|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2023 22:01:01 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. Ah the petty and rather nasty jobsworth autocrat speaks. May we offer you a minor minion position in The Ministry of Truth or a Fireman role? You are entirely fitted for our Brave New compassionate and progressive World. Welcome Comrade.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 5, 2023 22:11:21 GMT
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. Ah the petty and rather nasty jobsworth autocrat speaks. May we offer you a minor minion position in The Ministry of Truth or a Fireman role? You are entirely fitted for our Brave New compassionate and progressive World. Welcome Comrade. Isn't it funny also, the mental gymnastics some people are going through in order to punish the heinous Nadine Dorries but without causing any inconvenience to those nice people in Sinn Fein-IRA
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 5, 2023 22:14:40 GMT
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. Ah the petty and rather nasty jobsworth autocrat speaks. May we offer you a minor minion position in The Ministry of Truth or a Fireman role? You are entirely fitted for our Brave New compassionate and progressive World. Welcome Comrade. It could be done very easily via an online digital register, or automated tracker of activity in Parliament, in a ministerial role, or internationally. Very low bother to most working MPs.
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 5, 2023 22:17:03 GMT
Ah the petty and rather nasty jobsworth autocrat speaks. May we offer you a minor minion position in The Ministry of Truth or a Fireman role? You are entirely fitted for our Brave New compassionate and progressive World. Welcome Comrade. Isn't it funny also, the mental gymnastics some people are going through in order to punish the heinous Nadine Dorries but without causing any inconvenience to those nice people in Sinn Fein-IRA But nobody in Mid Beds voted for Sinn Fein, the IRA. They voted for a working MP.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 5, 2023 22:18:43 GMT
I'm not very keen on this idea of an out in exchange for salary and expenses. It means likes of Boris and Rees Mogg could chose never to turn up because they. An afford not to
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 5, 2023 22:22:28 GMT
Ah the petty and rather nasty jobsworth autocrat speaks. May we offer you a minor minion position in The Ministry of Truth or a Fireman role? You are entirely fitted for our Brave New compassionate and progressive World. Welcome Comrade. Isn't it funny also, the mental gymnastics some people are going through in order to punish the heinous Nadine Dorries but without causing any inconvenience to those nice people in Sinn Fein-IRA I think abstentionism is a different matter. SF MPs may refuse to take their seats but they still do constituency work. If people would rather an MP that does attend parliament they will throw SF out
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 5, 2023 22:31:48 GMT
I think we should make the recall process easier but maybe increase the threshold to trigger the by election higher. So people should be able to trigger a petition without waiting for suspension or conviction. But in those cases maybe the threshold for a by election could be 15 or 20%
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 5, 2023 22:40:56 GMT
There is a precedent, but not a nice one. When John Stonehouse was discovered in Australia he eventually announced he intended to resign, but did not do so.
The Select Committee appointed to consider the position of Mr John Stonehouse as Member for Walsall North reported on 11 March 1975 that should Stonehouse not return from Australia, and take no steps to resign, "the House would then wish to consider vacating the seat on the grounds of non-representation" (HC 273 1974-75). They recommended to the House on 29 April 1975 that a motion to expel Stonehouse "would now be justified" but should not be moved for one month to allow him either to attend or to resign (HC 357 1974-75). On 22 May the Leader of the House of Commons announced that a motion to expel the right hon. Member for Walsall North would be taken on 12 June 1975.
