J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,762 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 27, 2019 21:46:16 GMT
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If a party which doesn't even takes its seats has an issue with the method of resignation from parliament - that is their problem, not everyone else's. But the situation is broke. O’Marra has publicly said he wants to resign - he might have very legitimate reasons for hanging on until the first week of September but I haven't seen any evidence of it, he’s forced to hang around on the public payroll until Parliament resumes next week. Just be thankful this didn’t happen twenty years ago when the summer/conference recess lasted over two months. The election of his successor can’t officially start until next week so the whole thing IMO needs to be looked at. It might be very quaint and British but why should MPs be they disgraced, ill or just moving on with their lives need to apply to a (for all inventive purposes) fictional role appointed by the Treasury? If a country declared independence tomorrow, they wouldn’t use the system we use would they? Logical reform would involve formally writing to someone (The Speaker or a named official) and the Speaker triggering the resulting by-election. I’ve given by thoughts on why party whips shouldn’t be the people to move write, but I know I’m in the minority here. That would be the simplest reform. A member swears or affirms acceptance of office, simply write to the speaker withdrawing, repudiating, rejecting, voiding, that acceptance of office. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 27, 2019 21:48:55 GMT
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,842
|
Post by Crimson King on Aug 28, 2019 6:59:18 GMT
I am happy to be corrected, but I think O’Mara said he was going to resign when parliament was still sitting, so could have done so then, but chose to announce he would resign after the recess (leaving aside the fact that he could and should have chosen to resign any time in the months prior to that) The idea that the poor man is being forced to hang on and keep his pay because of outdated procedures is not at all convincing Recess started on 25th July. This tread started on 27th. Fair enough, but my wider point stands - he could have made that annoncement three days earier, or three weeks, or three months |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,907
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Aug 28, 2019 8:07:39 GMT
Recess started on 25th July. This tread started on 27th. Fair enough, but my wider point stands - he could have made that annoncement three days earier, or three weeks, or three months I don't think he'd actually decided to resign in time to do so before the recess started. (I looked up the rules when I realised that he was going to, which was just before it was announced, and it was already too late.) Given that the Recess Elections Act 1975 excludes by-elections caused by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds or Northstead (but why on earth does it do this?) it doesn't really matter very much as long as his resignation does take effect in time for the writ to be moved ASAP after the recess ends. I don't see any real problem in the fact that MPs can de facto resign their seats but that it's referred to as taking the Chiltern Hundreds or Northstead, though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 28, 2019 10:04:06 GMT
Fair enough, but my wider point stands - he could have made that annoncement three days earier, or three weeks, or three months I don't think he'd actually decided to resign in time to do so before the recess started. (I looked up the rules when I realised that he was going to, which was just before it was announced, and it was already too late.) Given that the Recess Elections Act 1975 excludes by-elections caused by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds or Northstead (but why on earth does it do this?) it doesn't really matter very much as long as his resignation does take effect in time for the writ to be moved ASAP after the recess ends. I don't see any real problem in the fact that MPs can de facto resign their seats but that it's referred to as taking the Chiltern Hundreds or Northstead, though. I think it is pointless to discuss Jared O'Mara in a "he should have done this" way. The decision to resign was precipitated by some events affecting someone under considerable mental stress who had been advised (exploited?) by dubious "friends". I daresay when he enquired about resigning he was very surprised by the arcane nature of the necessary procedure which by any standards is completely bizarre. For me this Chiltern Hundreds business, while quaint and harmless in itself, is just symbolic of the desperate need for reform of our political system rooted in the days of rotten boroughs and a highly restricted franchise. The ridiculous pairing system, talking out bills, giving up for Party conferences, baying at the opposition, wandering through a lobby to vote, unelected Lords and an unrepresentative electoral system. No-one in their right mind would invent a Parliament that functions like ours, except as a tourist attraction. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 28, 2019 10:38:16 GMT
And today's news just emphasises the archaic nature of things still further.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 28, 2019 10:40:07 GMT
And today's news just emphasises the archaic nature of things still further. Quite! Mother of Parliaments?? We see what happens to all mothers, unfortunately, after a few hundred years |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 28, 2019 11:55:33 GMT
I don't think he'd actually decided to resign in time to do so before the recess started. (I looked up the rules when I realised that he was going to, which was just before it was announced, and it was already too late.) Given that the Recess Elections Act 1975 excludes by-elections caused by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds or Northstead (but why on earth does it do this?) it doesn't really matter very much as long as his resignation does take effect in time for the writ to be moved ASAP after the recess ends. I don't see any real problem in the fact that MPs can de facto resign their seats but that it's referred to as taking the Chiltern Hundreds or Northstead, though. I think it is pointless to discuss Jared O'Mara in a "he should have done this" way. The decision to resign was precipitated by some events affecting someone under considerable mental stress who had been advised (exploited?) by dubious "friends". I daresay when he enquired about resigning he was very surprised by the arcane nature of the necessary procedure which by any standards is completely bizarre. For me this Chiltern Hundreds business, while quaint and harmless in itself, is just symbolic of the desperate need for reform of our political system rooted in the days of rotten boroughs and a highly restricted franchise. The ridiculous pairing system, talking out bills, giving up for Party conferences, baying at the opposition, wandering through a lobby to vote, unelected Lords and an unrepresentative electoral system. No-one in their right mind would invent a Parliament that functions like ours, except as a tourist attraction. Agree with this, but which part of the pairing system do you feel to be ridiculous? I'd prefer pairing to ministers being flown back from important conferences just to vote, or critically ill MPs being brought to the House in ambulances. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 28, 2019 12:26:32 GMT
I think it is pointless to discuss Jared O'Mara in a "he should have done this" way. The decision to resign was precipitated by some events affecting someone under considerable mental stress who had been advised (exploited?) by dubious "friends". I daresay when he enquired about resigning he was very surprised by the arcane nature of the necessary procedure which by any standards is completely bizarre. For me this Chiltern Hundreds business, while quaint and harmless in itself, is just symbolic of the desperate need for reform of our political system rooted in the days of rotten boroughs and a highly restricted franchise. The ridiculous pairing system, talking out bills, giving up for Party conferences, baying at the opposition, wandering through a lobby to vote, unelected Lords and an unrepresentative electoral system. No-one in their right mind would invent a Parliament that functions like ours, except as a tourist attraction. Agree with this, but which part of the pairing system do you feel to be ridiculous? I'd prefer pairing to ministers being flown back from important conferences just to vote, or critically ill MPs being brought to the House in ambulances. The bit where they do not replace it by proxy votes or secure online voting. I can see the rationale for expecting MPs to attend debates but the reality is that most of the time they rush in when the bell is rung. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 28, 2019 15:13:35 GMT
Another Liberal Democrat leaflet today. Anymore and we are into overdoing it territory. This one, is a pro-remain, anti-brexit, centric leaflet, can't currently be bothered to photograph and link it but can if requested. You aint seen nothing yet! |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,907
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Aug 28, 2019 16:07:40 GMT
For me this Chiltern Hundreds business, while quaint and harmless in itself, is just symbolic of the desperate need for reform of our political system rooted in the days of rotten boroughs and a highly restricted franchise. The ridiculous pairing system, talking out bills, giving up for Party conferences, baying at the opposition, wandering through a lobby to vote, unelected Lords and an unrepresentative electoral system. No-one in their right mind would invent a Parliament that functions like ours, except as a tourist attraction. Oh, I basically agree with you. I just think that the Chiltern Hundreds is a fairly insignificant issue compared with several others, such as a PM who has never received the confidence of Parliament being able to suspend that Parliament for five weeks without its consent. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 28, 2019 16:25:16 GMT
I quite like the Chiltern Hundreds business. A quaint way of allowing someone to give up representing their constituents, with the legal fiction of being prevented from doing so. Totally harmless. And also a good reminder of the turbulent history of separation of Crown and Parliament.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 28, 2019 16:35:37 GMT
I quite like the Chiltern Hundreds business. A quaint way of allowing someone to give up representing their constituents, with the legal fiction of being prevented from doing so. Totally harmless. And also a good reminder of the turbulent history of separation of Crown and Parliament. Yeah, the idea that what is wrong with our polity (and clearly rather a lot is) is the flummery is even sillier than the flummery. You could have a President, a Senate (with no Bishops in sight), a semi-circle seating plan in the Commons, a written constitution and the ability for parliamentarians to just resign... and not a single meaningful detail of the present pile-up of fiascoes would differ. |
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122 
|
Post by rocky on Aug 28, 2019 16:49:08 GMT
Another Liberal Democrat leaflet today. Anymore and we are into overdoing it territory. This one, is a pro-remain, anti-brexit, centric leaflet, can't currently be bothered to photograph and link it but can if requested. If you wouldn't mind sharing it when tour next uploading the next leaflet you get that would be great. Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 28, 2019 17:07:16 GMT
I quite like the Chiltern Hundreds business. A quaint way of allowing someone to give up representing their constituents, with the legal fiction of being prevented from doing so. Totally harmless. And also a good reminder of the turbulent history of separation of Crown and Parliament. Yeah, the idea that what is wrong with our polity (and clearly rather a lot is) is the flummery is even sillier than the flummery. You could have a President, a Senate (with no Bishops in sight), a semi-circle seating plan in the Commons, a written constitution and the ability for parliamentarians to just resign... and not a single meaningful detail of the present pile-up of fiascoes would differ. You could of course take a set of post-war political setups and find such sensible aspects as two houses with identical powers, both alike in indignity (Italy), and heads of government declaring no confidence in themselves to force an election (Germany). |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 28, 2019 17:21:48 GMT
