hit by the same law the police are using against Green.
There's an interesting suggestion here.
Why is everyone who isn't a Labour Party supporter always being so god-damned civilized. ZanuLabour are destroying this country and taking away all our freedoms and all you do is stand by talking niceties about Parliament. For gawd sake wake up and do something positive before its too late.
Even Better
Damian Green
Dominic Grieve
David Davis
Nigel Evans
Bob-Marshall Andrews
Frank Field
Simon Hughes
Report should be ready in time for the papers tomorrow. I'm on tenterhooks as to what it would say.
I'm not convinced that threatening to sulk if parliament votes the wrong way is quite the masterplan it's being touted as. I wonder if the tactic will be more widely used in future.
I'm glad the Tories and Libs are boycotting the government's show piece committee.
They should start their own and issue something akin to a minority report or in the case a bi-partisan parliamentary report.
>>I'm not convinced that threatening to sulk if parliament votes the wrong way<<
I'm even less convinced that acquiescing in a scheme to kick the whole issue into the long grass is a sensible approach to take for anyone who actually cares about the issues at stake.
A whipped and craven parliamentary majority may entitle the present dismal administration to fix the rules for the time being, but that doesn't compel anyone to co-operate in the process.
Just come home from work and looking forward to finding out what happened in the debate, but 7pm news had nothing worthwhile. I watched 7pm C4 for 30 minutes and they didn't cover it in that time at all. With all due respect to Greek rioters and Irish pigs, that's astonishing. I kept flicking to other channels and it certainly wasn't featured prominantly. Nor can I find video footage on the BBC website. Unsurprising the government doesn't respect Parliament if nobody cares.
Shameless Labour.
It's very far from an everyday occurrence and therefore the urgency is far from apparent. The difficulty of proceeding during a pending investigation was amply demonstrated by Green's reaction to Dobson's speech. And of course were it to turn into a government stitch-up, the opposition members would retain the option of producing a minority report, but instead by skulking off and taking their ball with them they foster the impression that the only purpose of the exercise was to distract attention from the allegations against Green and to engage in grandstanding.
At last the opposition is doing what it should be doing...opposing!!
If they had been doing their job properly insted of giving this most hideous government the nod then we would NOT have had:
A war with Iraq resulting in thousands of innocent deaths.
a Bailout of fatcat bankers.
The death of doctor Kelly.
A disgraced government minister being made a lord.
The ingrained rights of all of us to have the freedom to make a peacful protest in the streets taken away.
The right to pass through our country without fear of stop and search taken away.
Taxed to the heavens for a Global warming that does not exist.
Congestion charges that do not relieve congestion.
A broken promise on a vote on Europe
and so on.
Better late than never Dave to start doing your job but why do I think that you will not be much different?
Whilst I agree with your suggestion, Iain, I am truly dismayed by the latest poll from
POPULUS:
CONSERVATIVES 39% (-2)
LABOUR 35% (nc)
LIB DEMS 17& (+1)
Whilst I find this latest poll unbelievable, it is from Populus and they have been proved quite accurate.
Therefore Cameron had better do some deep thinking. What can he do to take the Tories back to 45%+.
He certainly has got to push to the backroom people like Letwin and Maude- they couldn't fight their way out of a brown paperbag.
David Cameron has far too many lightweights around him. He has got, as a matter of some urgency,to bring back and promote Conservatives who can fight, who are not afraid of getting stuck in.
Michael Howard is brilliant and could do a magnificent job as could Ken Clark, Malcolm Raffkind and John Redwood. There are others, I am sure, who others could suggest. But it is at Central Office where Mr Cameron needs the common touch. He needs advisors who understand common or normal people (the majority!)
Time waits for no man Mr Cameron. I suggest January is too late for change. Change is required NOW!
As it stands, Cameron is in real danger of being out played.
I want the Tories to win the next General Election. The Labour Party sound bites are working. It is time for a change of personnel and a change of tactics.
Time to roll up sleeves and get dirty!
>>they foster the impression that the only purpose of the exercise was to distract attention from the allegations against Green...<<
Of course, Jimmy, that's an absolute priority for the Lib Dems.
Why didn't I see it ?
>>skulking off<<
While grandstanding, no less. Impressive !
"I am truly dismayed by the latest poll"
The "Don't you know who I am Officer?" campaign not yet catching fire?
Cameron ought to get thoroughly briefed by Angela Merkel before next PMQs.
She doesn't agree with Brown or Bush - neither, in the detail, does Sarkozy.
Populus is worrying, but hey, it's Christmas and most of the real horror is in the pipeline.
Not that a hung parliament when it comes to the point would be a bad thing.
Iain Paisley?
Wouldn't worry about the poll too much. Certainly wouldn't panic about it - a 2 point change since the last one, Labour unchanged. The Labour trend is downwards, I think this is the tail end of the Brown Bounce. The gap will widen in the New Year as the recession bites. There is a lot going on unreported in terms of job losses, and most companies end their financial year in December or March and will be looking to the 2009 slump. Sadly more job losses and company collapses will come. Once it becomes apparent the government has blown it all, they won't be forgiven!
Jess,
You miss the point of the polls. The public quite likes Dave. He seems more cheerful and better turned out than Gordy and far less likely to frighten the children. Unfortunately for him although the public think Gordy is a bastard, they do think he at least knows what he's doing. More bad economic news isn't therefore an obvious windfall for Dave, particularly as his efforts to distract the public from bread and butter issues with nonsense like today plainly isn't working. Although it has managed to get Osborne off the front page, which I suppose he'll be happy about.
Iain - it'd be a cracking idea but I think it's only us nerds who give a toss - most people care about their jobs and this is a high risk strategy without much potential profit.
Strapworld - hmm.. that'd be a 94% turnout - I think polling has become problematic as identified in Yanksville with people dumping land lines en masse and having call recognition on mobys.
Someone mentioned in another thread - if anyone asks, say you're gonna vote Labour - cunningly mendacious.
>>Unfortunately for him although the public think Gordy is a bastard, they do think he at least knows what he's doing.<<
You are an amusing chap today, Jimmy.
Well no-one's ever accused him of getting by on charm.
As for this tory committtee idea, it is a bold example of blue sky thinking, but does it go far enough? Why not start your own separate parliament?
Best analysis of recent polling I read was the person who said that the public want Brown to clear up the economic mess but don't want his party to form the next government.
The polls will bounce around like this for a little while. In the New Year they will polarise again, and once an election is called, the Tories will pull further ahead.
Jimmy - you should nip over to Chris Paul's blog - lonely, he is wonely.
Labour have handled this badly ultimately. The Tories have very successfully politicised it, and managed to focus attention on the speaker and the government itself (what about the police?? Douglas Hogg was good on this the other day). I think, politically speaking, the boycott could be a good move. The big problem, however, is that I am not entirely certain that anyone really cares that much. Is / has anyone conducted polling on this question?
Referring to the Lib Dems, "had .. their whips had got their act together"?
Do you mean to say the Lib Dems and the Tories were whipping this vote, which should be a free vote? The Labour Party did not put out a whip, which is why Labour MPs voted on either side. However the Tories and Lib Dems were, so far as I can find, entirely on one side in all votes.
The Labour Party has behaved impeccably in not using the whips but the Tories have behaved consistently abysmally on this issue. The synthetic outrage is wearing through and it's just partisan power play beneath it. This attempt to hold Parliament to ransom unless the Tories get their way is profoundly undemocratic.
It doesn't matter guv. The executive is so corrupt that had the vote gone against them they would have found another way to kick it into the long grass. Modern politicians are essentially dishonorable, as they all have to sell out their principles, if they have any, to their parties to get elected and stay in office. Te only solution for most of them is the Mussolini finish..
David, silly boy. Did you not hear Bob Marshall Andrews? Labour were on a four line boxed whip. He called it unprecedented.
My point was that the LibDems were so disorganised that they couldn't get all their people out and didn't give the Tories ample warning. As far as I know there was no Tory whip but I may be wrong.
One or two interesting titbits from the voting roll. On the down side (if you'll pardon the pun) the shiny new UUP tie-in wasn't enough to persuade that party's sole MP into the lobbies. Teething problems I expect. On the plus side, they were able to persuade at least one independent member that cops arresting MPs might be a cause for concern. Certainly the honourable (and I use the term advisedly) Andrew Pelling was roused to express his concern, for as Pastor Niemoller so very nearly said, first they came for the wifebeaters....
David Boothroyd - err... are you mental? Have you been watching Corrie and getting drunk?
The Labour party ran a 4 line whip after being repeatedly asked to let their members have the free vote. The others didn't need to run the whip other than to make sure they were there, i.e in the chamber for the vote - the narrowness of the majority highlighted discontent within the PLP.
On everything you've hit the opposite of what happened - that is truly remarkable.
Other than that - you is on the money hombre. You may want to find out what occurs before sounding like a fooooool. Unbelievable.
I wouldn't trust Bob Marshall-Andrews to tell me what day it was without two independent witnesses. The way the whip was set out was unique because it was to alert Labour MPs to the fact of the debate without requiring them to vote in a particular way.
What on earth is a four line whip when it's at home?
Is it the parliamentary equivalent of Nigel Tufnel's amp?
Churchill was misquoted.
The correct quote is ... 'The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average MP'
@ cherami
You got a powerful point about the EU unity/division there. Living in The Netherlands, over the weekend there appeared some articles in the Dutch media about the position of the EU Commission. However much one dislikes Europe (which I personally don't), I think most agree that one of the prime tasks, if not the prime task, is to guard the common market against undue government interference. Lately, Commissioner Kroes (in charge of Competition policy and the Dutch Commissioner) is reportedly under fire from many heads of government and finance ministers to do away with the whole EU competition rules re the Banks. I think this could be an enormous disaster. What is next? Government support for car manufactures? Supermarkets? Gas Companies? Before you know it the French will nationalise large parts of the economy if that happens and then it will cost decades to turn that back. The worrying fact is that reportedly, Kroes doesn't get enough backing of Barosso, since he wants to be re-elected as EC president next spring. This is a worrying threat to the free European Market and something therefore where the Conservatives should be worried about.
