Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2023 13:01:44 GMT
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. Would Hansard record that? “The Rt. Hon Nadine Dorries enters the chamber” … “the Rt. Hon. Nadine Dorries leaves the chamber”. It reminds me of people walking in and out of Oxford Union governing body meetings to make more work for the Secretary when they were running for President.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,296
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Aug 6, 2023 13:04:55 GMT
She could also simply pop in for an hour before disappearing again. Would Hansard record that? “The Rt. Hon Nadine Dorries enters the chamber” … “the Rt. Hon. Nadine Dorries leaves the chamber”. It reminds me of people walking in and out of Oxford Union governing body meetings to make more work for the Secretary when they were running for President. But she would not need to enter the chamber at all. Surely being within the Palace of Westminster would suffice.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 6, 2023 13:29:09 GMT
I'm of the view that any 'attendance' criterion is a non-starter. I'm also not happy about the recall process. I think only a criminal conviction should open the door for a recall.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 6, 2023 13:34:08 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? Nothing if they kick up a fuss. Section 8 of Disqualification Act - you can’t require someone to accept these offices against their will: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/24/section/8
|
|
|
Post by batman on Aug 6, 2023 13:58:13 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. I am very sorry you have had these experiences. I have had Labour, Liberal Democrat & Conservative MPs at various times of my life and have written to Ron Leighton (Lab), Sir Anthony Royle (C), Jeremy Hanley (C), Robert Rhodes James (C) and Sarah Olney (LD) who is my present MP. Every single one of them has replied to my letters, and at the very worst they were courteous. In most cases they were pleasant and where needed helpful. My recent correspondence with Sarah Olney, on a matter where I am requesting her help, has been totally satisfactory so far but the problem is currently unresolved, through no fault of hers. I have copied in John McDonnell (Lab) to this most recent correspondence as I first explained my problem to him & he suggested I write to my own MP & copy him in, which I have done.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,404
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Aug 6, 2023 17:23:58 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. I am very sorry you have had these experiences. I have had Labour, Liberal Democrat & Conservative MPs at various times of my life and have written to Ron Leighton (Lab), Sir Anthony Royle (C), Jeremy Hanley (C), Robert Rhodes James (C) and Sarah Olney (LD) who is my present MP. Every single one of them has replied to my letters, and at the very worst they were courteous. In most cases they were pleasant and where needed helpful. My recent correspondence with Sarah Olney, on a matter where I am requesting her help, has been totally satisfactory so far but the problem is currently unresolved, through no fault of hers. I have copied in John McDonnell (Lab) to this most recent correspondence as I first explained my problem to him & he suggested I write to my own MP & copy him in, which I have done. I have written to my MP twice in my life. Once I wrote to Jackie Ballard ( LD) about a problem I was having and got no reply. The 2nd time I wrote to Rebecca Pow (C) and got a polite but not over helpful reply.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,296
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Aug 6, 2023 18:18:09 GMT
On a broader point which goes beyond Dorries ,I am not sure to what extent it is reasonable to expect MPs to go beyond the acitivities formerly expected of them. If certain MPs opted to restrict themselves to the work carried out by their predecessors of the 1950s and earlier, how open would they be to the charge of failing to carry out their duties?People might argue that such a criticism was valid when comparing them to contemporaries,but in historical terms that would not generally be the case.How much constituency work did the likes of Asquith- Edward Grey - Lloyd George - Baldwin et al - carry out as MPs? Very few probably even bothered to hold surgeries.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 6, 2023 18:26:40 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. Why are the UK government involved with a matter between your father and the US? Seems odd.
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Aug 6, 2023 18:33:00 GMT
For most MPs their income as a parliamentarian is a material influence on the decisions they take. Don't be surprised if the same does apply to the member for Mid Bedfordshire.
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 6, 2023 20:52:58 GMT
On a broader point which goes beyond Dorries ,I am not sure to what extent it is reasonable to expect MPs to go beyond the acitivities formerly expected of them. If certain MPs opted to restrict themselves to the work carried out by their predecessors of the 1950s and earlier, how open would they be to the charge of failing to carry out their duties?People might argue that such a criticism was valid when comparing them to contemporaries,but in historical terms that would not generally be the case.How much constituency work did the likes of Asquith- Edward Grey - Lloyd George - Baldwin et al - carry out as MPs? Very few probably even bothered to hold surgeries. I can virtually guarantee those listed didn’t. The role of an MP has evolved over time. Those listed also probably rarely visited their constituencies. For a brief ‘history’ of MPs surgeries see here www.markpack.org.uk/157316/origin-of-mp-surgeries/ But we shouldn’t be comparing Dorries to Asquith and Grey etc, we should be comparing her to the other 649 MPs today. If you ask five posters on this site to write a job/role description for an MP you’d get five different versions - and Dorries would not match with one of them.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 7, 2023 8:38:32 GMT
My view is that the Commons has the right to set its own rules over its members. It also has the right where it chooses to expel members. If it feels that Dorries merits that, it can do so. If she and the electorate felt that to be unfair, she could stand in the ensuing by-election. If they don't feel it merits expulsion, then they're basically limiting themselves to trying to make Dorries feel awkward, and we all know that she has a high toleration for awkwardness.
