|
|
Post by stepney on Dec 31, 2012 9:11:52 GMT
You might well ask why should you pretend to apply for a job that doesn't really exist in order to resign, the answer to which is more or less summed up by Tangent above They do not "pretend" to apply for a job in order to "resign", because as you know an MP cannot resign the trust placed in them by their constituents. And quite right too. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,842 
|
Post by Crimson King on Dec 31, 2012 9:17:14 GMT
You might well ask why should you pretend to apply for a job that doesn't really exist in order to resign, the answer to which is more or less summed up by Tangent above They do not "pretend" to apply for a job in order to "resign", because as you know an MP cannot resign the trust placed in them by their constituents. And quite right too. OK, if that is such an important principle, how come a councillor, MEP and (I imagine) AM, MSP etc can resign the trust their constituents have placed in them? |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Dec 31, 2012 9:19:30 GMT
If they do not have to apply for the offices as the SF cases show, could a Chancellor just before a tight vote suddenly sack 40 opposition MPs? Looks like something that could have been done if Britain had gone the wrong way in the 30s!
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 31, 2012 10:04:35 GMT
If they do not have to apply for the offices as the SF cases show, could a Chancellor just before a tight vote suddenly sack 40 opposition MPs? No. "No person being a member of the House of Commons, or for the time being nominated as a candidate for election to that House, shall be required to accept any office or place by virtue of which he would be disqualified by this Act for membership of that House, or for membership of that House for the constituency for which he is sitting or is a candidate." (House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, s. 8(1)) |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Dec 31, 2012 11:32:54 GMT
Thank You David. Fascism averted in the 30s (I assume it was a similar rule then).
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 31, 2012 23:41:42 GMT
No. "No person being a member of the House of Commons, or for the time being nominated as a candidate for election to that House, shall be required to accept any office or place by virtue of which he would be disqualified by this Act for membership of that House, or for membership of that House for the constituency for which he is sitting or is a candidate." (House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, s. 8(1)) So what is the difference between the Chancellor appointing Gerry Adams to the office of Steward of the Manor of Northstead, despite him not applying for it, not accepting it, and publically rejecting it, and the Chancellor hypothetically appointing Ed Miliband to the office of Steward of the Manor of Northstead, despite him not applying for it, not accepting it, and publically rejecting it? Legally, you could argue that Adams is still an MP. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 31, 2012 23:57:44 GMT
So what is the difference between the Chancellor appointing Gerry Adams to the office of Steward of the Manor of Northstead, despite him not applying for it, not accepting it, and publically rejecting it, and the Chancellor hypothetically appointing Ed Miliband to the office of Steward of the Manor of Northstead, despite him not applying for it, not accepting it, and publically rejecting it? Adams may not have applied for the appointment in terms, but he clearly did wish to relinquish his seat and appointment as a Crown Steward is the accepted way of so doing. Although Adams did state that he did not accept the office, this was after he had been appointed to it and by that time it was too late. Appointment of a Member to a disqualifying office and vacating their seat without their knowledge or consent is illegal, but Members cannot (it seems) unilaterally object to the established process for resigning seats to the extent of requiring the creation of a new process. The Speaker did allow a minor alteration to the constitutional process which went unnoticed by almost everyone. Whereas previously the new writ was moved "in room of A. B., who since his election for the said [Borough/County] constituency has accepted the office of Steward", the wording was changed to "has been appointed to the office of Steward". This new wording was used on two occasions before the new writ for Belfast West was moved. No you couldn't, because a new writ was issued in his stead. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Jan 1, 2013 9:31:57 GMT
All a bit silly - why not just let him resign? Seriously why not, you can from a council seat, from the Scottish Parliament and from the National Assembly, why not from the House of Commons?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 10:31:20 GMT
All a bit silly - why not just let him resign? Seriously why not, you can from a council seat, from the Scottish Parliament and from the National Assembly, why not from the House of Commons? because the place is full of so called tradition but in fact it is just a load of outdated nonsense that should be swept away with. for example in votes each MP should have their own button to press whilst in the chamber so we can see immediately how the vote is going and see the MP's faces on how they voted, it is not a secret ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 1, 2013 11:10:35 GMT
All a bit silly - why not just let him resign? Seriously why not, you can from a council seat, from the Scottish Parliament and from the National Assembly, why not from the House of Commons? That's a perfectly good debate to have - but it's not relevant to the issue at hand, because a provision allowing Members of Parliament to resign in form as well as in effect has not been put in place. Unless and until it is, an individual MP can't expect to improvise such a procedure and to have it accepted as constitutionally effective. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Jan 1, 2013 12:49:43 GMT
Why not, much of the constitution seems to be made up on the fly, ok in this instance there is statue underpinning this silly rule.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Jan 1, 2013 12:52:47 GMT
All a bit silly - why not just let him resign? Seriously why not, you can from a council seat, from the Scottish Parliament and from the National Assembly, why not from the House of Commons? because the place is full of so called tradition but in fact it is just a load of outdated nonsense that should be swept away with. for example in votes each MP should have their own button to press whilst in the chamber so we can see immediately how the vote is going and see the MP's faces on how they voted, it is not a secret ballot. The problem with that is that you might need seats for all - unless you have hand held voting machines (which is perfectly doable, but I can see the problems now with that)... I know that people like some of the traditions, and assume that they have layers of meaning that underpin the centuries of democracy in these islands (convieniently forgetting that you didn't have democracy until we had adult sufferage - probably mid 1920's).... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 13:02:35 GMT
yes you have hand held little terminals where you have to enter pin number to vote and have to within the chamber to vote. Technically very simple to implement. At least MP's are allowed to read speeches etc off tablets now but why all the paper work that they have ?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Jan 1, 2013 13:49:58 GMT
I know that people like some of the traditions, and assume that they have layers of meaning that underpin the centuries of democracy in these islands (convieniently forgetting that you didn't have democracy until we had adult sufferage - probably mid 1020's).... As long ago as that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 16:09:56 GMT
I would put the date of us being a proper democracy when universal suffrage started.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 1, 2013 16:17:48 GMT
I would put the date of us being a proper democracy when universal suffrage started. 1918, 1928, 1948, 1949 or 1969? |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jan 1, 2013 16:18:50 GMT
Of course there was universal male suffrage in Germany before Britain, but no one could seriously argue that the Kaiserreich was more democratic than Edwardian Britain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 16:36:28 GMT
I would put the date of us being a proper democracy when universal suffrage started. 1918, 1928, 1948, 1949 or 1969? excellent point, I would say 1918 of course .. but maybe when 16 year olds are finally given the chance to vote on how their life is determined ... |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 1, 2013 16:44:02 GMT
If you want to go down that route, why stop at 16? Why not go all the way and allow newly born babies to vote?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 17:06:24 GMT
If you want to go down that route, why stop at 16? Why not go all the way and allow newly born babies to vote? last time I looked babies did not have to pay tax if earning enough, Babies do not have legal sex, babies can not drive and pay tax, babies do not join the army etc. A 16 year old can do all that a 18 year old can do and yet not vote |
|
