MPs & Unions Clash over Physical Reopening of HofC

[Borg Refinery]

Apparently, lots of MP's wrongly voted under the confusing new system.



Ultra poor show, total failure.

[B0ycey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52910303">//https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52910303



So now Sharma becomes ill in the chamber and may have Covid19. When the advice is to work at home whenever possible, you have to question why they scrapped remote voting.



And what I find even more amusing is if Sharma does test positive, those who spend 15 minutes near him will have to self isolate too.  ::

[johnofgwent]

From what I saw yesterday of the figures released a significantly higher proportion of Tory MPs were able to vote yesterday than other parties.  This is exactly what I feared.



I hope I am wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if this removal of electronic voting is because the Tories have calculated that Labour has more sick and old MPs.  Hopefully I'm wrong on that but sadly, I won't be surprised if I'm right.

I think you are wrong in part. I think it is not so much ill health as travel restrictions that they hope will reduce the noise level

[Javert]

Up to now I haven't heard a justification for yesterday's removal of the electronic voting system that makes the slightest sense whatsoever.



The justification given this morning was along the lines "this is a sacred right and duty, and it's unconscionable that an MP might be able to press the voting button whilst having Netflix on their other screen".



Meanwhile we watch automatons go snail like through the queue to vote upon the orders of their whips, even the ones who actually said they disagree!



This makes no sense.



Has anyone done an analysis of MPs by part, health level etc?



From what I saw yesterday of the figures released a significantly higher proportion of Tory MPs were able to vote yesterday than other parties.  This is exactly what I feared.



I hope I am wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if this removal of electronic voting is because the Tories have calculated that Labour has more sick and old MPs.  Hopefully I'm wrong on that but sadly, I won't be surprised if I'm right.

[patman post]

Anyone who has ever spent any time watching the parliament channel knows that apart from votes on MP's salary and perks, and PMQ's and the state opening, MP's in the chamber are about as rare as rocking horse poo.



In addition, whatever happenned to the "pairing" system which meant your vote for the government was automatically cancelled by your pair's vote for the opposition so neither of you needed to go through the total tedium of actually going trough the division lobby ....

Would it be that great to see all 650 MPs at every sitting of the House of Commons? Having them watch over those topics that interest them and their constituents seems fair enough. And there are 37 various Select Committees plus 16 general and other committees to employ them outside the chamber — if every Select Committee had 17 members, every MP would need to serve on just one.



The pairing system works if members are whipped, but it isn't the answer to free votes where pairs could be voting the same way — look at the spectacles where MPs are wheeled in from their sick beds to vote on crucial matters...

[johnofgwent]

Anyone who has ever spent any time watching the parliament channel knows that apart from votes on MP's salary and perks, and PMQ's and the state opening, MP's in the chamber are about as rare as rocking horse poo.



In addition, whatever happenned to the "pairing" system which meant your vote for the government was automatically cancelled by your pair's vote for the opposition so neither of you needed to go through the total tedium of actually going trough the division lobby ....

[BeElBeeBub]

good point, I think I was mixing up JRMs desire to get everyone back with the recent "end VC questions".

exactly





I think, but am not sure, the voting will still be the new delayed system rather than the old "crowd through the lobby" system.



TBH, the newer system seems better anyway as it could (potentially) do away with the absurd spectacle of sick MPs being wheeled through the lobbies or "pairing" mysteriously failing on crucial votes

Apparently I was wrong, they're using an even more stupid and less efficient system than the old lobby system.



Crazy.



Mind you, it was all fun and conga lines yesterday, I suspect pressure to return the the remote system will build as the weather gets worse and queueing outdoors becomes less fun.



As someone pointed out all it takes is some MPs to cause a division at every opportunity and the business of government grinds to a halt as the MPs have to spend the better part of an hour queuing a dozen times a day.

[Borg Refinery]

The utterly miserable moany old git John Crace has done another darkly comedic article about this pseudo demokratsiya respublika we now live in.



"The Tories turn parliament into the world's worst theme park"



https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/02/the-tories-turn-parliament-into-the-worlds-worst-theme-park">https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... theme-park">https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/02/the-tories-turn-parliament-into-the-worlds-worst-theme-park

[Borg Refinery]

Interesting, thanks.



Do any of you know anymore about this?



The latest stuff I can find is useless slander-trading.



Although I did like - "Even comedian Sue Perkins chimed in, saying: "Lazy LEFT? Your boss missed Cobra meetings and went on holiday at the outset of a pandemic."



("AN MP was criticised after claiming politicians against reopening Parliament on June 2 were "work shy".")





https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theargus.co.uk/news/18470323.amp/">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thearg ... 70323.amp/">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theargus.co.uk/news/18470323.amp/

[BeElBeeBub]

I'm still not following - if the number of people in the room can't go up, he still won't have a big audience?

good point, I think I was mixing up JRMs desire to get everyone back with the recent "end VC questions".

The key question for me is, who is in control of which MPs can be let in, and how is that decided?

exactly

For example - let's say there's a big Tory rebellion about Dominic Cummings.  Can the Tories basically just only let the people who are not rebelling into the chamber and thereby those people are powerless?  If it's by completely random lottery then I guess that might help, but even then, if a significant number of places out of the 50 are taken by the loyal front bench, it's still an issue?



Next - assuming this is done on a pro rate basis, if there are only 50 people, how is rounding handled?  With 660 people, if you then calculate the number of MPs per party, rounding differences will have a much bigger impact when it's down to 50.



In some ways, you could argue that this is a bigger story than the Cummings story or even Brexit - fundamentally, the very sovereignty that we wanted to achieve by Brexit is being removed, and I'm really struggling to see the reasons.



JRM has said that this is because "scrutiny is not fully possible by video" - well - firstly, I would dispute that if you put the correct procedures in place, and secondly, how can it be more scrutiny to just cut off the video screens without letting more people into the chamber.  This makes literally zero sense.



I'm tempted to say that this is what happens when you elect a government of people who have no honour.  The UK constitution sort of assumes that those who make it to high office (PM, cabinet minister etc), will at least to some extent play by some unwritten rules and codes.  If you elect an entire group who simply will do and say anything, the puts the whole UK system of government potentially in jeapordy.



Edit - also - doesn't the HOC have quorate rules - even tiny Parish Councils have rules where there have to be a certain % (I think it's about a third) of voting members present before you can have a valid vote.  Surely the HOC must (or at least should) have such rules?

I think, but am not sure, the voting will still be the new delayed system rather than the old "crowd through the lobby" system.



TBH, the newer system seems better anyway as it could (potentially) do away with the absurd spectacle of sick MPs being wheeled through the lobbies or "pairing" mysteriously failing on crucial votes

[Javert]

There is a democratic issue here.



They are talking about ditching the hybrid system where some MPs are in the chamber and some "present" via video link *but* retaining the social distancing measures for the chamber



In other words only the 50 (or thereabouts) MP that can physically be in the chamber can ask questions.



You known in some banana republics where they physically bar MPs from the chamber so they can't ask questions......basically that.



This move will reduce parliamentary scrutiny. There are no upsides for the country in this.



The only upside is for Johnson at PMQs where his style of performance over detail fails without a bunch of back bench cheerleaders braying and catcalling.

I'm still not following - if the number of people in the room can't go up, he still won't have a big audience?



The key question for me is, who is in control of which MPs can be let in, and how is that decided?



For example - let's say there's a big Tory rebellion about Dominic Cummings.  Can the Tories basically just only let the people who are not rebelling into the chamber and thereby those people are powerless?  If it's by completely random lottery then I guess that might help, but even then, if a significant number of places out of the 50 are taken by the loyal front bench, it's still an issue?



Next - assuming this is done on a pro rate basis, if there are only 50 people, how is rounding handled?  With 660 people, if you then calculate the number of MPs per party, rounding differences will have a much bigger impact when it's down to 50.



In some ways, you could argue that this is a bigger story than the Cummings story or even Brexit - fundamentally, the very sovereignty that we wanted to achieve by Brexit is being removed, and I'm really struggling to see the reasons.



JRM has said that this is because "scrutiny is not fully possible by video" - well - firstly, I would dispute that if you put the correct procedures in place, and secondly, how can it be more scrutiny to just cut off the video screens without letting more people into the chamber.  This makes literally zero sense.



I'm tempted to say that this is what happens when you elect a government of people who have no honour.  The UK constitution sort of assumes that those who make it to high office (PM, cabinet minister etc), will at least to some extent play by some unwritten rules and codes.  If you elect an entire group who simply will do and say anything, the puts the whole UK system of government potentially in jeapordy.



Edit - also - doesn't the HOC have quorate rules - even tiny Parish Councils have rules where there have to be a certain % (I think it's about a third) of voting members present before you can have a valid vote.  Surely the HOC must (or at least should) have such rules?

[BeElBeeBub]

There is a democratic issue here.



They are talking about ditching the hybrid system where some MPs are in the chamber and some "present" via video link *but* retaining the social distancing measures for the chamber



In other words only the 50 (or thereabouts) MP that can physically be in the chamber can ask questions.



You known in some banana republics where they physically bar MPs from the chamber so they can't ask questions......basically that.



This move will reduce parliamentary scrutiny. There are no upsides for the country in this.



The only upside is for Johnson at PMQs where his style of performance over detail fails without a bunch of back bench cheerleaders braying and catcalling.

[Borg Refinery]

It is I can't change a nappy despite having six children Jacob Rees Mogg behind it. But frankly if the MPs don't go back, why should children go back to school?

I think many of the blue folk probably wear one, and going back to parliament counts as sending the children back to nursery, the old lizards.



Anyway, the real danger is elderly and sick MPs and parl staff, cleaners etc who didn't ask for any of this, being dictated to by the member for the 19th century.



When senior Tories and even Mr Fabricant are calling for it to be stopped, there's a problem.

[papasmurf]

Lots of senior Tories, MP's and parl staff and their unions are very angry about this.



The virtual parliament is pretty awful but the dangers presented to elderly and infirm blue folk, surely means the Tories wouldn't throw their own to the wolves. No, surely not?



They're clashing badly with Scottish MP's too. Not sure why they should have elderly Scot MP's travel all the way down possibly to their deaths?

It is I can't change a nappy despite having six children Jacob Rees Mogg behind it. But frankly if the MPs don't go back, why should children go back to school?

[Borg Refinery]

Lots of senior Tories, MP's and parl staff and their unions are very angry about this.



The virtual parliament is pretty awful but the dangers presented to elderly and infirm blue folk, surely means the Tories wouldn't throw their own to the wolves. No, surely not?



They're clashing badly with Scottish MP's too. Not sure why they should have elderly Scot MP's travel all the way down possibly to their deaths?