Mind you, the more interesting question is why she still has the Conservative whip, given that her party leader is on record as saying he doesn't think she's doing her job. Removing the whip is in this era a considerably less controversial option than voting for expulsion.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,296
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Aug 7, 2023 10:33:10 GMT
On a broader point which goes beyond Dorries ,I am not sure to what extent it is reasonable to expect MPs to go beyond the acitivities formerly expected of them. If certain MPs opted to restrict themselves to the work carried out by their predecessors of the 1950s and earlier, how open would they be to the charge of failing to carry out their duties?People might argue that such a criticism was valid when comparing them to contemporaries,but in historical terms that would not generally be the case.How much constituency work did the likes of Asquith- Edward Grey - Lloyd George - Baldwin et al - carry out as MPs? Very few probably even bothered to hold surgeries. I can virtually guarantee those listed didn’t. The role of an MP has evolved over time. Those listed also probably rarely visited their constituencies. For a brief ‘history’ of MPs surgeries see here www.markpack.org.uk/157316/origin-of-mp-surgeries/ But we shouldn’t be comparing Dorries to Asquith and Grey etc, we should be comparing her to the other 649 MPs today. If you ask five posters on this site to write a job/role description for an MP you’d get five different versions - and Dorries would not match with one of them. It would still not be unreasonable for an MP to cite the precedents I have referred to . By doing so public awareness would be increased of the traditional role of an MP.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Swanson on Aug 7, 2023 11:24:03 GMT
I'm of the view that any 'attendance' criterion is a non-starter. I'm also not happy about the recall process. I think only a criminal conviction should open the door for a recall. If a member isn't attending the House, or holding surgeries, or doing anything... other than drawing a wage, what reason do they have to continue in post? The current process isn't all that cracking, and needs to be altered, but... how to do that and getting people to agree to it... a challenge I don't envy.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,770
|
Post by Crimson King on Aug 7, 2023 12:30:24 GMT
I'm of the view that any 'attendance' criterion is a non-starter. I'm also not happy about the recall process. I think only a criminal conviction should open the door for a recall. If a member isn't attending the House, or holding surgeries, or doing anything... other than drawing a wage, what reason do they have to continue in post? The current process isn't all that cracking, and needs to be altered, but... how to do that and getting people to agree to it... a challenge I don't envy. questions which include the answer
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,908
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 7, 2023 13:44:35 GMT
So, the local councils are fed up, the PM is fed up, the opposition are fed up, can't Mr. Speaker declare the seat vacant on grounds of proper conduct (i.e she made a statement that she was resigning with immediate effect, she hasn't and is therefore bringing Parliament into disrepute)?
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,650
Member is Online
|
Post by pl on Aug 7, 2023 13:58:47 GMT
So, the local councils are fed up, the PM is fed up, the opposition are fed up, can't Mr. Speaker declare the seat vacant on grounds of proper conduct (i.e she made a statement that she was resigning with immediate effect, she hasn't and is therefore bringing Parliament into disrepute)? I was fed up with Tony Blair c 22 July 1994.... does that mean that if I'd been speaker I could have just thrown him out of parliament then. Being "fed up" of someone is hardly grounds for overturning the will of the electorate...
|
|
|
Post by batman on Aug 7, 2023 14:37:15 GMT
The Speaker in certain circumstances could suspend an MP from the House for improper conduct, but not deem the Member to have resigned permanently. I don't think the Speaker could do it unilaterally though.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 7, 2023 15:36:48 GMT
The Adams Precedent is to treat am MP as resigned because they said as much. No difference here.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 7, 2023 16:37:48 GMT
The Adams Precedent is to treat am MP as resigned because they said as much. No difference here. Well for starters I think Adams wrote a letter to the Speaker resigning, even if he refused to formally request appointment to one of the other offices. Dorries only made public declarations that she'd be resigning, it would be stretching things a bit to remove her on that basis
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 7, 2023 18:52:43 GMT
The Adams Precedent is to treat am MP as resigned because they said as much. No difference here. No. It's clearly against statute to appoint someone unwillingly to one of the crown offices. The intent of Adams's letter was that he be appointed but he could not make that explicit given his objection to the crown. Dorries on the other hand has not given the necessary consent - in her case given the lack of objection should be a clear request to the speaker to resign, preferably naming the crown offices. There has been no official request.
|
|