The business was withdrawn when Stonehouse was charged with criminal offences and the House was advised that the motion might be prejudicial to his trial.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2023 22:55:44 GMT
Isn't it funny also, the mental gymnastics some people are going through in order to punish the heinous Nadine Dorries but without causing any inconvenience to those nice people in Sinn Fein-IRA But nobody in Mid Beds voted for Sinn Fein, the IRA. They voted for a working MP. They voted for an MP without any adjectives. The adjectives, rules and definitions are modernist desired clap-trap interjected by people like you. They are not and must never become actual requirements. It is NOT a job.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,083
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 5, 2023 22:59:18 GMT
There is a precedent, but not a nice one. When John Stonehouse was discovered in Australia he eventually announced he intended to resign, but did not do so. The Select Committee appointed to consider the position of Mr John Stonehouse as Member for Walsall North reported on 11 March 1975 that should Stonehouse not return from Australia, and take no steps to resign, "the House would then wish to consider vacating the seat on the grounds of non-representation" (HC 273 1974-75). They recommended to the House on 29 April 1975 that a motion to expel Stonehouse "would now be justified" but should not be moved for one month to allow him either to attend or to resign (HC 357 1974-75). On 22 May the Leader of the House of Commons announced that a motion to expel the right hon. Member for Walsall North would be taken on 12 June 1975. The business was withdrawn when Stonehouse was charged with criminal offences and the House was advised that the motion might be prejudicial to his trial. On what date did he actually return and carry on being an MP?
|
|
European Lefty
Top Poster
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 6,068
|
Post by European Lefty on Aug 5, 2023 23:31:07 GMT
What would happy if an MP were appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead (assuming I've got the names right; regardless the meaning is clear) without requesting it or consenting to it?
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,083
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 5, 2023 23:58:53 GMT
It’s ok to introduce an attendance requirement with consequences for non-compliance, but not retro-actively. All of these various different proposed ad-hoc suggestions about how to deal with non-attendance of an MP are missing the point: if the rule says that an MP has to attend at least every 6 months, or sign in, or swear the oath, or vote in a certain number of divisions, or jump through random hoops, in order to remain as an MP, then the MP (Nadine Dorries or whoever else) would simply turn up and sign in once every 6 months, and jump through a hoop; but none of that would make her (/him) attend, be attentive, vote meaningfully, respond to constituents’ letters or be a better MP.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 6, 2023 0:08:08 GMT
There is a precedent, but not a nice one. When John Stonehouse was discovered in Australia he eventually announced he intended to resign, but did not do so. The Select Committee appointed to consider the position of Mr John Stonehouse as Member for Walsall North reported on 11 March 1975 that should Stonehouse not return from Australia, and take no steps to resign, "the House would then wish to consider vacating the seat on the grounds of non-representation" (HC 273 1974-75). They recommended to the House on 29 April 1975 that a motion to expel Stonehouse "would now be justified" but should not be moved for one month to allow him either to attend or to resign (HC 357 1974-75). On 22 May the Leader of the House of Commons announced that a motion to expel the right hon. Member for Walsall North would be taken on 12 June 1975. The business was withdrawn when Stonehouse was charged with criminal offences and the House was advised that the motion might be prejudicial to his trial. On what date did he actually return and carry on being an MP? He returned involuntarily (extradited) on 17-18 July. He was not granted bail until 27 August, but did attend the House of Commons' next sitting which was 13 October. Stonehouse was a very active MP from October 1975 until the recess in summer 1976 (during which time he defected to the English National Party).
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,083
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 6, 2023 0:13:07 GMT
What would happy if an MP were appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead (assuming I've got the names right; regardless the meaning is clear) without requesting it or consenting to it? What would happy in that situation is that the seat would be vacant, and a by-election would be held. Ostensibly that is what happied when the Sinn Fein MPs resigned; they pretended to resign by writing to the Speaker saying that they had resigned, and stated that they wouldn’t accept being appointed to an office of profit under the Crown. They were so appointed (and thus disqualified). The arrangement suited both sides, because the SF MPs could pretend to claim that they hadn’t consented to it even though in real life they knew what would happen.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Aug 6, 2023 7:43:33 GMT
I honestly can't find a position that I can support on removing MPs for non-attendance, let's face it, over the history of Parliament, MPs have been abstentionist or have ceased to turn up for various reasons. It is then up to the electorate at the next election. Nor does an MP have to provide a constituency office, have surgeries, nor do casework, visit the constituenct or speak/vote in the House of Commons - but I can see cases for removing staffing allowances for MPs who don't do these things. Not turning up, doing nowt, you can just have one member of staff on the lowest rate.
And yes, I feel the same about the six month rule for councillors, in fact I probably feel more annoyed about the very small number of councillors who take the piss by turning up to one meeting every six months.