Needless to say that that can only happens if Britain still has a feasible parliament...
@ David Boothroyd
Charles Clarke also indicated there being a 3-line whip
Besides, what LibDem whips should have done mostly, is communicating the Menzies Campbell amendment clearly to all MPs..
From Hansard just to ensure David Boothroyd stops making a fool of himself;
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab): May I inform you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons why the Labour Benches are so gratifyingly full is that we are on a four-line box—a form of Whip that I have never seen before, but one that is a thinly disguised three-line Whip? It is wholly inappropriate that parliamentary business of this kind should be conducted under a three-line Whip, which I hope that many of my hon. Friends will ignore.
And I suggest he also reads the words of Andrew Mackinley while he's at it, or doesn't he trust his words either?
Andrew Mackinlay: Mr. Speaker is correct, and he has reaffirmed what must always have been the norm. He has restated the modalities and what will happen from now on—perhaps he should paint that on the eyelids of the Metropolitan police.
I support the amendments because of the need for urgency. I understand that the policeman in charge of this is called Quick. Well, I predict that there will never be a slower man. We need only look at the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). It took 14 or 15 months before he was told that there was no case against him. We all knew that, but it was dragged out, and these blighters will drag this case out too. They know that they can kick it into touch until after the next general election. In any event, I am absolutely certain that the hon. Member for Ashford will not be charged. I come back to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It will be impossible for a prosecutor or defence counsel to deal with the matter without referring to intent. If individuals have certain information, it relates to their work as a Member of Parliament or to their deliberations in Parliament, so the case will not go anywhere. I know that, and the police know that, but they are failing to recognise that they have bitten off more than they can chew and that they have trespassed on our rights and independence.
It was put out that this was a matter of national security. Of course, it is not—everyone knows that—because if it was, there would be action under the Official Secrets Act. Under the clerkship of Mr. Bill McKay, there was an attempt by the Ministry of Defence police to come in here and get one of our Committee Clerks, who had received some unsolicited secret information. Mr. Bill McKay saw to it that it was made quite clear to the police how far they could go. I understand that our Clerk was questioned under caution. That was the end of the matter—they backed off—but they have tried it before and it is time that we asserted and reaffirmed our rights and duties.
I was very grateful when Roger Sands, the previous Clerk, made the importance of article 9 quite clear to Lord Justice Hutton. To Lord Justice Hutton’s credit, he acknowledged those rights and acknowledged that in his inquiry he could not trespass on the proceedings of Parliament. That was an important acknowledgment, generously given by the courts. They understand article 9, but the problem is that too many hon. Members do not understand the importance of article 9 and the Bill of Rights. We fought civil wars to create it and overturned a king. King Billy was not all bad; he had some redeeming features, and they need to be reaffirmed today.
I urge hon. Members to stand up for Parliament, to support the amendments and to ensure that full exposure and examination is given to the tawdry events of last week.
Just come over from Guido's, where revolution is brewing.. as per. Buy futures in piano-wire & sleeping bags as far as I can make out. As for my own preparations:
piano-wire, check
sleeping-bag, check
See, I'm crunch-proof, me.
Anyone know where to pick up an AK47?
P.S. wv=Explogy
A combination of explosion & apology seems somehow apt...
Doesn't seem an awful lot of shame here. Hang on for your life more like.
@Comrade
But you haven't told us what YOU are doing. So why should we take any notice of you at all?
Perhaps the govt can't be embarrassed by the Tories as they have to be the most ineffectual opposition. This issue was about civil liberties, rights of the ordinary citizen etc. But the Tories turn it into a wimpish dry argument about the Speaker's role and what happened in 1642.
And like Comrade pointed out, why the desire to be civillized when dealing with a bunch of thugs and brigands?
And no wonder, the polls show the Tories at just a pathetic 4% above Labour today.
If the Tories can't dislodge Labour even with Children's CAF and the economic downturn, perhaps they should step aside so a new effective party can be formed.
I don't know who ignites my disgust more - the horrible govt or the useless Tory front bench.
p.s. WELL SAID COMRADE!!!
I was pleased to hear Kaufman's approval for the arrest of MPs and police raids on their houses and offices. I feel Kaufman's repeated questions and announcements on behalf of Israel and Israelis mark him out as a possible traitor and well worthy of investigation and a fishing expedition by the authorities.
I found the debate in Parliament really quite wierd - Iain was right, how on earth could the Speaker preside over such a debate? The whole thing is bizarre and puts Parliament into disrepute.
I liked the list Iain put forward. Forming a parallel committee would really open up the issue to the public and create an ongoing crisis mood, which is what is needed, as the government are clearly ignoring democracy in favour of "managing" the House.
Surprised the utterly brazen Brown didn't propose Lord Mandelsohn as Chair!
Post a Comment