Secret Troughs! - Page 2

Greg Pope · 30-05-2007, 08:54

To claify a couple of points that have come up: firstly, I am opposed to this Bill and would have voted against it. The reason it came up on a Friday is because that is the day of the week set aside for Private Members' Bills - turnout is always low on these days for a couple of reasons, partly because they are unwhipped (MPs don't have to be there), partly because they stand virtually no chance of becoming law (i.e. it is potentially a waste of time), and partly because MPs usually have constituency engagements of Fridays. There is a quorum for the house of Commons which has to be demonstrated by the number of MPs voting (rather than present in the chamber for a debate) and it is 40, made up of 1 person in the chair (Speaker or Deputy), 4 tellers (to count the vote) and 35 voting MPs; previously this could be tested by shouting "I spy strangers" which would force a vote - I could bore you with the history of this dating back to the English Civil War but I won't! Suffice to say it has now been 'modernised'. As has been pointed out there are currently 646 MPs, a reduction of 13 from the last Parliament as the number of Scottish MPs has been reduced following devolution.

Despite all the assurances about the Data Protection Act, some MPs' correspondence regarding constituents has ended up in the public domain so there is a problem that needs sorting. Finally, it is not quite true that the House of Commons will be exempt from the smoking ban - the building is royal palace and as such has crown privilege (which technically exempts it from the ban). The Commons itself has voted to ban smoking everywhere in the building from 1st July, the same day the law comes into effect.

andrewb · 30-05-2007, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Sorry Cyfr but according to the list of MP’s at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ there are 645 of them, which isn’t 650 odd either.

It was a Private Members' Bill - Introduced by David Maclean

My bad I ment 646 I guess I should watch which numbers I hit first, get them in right order next time!

Edit: The 646 figure is including the speaker of the house, I think.

cashman · 30-05-2007, 09:32

thanks for the explanation greg, i am not disputing your view on how you would vote, but would say,(i.e. it is potentially a waste of time), not much point going against what people think,when its not (much chance of becoming law) i may be a cynical git, but thats what a lot would do

glad to see commons has voted to uphold the smoking ban although thats less ammunition for me.

thanks again.

Wynonie Harris · 30-05-2007, 10:20

Ok, thanks for that, Greg (although I'm still not convinced that the FOIA presents a threat to constituents' confidentiality). Anyway, glad to know that you would have done the honourable thing if you'd been there.

I sincerely hope that the Lords throw this iniquitous amendment out now.

jambutty · 30-05-2007, 11:56

Much obliged for clarifying Greg.

What alarms me is the possibility that a law could be passed on the say so of just 18 MP’s. OK! I accept that it is a very long shot and a snowball has more chance of surviving in hell than that happening but nonetheless such a possibility should not exist.

Fortunately, as you state, private member’s bills have little chance of becoming law, yet once in a while one does. Hopefully this one will not be the exception to the rule.

I wonder how many of the 500 odd MP’s who were not there to vote will declare, like you, that they would have voted against the bill when secretly they would like such a bill to become law? Not that I am suggesting that you are one.

The Houses of Parliament are so steeped in traditions going back hundreds of years that such traditions have no place in this modern world. Total Parliamentary reform is long overdue.

You must have a keyboard like mine Cyfr. Those darned keys keep changing over when you least expect it.

garinda · 30-05-2007, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

What alarms me is the possibility that a law could be passed on the say so of just 18 MP’s. OK! I accept that it is a very long shot and a snowball has more chance of surviving in hell than that happening but nonetheless such a possibility should not exist.

Although most Private Member's Bills don't make it to enactment, it was just such a Bill that in 1964 abolished the death penalty in this country.

jambutty · 30-05-2007, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Although most Private Member's Bills don't make it to enactment, it was just such a Bill that in 1964 abolished the death penalty in this country.

I wonder how many MP’s voted for the act?

If it were less than half the MP’s in office at the time then it was forced onto the citizens of this country by a minority. That’s democracy???

No new law or an amendment to an existing law should go through on a minority vote. But then the government of the day is usually voted into office (not power as TB is so fond of stating) on a minority vote.

On BBC2 on Tuesday evenings there is a series on “History of Modern Britain” written and narrated by Andrew Marr and all past PM’s and MP’s depicted so far spoke of being “in office” and serving the country etc even if some of them made a hash of it. In one case (Suez) took us to war on a lie.

Wynonie Harris · 30-05-2007, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

In one case (Suez) took us to war on a lie.

Thank goodness times have changed. You wouldn't get a present-day Prime Minister doing anything like that!

andrewb · 30-05-2007, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I wonder how many MP’s voted for the act?

If it were less than half the MP’s in office at the time then it was forced onto the citizens of this country by a minority. That’s democracy???

No new law or an amendment to an existing law should go through on a minority vote. But then the government of the day is usually voted into office (not power as TB is so fond of stating) on a minority vote.

On BBC2 on Tuesday evenings there is a series on “History of Modern Britain” written and narrated by Andrew Marr and all past PM’s and MP’s depicted so far spoke of being “in office” and serving the country etc even if some of them made a hash of it. In one case (Suez) took us to war on a lie.

"Democracy" in terms of how many people are voting for something isn't always a good thing, tyranny of the majority shouldn't exist.

As for the History of Mordern Britain, its brilliant, havn't got chance to watch this weeks yet though!

spinner · 30-05-2007, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

"Democracy" in terms of how many people are voting for something isn't always a good thing, tyranny of the majority shouldn't exist.

As for the History of Mordern Britain, its brilliant, havn't got chance to watch this weeks yet though!

true cyfer butin situations of 'tyranny of the majority ' it is all too often brought about by a scheming minority. thats the irony

jambutty · 30-05-2007, 17:19

Sorry made a mistake!

jambutty · 30-05-2007, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

"Democracy" in terms of how many people are voting for something isn't always a good thing, tyranny of the majority shouldn't exist.

As for the History of Mordern Britain, its brilliant, havn't got chance to watch this weeks yet though!

Neither is tyranny of the minority. But that’s what we’ve had for years.

spinner · 30-05-2007, 17:32

i think cyfr is very textbooky at this moment in his young life. dont mean it in a patronising way

cashman · 30-05-2007, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

"Democracy" in terms of how many people are voting for something isn't always a good thing, tyranny of the majority shouldn't exist.

interesting phrase (tyranny of the majority) what exactly does that mean? the minority could be MPs, and the majority the public. which to me is what makes the world more dangerous.

andrewb · 30-05-2007, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinner

i think cyfr is very textbooky at this moment in his young life. dont mean it in a patronising way

What do you mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

interesting phrase (tyranny of the majority) what exactly does that mean? the minority could be MPs, and the majority the public. which to me is what makes the world more dangerous.

Pretty much how you said it! A majority of people, say public, shouldn't be able to make decisions that benefit them whilst working against minorities that can't have a say because there ain't enough of them. What im trying to say is the majority might have a decision, but that doesn't mean its the right decision for the country.