|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 24, 2020 15:35:42 GMT
Don't be a bell end. It's always sad when someone dies unless it's someone like the Yorkshire Ripper. I presume his Lordship would prefer you to advise us of an elected Councillor's passing, with the preface .. " I am delighted to advise ...... "  No just straightforward facts. Emotions are for family and friends etc. |
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 24, 2020 15:38:08 GMT
Councillor Gerald Luxton, Independent member for Westexe on Mid Devon District Council, has sadly died. He was also a town councillor for 42 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 24, 2020 15:38:22 GMT
I presume his Lordship would prefer you to advise us of an elected Councillor's passing, with the preface .. " I am delighted to advise ...... " No, that style should be reserved for unelected Lib Dem life peers. Just Liberal Democrat ones?    |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 24, 2020 15:41:28 GMT
As I keep repeating, Tony Greaves is one of very few members of the House of Lords who does have a democratic mandate, having been elected by the delegates to the Liberal Democrat Conference to go onto the Party's list of potential peers. Yes, of sorts, though the election of 50 people in 1999 (I think) was headed "Interim Peers List". Interesting word in restrospect thanks to the duplicity of the Conservative and Labour Parties during the Coalition. The behaviour of Labour in particular was despicable. I did however vote to abolish myself on the one occasion on which the matter came to the Lords (an advisory vote during New Labour times). |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 24, 2020 16:07:44 GMT
Interesting word in restrospect thanks to the duplicity of the Conservative and Labour Parties during the Coalition. The behaviour of Labour in particular was despicable. I did however vote to abolish myself on the one occasion on which the matter came to the Lords (an advisory vote during New Labour times). I seem to recall your then party leader telling anyone who would listen that the reason the Lords hadn't been reformed was because of opposition in the Lords itself. Did you tell him this was nonsense or was it just assumed by then that anything Nick Clegg said would automatically be expected to be a lie? |
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 25, 2020 11:19:08 GMT
|
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 25, 2020 19:53:56 GMT
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Apr 25, 2020 20:43:17 GMT
No, as he retired in 2010 after 8 years of service. |
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 25, 2020 20:49:22 GMT
My mistake. I didn't see that in the article. Many former councilors have died and the reporting is not always very clear.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Apr 25, 2020 21:16:28 GMT
My mistake. I didn't see that in the article. Many former councilors have died and the reporting is not always very clear. The article isn't clear at all. I searched on Andrew's website to add the ward to help maintain the list and found he was a former councillor. There is no way to know that from that article. |
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 26, 2020 9:19:32 GMT
My mistake. I didn't see that in the article. Many former councilors have died and the reporting is not always very clear. The article isn't clear at all. I searched on Andrew's website to add the ward to help maintain the list and found he was a former councillor. There is no way to know that from that article. Yes indeed. I did look for the ward in the article so I could mention it, but it wasn't there. The headline alone makes it look like he was still a serving councillor. |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 26, 2020 15:52:11 GMT
Interesting word in restrospect thanks to the duplicity of the Conservative and Labour Parties during the Coalition. The behaviour of Labour in particular was despicable. I did however vote to abolish myself on the one occasion on which the matter came to the Lords (an advisory vote during New Labour times). I seem to recall your then party leader telling anyone who would listen that the reason the Lords hadn't been reformed was because of opposition in the Lords itself. Did you tell him this was nonsense or was it just assumed by then that anything Nick Clegg said would automatically be expected to be a lie? Hm. I don't remember Clegg saying that but it might have been diversionary rubbish to hide the shambles in the Commons. The Bill was blocked in the Commons by Cameron after it received a Second Reading with a huge majority. The ostensible reason was that the Labour front bench would not agree to a timetable motion. But there was a group of about ?70 Conservative MPs who did not agree to it and would not vote for a timetable motion either. This meant that the two Coalition parties together could not force one through. It was believed that if the Bill (which as a constitutional bill would be taken in Committee on the floor of the House was not timetabled) it would totally disrupt business for several weeks. It would certainly have got through the House of Lords if the Labour Party had been prepared to support it there, however many Tory backbenchers refused to support it. There would have been some Cross-bench opposition but not enough to stop the Bill, and the Bishops had agreed with the compromise they negotiated with the Government. |
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 26, 2020 16:03:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 26, 2020 17:02:22 GMT