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If a party which doesn't even takes its seats has an issue with the method of resignation from parliament - that is their problem, not everyone else's. But the situation is broke. O’Marra has publicly said he wants to resign - he might have very legitimate reasons for hanging on until the first week of September but I haven't seen any evidence of it, he’s forced to hang around on the public payroll until Parliament resumes next week. Just be thankful this didn’t happen twenty years ago when the summer/conference recess lasted over two months. The election of his successor can’t officially start until next week so the whole thing IMO needs to be looked at. It might be very quaint and British but why should MPs be they disgraced, ill or just moving on with their lives need to apply to a (for all inventive purposes) fictional role appointed by the Treasury? If a country declared independence tomorrow, they wouldn’t use the system we use would they? Logical reform would involve formally writing someone (The Speaker or a named official) and the Speaker triggering the resulting by-election. I’ve given by thoughts on why party whips shouldn’t be the people to move write, but I know I’m in the minority here. As Davıd Boothroyd has pointed out he can be appointed at any time. If he wanted to "resign" a week ago all he needed to do was write to the Treasury saying so. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 28, 2019 17:53:05 GMT
But the situation is broke. O’Marra has publicly said he wants to resign - he might have very legitimate reasons for hanging on until the first week of September but I haven't seen any evidence of it, he’s forced to hang around on the public payroll until Parliament resumes next week. Just be thankful this didn’t happen twenty years ago when the summer/conference recess lasted over two months. The election of his successor can’t officially start until next week so the whole thing IMO needs to be looked at. It might be very quaint and British but why should MPs be they disgraced, ill or just moving on with their lives need to apply to a (for all inventive purposes) fictional role appointed by the Treasury? If a country declared independence tomorrow, they wouldn’t use the system we use would they? Logical reform would involve formally writing someone (The Speaker or a named official) and the Speaker triggering the resulting by-election. I’ve given by thoughts on why party whips shouldn’t be the people to move write, but I know I’m in the minority here. As Davıd Boothroyd has pointed out he can be appointed at any time. If he wanted to "resign" a week ago all he needed to do was right to the Treasury saying so. What David also said was that from the point of view of the electorate it would be pointless since the by election could not be called in the recess (or presumably during the Johnson Parcel-of-Roguesation). Taxpayercould have saved a few quid though I guess |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 28, 2019 17:59:46 GMT
Yeah, the idea that what is wrong with our polity (and clearly rather a lot is) is the flummery is even sillier than the flummery. You could have a President, a Senate (with no Bishops in sight), a semi-circle seating plan in the Commons, a written constitution and the ability for parliamentarians to just resign... and not a single meaningful detail of the present pile-up of fiascoes would differ. You could of course take a set of post-war political setups and find such sensible aspects as two houses with identical powers, both alike in indignity (Italy), and heads of government declaring no confidence in themselves to force an election (Germany). I still think it would have been very amusing to see what Theresa would have done if the opposition had abstained in 2017 so that the election motion did not get the necessary 2/3. VONC in herself would seem the only way... |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 28, 2019 18:11:40 GMT
You could of course take a set of post-war political setups and find such sensible aspects as two houses with identical powers, both alike in indignity (Italy), and heads of government declaring no confidence in themselves to force an election (Germany). I still think it would have been very amusing to see what Theresa would have done if the opposition had abstained in 2017 so that the election motion did not get the necessary 2/3. VONC in herself would seem the only way... I suppose it would be moderately embarrassing for a government to VONC itself but this tempered by the fact that everyone knows it is simply a procedural matter and in this case the opposition would have voted against an early election which could also be used to suggest that they did think there were ready to form a government. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 28, 2019 18:21:06 GMT
I still think it would have been very amusing to see what Theresa would have done if the opposition had abstained in 2017 so that the election motion did not get the necessary 2/3. VONC in herself would seem the only way... I suppose it would be moderately embarrassing for a government to VONC itself but this tempered by the fact that everyone knows it is simply a procedural matter and in this case the opposition would have voted against an early election which could also be used to suggest that they did think there were ready to form a government. "everyone knows" shows touching faith in the electorate! Actually they would have abstained saying that since Theresa had ruled out an early election so often, she had clearly lost confidence in her own judgement. Then Corbyn calls a VONC the next day and challenges the Tories to look stupid by backing it.. That is what I would have done |
|