I would support removal if the MP or councillor ceased to have habitual residence in the UK, I think.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 6, 2023 9:12:41 GMT
I honestly can't find a position that I can support on removing MPs for non-attendance, let's face it, over the history of Parliament, MPs have been abstentionist or have ceased to turn up for various reasons. It is then up to the electorate at the next election. Nor does an MP have to provide a constituency office, have surgeries, nor do casework, visit the constituenct or speak/vote in the House of Commons - but I can see cases for removing staffing allowances for MPs who don't do these things. Not turning up, doing nowt, you can just have one member of staff on the lowest rate. And yes, I feel the same about the six month rule for councillors, in fact I probably feel more annoyed about the very small number of councillors who take the piss by turning up to one meeting every six months. I would support removal if the MP or councillor ceased to have habitual residence in the UK, I think. At present, you don't even need to live in the UK to stand, although if successful you would be deemed resident and domiciled in the UK.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,469
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 6, 2023 10:10:47 GMT
Ah the petty and rather nasty jobsworth autocrat speaks. May we offer you a minor minion position in The Ministry of Truth or a Fireman role? You are entirely fitted for our Brave New compassionate and progressive World. Welcome Comrade. Isn't it funny also, the mental gymnastics some people are going through in order to punish the heinous Nadine Dorries but without causing any inconvenience to those nice people in Sinn Fein-IRA I know what you think of Sinn Fein (I don't like them either) but I still don't think it is "mental gymnastics" to see a difference between abstaining from attending parliament *with an explicit electoral mandate* to do so, and just not being arsed to turn up a la Dorries currently. Having said that, I do tend to agree that any attempt to codify this sort of thing isn't anything like as easy as some imagine. (and FWIW there is still a good chance she resigns her seat in the autumn IMO)
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,295
|
Post by graham on Aug 6, 2023 10:17:43 GMT
Isn't it funny also, the mental gymnastics some people are going through in order to punish the heinous Nadine Dorries but without causing any inconvenience to those nice people in Sinn Fein-IRA I know what you think of Sinn Fein (I don't like them either) but I still don't think it is "mental gymnastics" to see a difference between abstaining from attending parliament *with an explicit electoral mandate* to do so, and just not being arsed to turn up a la Dorries currently. Having said that, I do tend to agree that any attempt to codify this sort of thing isn't anything like as easy as some imagine. (and FWIW there is still a good chance she resigns her seat in the autumn IMO) She could also simply pop in for an hour before disappearing again.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Aug 6, 2023 10:54:29 GMT
We've had discussions about the role of MPs before: they should not be super-councillors, nor super-social workers, but they do have an important function for their electors, assisting them in cutting through bureaucratic indolence/incompetence/stupidity. Having said that I have tried to get MPs to help me on two occasions, aside from contacts to lobby them or inform them of things they might want to know. The first time was when I wrote to Rear Admiral Morgan Giles about a British Citizenship bill that the Conservative government was promoting: my father and his father had been born in Turkey and the provisions of the Bill as they stood were likely to cause my father problems. He didn't respond to my letter. The second time was when I wrote to Nick Harvey (who was a LibDem junior defence minster) to ask whether there might have been a change of policy since the Second World War with regard to the acceptance of medals from foreign governments: the US military had wanted to give my father a bravery award for his role in retrieving the bodies of US airmen from a bomb laden aircraft that was ablaze but the UK government had refused the request. My father was in his 90s by then - Nick Harvey didn't reply.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,568
|
Post by ricmk on Aug 6, 2023 11:40:47 GMT
I think we should make the recall process easier but maybe increase the threshold to trigger the by election higher. So people should be able to trigger a petition without waiting for suspension or conviction. But in those cases maybe the threshold for a by election could be 15 or 20% This. Legislating for unusual cases is a waste of time and will usually cause more problems than it solves. If you want to give constituents a way out or a chance to express how they aren’t represented well, beef up recall rules to allow public to start petitions (would also have meant it didn’t take 3 years to recall Margaret Ferrier). Relaxed about a bigger threshold to prevent people mucking about in marginals where there’s already strong opposition to the MP.
|
|