I seem to recall your then party leader telling anyone who would listen that the reason the Lords hadn't been reformed was because of opposition in the Lords itself. Did you tell him this was nonsense or was it just assumed by then that anything Nick Clegg said would automatically be expected to be a lie? Hm. I don't remember Clegg saying that but it might have been diversionary rubbish to hide the shambles in the Commons. The Bill was blocked in the Commons by Cameron after it received a Second Reading with a huge majority. The ostensible reason was that the Labour front bench would not agree to a timetable motion. But there was a group of about ?70 Conservative MPs who did not agree to it and would not vote for a timetable motion either. This meant that the two Coalition parties together could not force one through. It was believed that if the Bill (which as a constitutional bill would be taken in Committee on the floor of the House was not timetabled) it would totally disrupt business for several weeks. It would certainly have got through the House of Lords if the Labour Party had been prepared to support it there, however many Tory backbenchers refused to support it. There would have been some Cross-bench opposition but not enough to stop the Bill, and the Bishops had agreed with the compromise they negotiated with the Government. Clegg was more referring to previous attempts before then and pretending that Lords reform usually dies in the Lords when a look at the historic record shows that it tends to die in the Commons. He contributed to this in 2012 with his complete failure to build a consensus on the subject and thought he could just shout his interpretation of manifestos and the Coalition Agreement and everyone would automatically agree with him. |
|
mike
Non-Aligned
Posts: 400
|
Post by mike on Apr 26, 2020 18:55:27 GMT
This sad news from Cheshire West and Chester takes away Labour's effective casting vote majority. Last year's election of 70 councillors was Labour 35, Conservative 27, Independent 5, LibDem 2, Green 1.
With two Independent defections to Conservative and the death of one Labour member, it is now 69 members of Labour 34, Conservative 29, Independent 3, LibDem 2, Green 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 27, 2020 9:23:50 GMT
Hm. I don't remember Clegg saying that but it might have been diversionary rubbish to hide the shambles in the Commons. The Bill was blocked in the Commons by Cameron after it received a Second Reading with a huge majority. The ostensible reason was that the Labour front bench would not agree to a timetable motion. But there was a group of about ?70 Conservative MPs who did not agree to it and would not vote for a timetable motion either. This meant that the two Coalition parties together could not force one through. It was believed that if the Bill (which as a constitutional bill would be taken in Committee on the floor of the House was not timetabled) it would totally disrupt business for several weeks. It would certainly have got through the House of Lords if the Labour Party had been prepared to support it there, however many Tory backbenchers refused to support it. There would have been some Cross-bench opposition but not enough to stop the Bill, and the Bishops had agreed with the compromise they negotiated with the Government. Clegg was more referring to previous attempts before then and pretending that Lords reform usually dies in the Lords when a look at the historic record shows that it tends to die in the Commons. He contributed to this in 2012 with his complete failure to build a consensus on the subject and thought he could just shout his interpretation of manifestos and the Coalition Agreement and everyone would automatically agree with him. Wrong again I'm afraid. I am no fan of Clegg (to put it mildly) but in the case of Lords reform he spent a lot of time seeking compromises and the Bill as tabled in the Commons was quite minimalist - anything less would have been fairly pointless. It failed because the plug was (quite disreputedly) blocked in the Commons by the Labour Party who were really just being disruptive, and by Cameron who was being undermined by his right wing. None of it was helped by Cameron's insistence on tying it to his silly idea of reducing the number of MPs by a handful. There's some stuff about all this in Clegg's book on the Coalition and other things "Politics - Between the Extremes". |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 27, 2020 9:29:55 GMT
Shocking that an opposition party should have the temerity to try to subject the government's proposals to proper scrutiny. Ought not to be allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 27, 2020 9:56:08 GMT
Shocking that an opposition party should have the temerity to try to subject the government's proposals to proper scrutiny. Ought not to be allowed. When it came to the Trotskyist practice of calling for any sort of increase in income tax, your political bedfellows agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 27, 2020 10:18:07 GMT
I'm not even sure what that means.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Apr 27, 2020 12:29:47 GMT
Shocking that an opposition party should have the temerity to try to subject the government's proposals to proper scrutiny. Ought not to be allowed. Well we may agree about the need to reform procedures in the Commons (under all Governments, Labour were just as bad). But on the occasion we are discussing Labour were asked to negotiate an agreed timetable ie what they would accept) and they refused to do so. That is not usual practice. |
|
