|
Post by tonyhill on Aug 5, 2023 15:06:29 GMT
I think it would be outrageous for MPs to start manipulating the existing rules by introducing a motion like that. Dorries is taking the piss and her behaviour is harming her constituents, but if democracy is to mean anything it is that due process must be followed, and it is better that she continues to do sweet fa than to subvert the rules to get rid of her.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,029
|
Post by jamie on Aug 5, 2023 15:07:30 GMT
From FT: Chris Bryant: "it would be perfectly legitimate... to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire... must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”. Presumably he also backs doing this for Sinn Fein and he who shall not be named?
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 5, 2023 15:15:49 GMT
Presumably he also backs doing this for Sinn Fein and he who shall not be named? Sinn Fein MPs don’t take their salaries yet still represent their constituents through casework and correspondence to Ministers. He who shall not be named has been named and is active in his constituency and in submitting written questions. Nadine Dories is doing none of these things.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,462
|
Post by peterl on Aug 5, 2023 15:18:56 GMT
It would be reasonable to impose a rule applying from now on for all MPs through the legislative process that not attending for x amount of time leads to disqualification. But to impose such a rule retrospectively on one member is harder to defend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2023 15:26:31 GMT
From FT: Chris Bryant: "it would be perfectly legitimate... to table a motion saying the member for Mid Bedfordshire... must attend by such-and-such a date or will be suspended from the House for 10 sitting days or more”. Presumably he also backs doing this for Sinn Fein and he who shall not be named? There is a difference: SF has made clear before the election that any winning candidate would not attend parliament. I assume Nads has not done so.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 5, 2023 16:22:43 GMT
Without much of a written constitution beyond Erskine May of course test cases like this will come up to challenge conventions and rules. This isn't the "good old days" where MPs, as discussed before, didn't bother with the Commons and had boozy lunches without barely bothering with constituency duties.
This is an MP knowingly and wrecklessly ignoring the assumed duties of a modern MP. Let her be tested by the House to see if it's still okay to act like a baronet with a date at every private club in the city.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Aug 5, 2023 16:24:31 GMT
The electors of Mid Beds knew what they were doing when they voted for her: they put her back into Westminster three times after her appearance on 'I'm a celeb. etc', and after she started her new career as a popular novelist. She wasn't completely focussed on being their representative from 2012 onwards so her behaviour now shouldn't be that much of a surprise to them.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 5, 2023 17:06:59 GMT
Presumably he also backs doing this for Sinn Fein and he who shall not be named? There is a difference: SF has made clear before the election that any winning candidate would not attend parliament. I assume Nads has not done so. That may be true morally but can you really make differences in parliamentary rules based on manifestos?
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 5, 2023 17:07:48 GMT
The electors of Mid Beds knew what they were doing when they voted for her: they put her back into Westminster three times after her appearance on 'I'm a celeb. etc', and after she started her new career as a popular novelist. She wasn't completely focussed on being their representative from 2012 onwards so her behaviour now shouldn't be that much of a surprise to them. You could say the same about Uxbridge. Except their MP wanted the limelight and took it. She wants fame outside the Commons while not doing an MPs job. And not that I want to talk about voting systems, this is a rock solid seat and would require a Martin Bell type to challenge her.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 5, 2023 17:09:15 GMT
There is a difference: SF has made clear before the election that any winning candidate would not attend parliament. I assume Nads has not done so. That may be true morally but can you really make differences in parliamentary rules based on manifestos? The difference is the Oath. Take it and expect to be criticised for not attending the Commons and to be potentially asked to leave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2023 17:43:42 GMT
It’s ok to introduce an attendance requirement with consequences for non-compliance, but not retro-actively.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 5, 2023 18:27:34 GMT
She is infuriating all the people she wishes to infuriate, isn't she?
What would JS Mill say?
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 5, 2023 18:28:03 GMT
How would this motion stand credibly without doing the same to the Sinn Fein MPs? Maybe an attendance rule whereby if you take the oath you must attend a minimum amount or face recall. But if you don’t take the oath you forfeit your salary and expenses instead.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 5, 2023 18:39:53 GMT
Might work. Or people could just get over Brexit and ignore her.
|
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,393
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 5, 2023 19:38:21 GMT
The electors of Mid Beds knew what they were doing when they voted for her: they put her back into Westminster three times after her appearance on 'I'm a celeb. etc', and after she started her new career as a popular novelist. She wasn't completely focussed on being their representative from 2012 onwards so her behaviour now shouldn't be that much of a surprise to them. You could say the same about Uxbridge. Except their MP wanted the limelight and took it. She wants fame outside the Commons while not doing an MPs job. And not that I want to talk about voting systems, this is a rock solid seat and would require a Martin Bell type to challenge her. In PR you have seats that even a Martin bell type challenge couldn't overcome. I'm for PR, but I think that's a weak argument for it.
|
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,393
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 5, 2023 19:40:14 GMT
How would this motion stand credibly without doing the same to the Sinn Fein MPs? Maybe an attendance rule whereby if you take the oath you must attend a minimum amount or face recall. But if you don’t take the oath you forfeit your salary and expenses instead. But what is proposed is a make it up as you go along system that targets her. There have been other MPs before her who didn't turn up or do anything. Jared O Mara being a recent example. It sorts itself out and there's no need for a new rule.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Aug 5, 2023 19:57:43 GMT
Quite - and it's not Liberal.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2023 21:18:37 GMT
Such Data is clearly controversial and of recent origin. I am sure it would not have been in operation in the 1980s. But we’re not talking about the 1980s we’re talking about the last 12 months. A motion staying that Nadine Dorries has brought this house into disrepute by virtue of non attendance - would I’m sure be supported by people on all sides - quite how that feeds into a 10+ day suspension I don’t know. I don't see why? The whole point of being an MP is not being a delegate, not being a civil servant, not being a party placeman and not being an employee. They have complete independence of action. Not attending is no breach of any rule, statute or condition of service. Most of the above is modernist witless garbage. Attending, voting, speaking and submitting questions is 99% of the time pointless and fruitless and entirely unimportant. This is NOT a job. It is the ones that do attend, speak and ask huge numbers of questions that worry me. Those hacks always about their party's business and voting regularly like a Zombie at the party's whip and call. They are the useless dross by very definition. And the bitter irony is that many of you feel they are diligent, worthy and to be congratulated.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2023 21:30:44 GMT
I think it would be outrageous for MPs to start manipulating the existing rules by introducing a motion like that. Dorries is taking the piss and her behaviour is harming her constituents, but if democracy is to mean anything it is that due process must be followed, and it is better that she continues to do sweet fa than to subvert the rules to get rid of her. And her 'behaviour' (actually lack of any action is not behaviour) is not bringing any person or institution into disrepute in any manner at all. It is the ones that do attend that bring it into disrepute. And she is 'harming' no one at all. Most people never want to see, use or have have anything to do with their MP and most of the ones that do are treating them as a cheap and convenient option. How can there be harm by inactivity. The constituency office or the party will deal with general items. She is a silly little thing but will soon be gone and nothing spoils at all in the one year wait. The electors do little enough to support democracy and frankly have no say in this at all. One third never vote at all. Most never join a party. Few ever campaign or support or take a blind bit of interest in anything at all political. They chose her (or of course failed to take any interest or be involved in any way!) and elected her and can and must put up with her and be more involved, attentive and careful in future. Frankly serves them right.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2023 21:43:42 GMT
The electors of Mid Beds knew what they were doing when they voted for her: they put her back into Westminster three times after her appearance on 'I'm a celeb. etc', and after she started her new career as a popular novelist. She wasn't completely focussed on being their representative from 2012 onwards so her behaviour now shouldn't be that much of a surprise to them. You could say the same about Uxbridge. Except their MP wanted the limelight and took it. She wants fame outside the Commons while not doing an MPs job. And not that I want to talk about voting systems, this is a rock solid seat and would require a Martin Bell type to challenge her. There is NO job. They are not employees of crown, state, party or their electors. They are paid for 'having the roll' and not for the performance of any activities at all. It is an office of responbility and representation that one one makes of what one wishes in a personal way. Nothing that they do or don't do within the general law of the land is of any consequence to anyone at all. At end of term chuck them out or deselect but meanwhile think long and hard about being more careful, more involved or shut up! IT IS NOT A JOB AND IT HAS NO DEFINED HOURS, WORK OR DUTIES. And nor should it.
|
|