Display: Sort:
Odds shorten on Benn victory | 50 comments (50 topical)

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#15)

by jgc on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:36:13 PM GMT

The whips dont take the day off on a Friday ( when private members bills are discussed ), they might not issue official three line whips but there is for most bills "an official line". In this case the whips organised to ensure that there was not enough time to debate the bill in question by efectively prolonging debate on( if my memory is correct ) mini motos. So if Hilary had been in the house he would have been expected, as a minister, to follow the advice of the whips. If you check out the record of the proceedural motion "that the question now be put" http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-03-02&number=64&display=allvotes you will see that all the ministers present voted to continue the debate ie not to move on the bill dealing with tempory and agency workers.


Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#18)

by newsnight on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:29:56 PM GMT

On the day (02 March), Robert Flello Labour MP, talked incessantly in the previous debate on 'off-road vehicles' despite protests from the EDM's sponser, Graham Stringer MP, and other MP's, to the effect that they were accusing Mr Flello of seeking to influence the time available to the next EDM (Agency Workers Rights).

Because of the machinations of Mr Flello, by the time the 'Agency Workers Rights' EDM came up there was only about 30 minutes left before the 14:30 cut-off. Jim Fitzpatrick, Labour Minister, 'talked out' the EDM, and unlike "Mr Boothroyd" above, I do understand parliamentary procedure, and it is 'parliamentary procedure' that if a minister is speaking (replying) to an EDM debate at the time of the end of the allotted time (14:30 in this case), then the question has not been put and it falls off the agenda. Of course, a minister can at any time prior to the cut-off time sit down and allow the question to be put.

On this particular day, just before 14:30, Jim Fitzpatrick ignored numerous plea's of his colleague MP's to 'have the question put' and disgracefully ignored their pleadings and refused to sit down.

Using 'parliament procedure' That is how the Whips, Ministers and Government wreck their colleagues attempts to bring about bills such as this one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#19)

by David Boothroyd on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:50:25 PM GMT

Look 'Newsnight' I'm the one posting under my real name and you're the one who hasn't the guts to reveal theirs, so I wouldn't go too overboard with the inverted commas if I were you.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#23)

by newsnight on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:57:25 PM GMT

Whats with the identity crisis? do you hide behind every critisism with demands of identity? Grow up, you blog and post on a site which does not demand ID checks, if you don't like it, piss off. In the meantime, if you decide to accept the parameters of this site, answer the question or stop peddling lies and untruths under the falsehood of your imaginary knowledge.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#28)

by David Boothroyd on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:06:35 AM GMT

I object to you putting my name in "scare quotes" when you're not revealing your own identity. For all anyone knows you could be a Tory troll, you're certainly behaving like one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#32)

by newsnight on Fri May 25, 2007 at 04:50:53 PM GMT

O.K. You win, you are Mr Wonderful and I'm a tory troll (whatever that is?). Now will you please answer the question?


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#38)

by David Boothroyd on Fri May 25, 2007 at 11:34:18 PM GMT

The answer to your question is that you're talking rubbish. The decision to accept a closure motion is that of the occupant of the chair, not the government whips.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#40)

by newsnight on Sat May 26, 2007 at 01:51:29 AM GMT

Does your stupidity have no bounds, why do you keep coming back for more? Look stupid, I will re-iterate one more time! that in these circumstances, it is the minister who dictates proceedings, not the chair. In a, probably vain, attempt to educate you on your 'vast' knowledge of parliamentary procedure I will paste a quote from the debate in question from Hansard(02/03/07):

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): I do hope that the Minister is not under instructions to talk the measure out. I imagine that every Labour Member in the Chamber wants the opportunity to support the Bill on Second Reading. I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, and I do hope that he will sit down before half-past 2.

Now look mate, given that Mr Winnick is in Parliament, and you are not (thankfully), can I drill in to your tiny mind that he (Mr Winnick), might know a thing or two about parliamentary procedure that just may have escaped your tiny mind.

May I suggest that if you wish to post "knowledgeable" statements in the future, you really should be quite sure that you are not talking through your hoop. Goodnight.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#21)

by Mike Ion on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:50:30 PM GMT

The main point here is that Hilary has come out and said that the protection of agency workers needs to be a priority. I think he should be congratualated for doing so and we should focus on how we get Paul Farrelly's bill on the statute books.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#24)

by alexhilton on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:29:10 AM GMT

While it's distasteful for Bills to be talked out - can I say that it is common for Private Members Bills to be killed, only for their provisions to be resurrected as part of a Government Bill on Government time - or as a statutory instrument - after the civil service has had a go at it. When I worked in parliament, I did lots of work on a Corporate Responsibility Bill for my former employer, defeated a number of times as a private members bill - but later adopted into a Government Bill (google "operating and financial review") Ironically, those provisions were later dropped in controversial circumstances - but like i say - it does happen.


[ Parent ]

Re: Odds shorten on Benn victory (#25)

by HenryG on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:38:35 AM GMT

Paul Farrelly author of the temporary and agency workers bill is backing Jon Cruddas. But as a Cruddas supporter I can say I am pleased that other candidates are beginning to take up issues Jon has flagged up in recent months. Blears is talking about council housing, Johnson has agreed for an amnesty on unregularised migrants and Benn on Agency Workers. Although I want to see Jon win, I want to see these issues on the agenda and with support throughout the party too. So well done to Hilary for coming on board and let's hope the others will do too.


[ Parent ]

Odds shorten on Benn victory | 50 comments (50 topical)
Display: Sort: