Jim Sheridan Resigns!

markmcdonald Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:41:56 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

With the resignation of Jim Sheridan (parliamentary private secretary to the defence team) dissent from some members of the Government has become more apparent.



At the same time some MP's are calling for a recall of Parliament. I am concerned that the Government may come across as arrogant on this issue. Members of the Cabinet need to become more vocal in support of the Prime MinisterĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s position on the Middle East. It seems to me that there is a tendency to run for the hills when things start to get a bit tough. I am sure the Foreign Secretary could get a signal on her mobile - wherever she may be!

tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Jim Sheridan Resigns! | 17 comments (17 topical)

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#1)

by Juvenal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:58:19 AM GMT

I assume Sheridan has timed his resignation to occur  while TB is on holiday.  What I can't decide, however, is whether this is designed to minimise the fallout or stir up trouble while the PM's away.  And then there are the increasingly public demands for a recall of Parliament . . .


Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#2)

by archbold on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:40:45 AM GMT

Seridan in a letter to the Prime Minister said "I don't expect my resignation will have any significant impact on the prime minister's objectives in the Middle East, which I genuinely believe to be honourable on his part, but I don't believe they reflect the core values of the Labour Party or indeed the country."

I never understand why some poeple take a job in the Government when at the first sign of heat they jump ship!


Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#3)

by ChrisRoberts on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:50:17 AM GMT

Isn't Prestwick Airport in his constituency?

If so might have local pressure on him and is finding defending US shipments through the airport locally puts him at serious odds with his CLP and local community. Might go someway to explaining why he felt he had to resign as an unpaid bag carrier.


Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#4)

by archbold on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:29:55 AM GMT

That may explain it, he is so insecure about his job that he forgets loyality to his party!


Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#5)

by middleagedlabour on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:10:19 AM GMT

Loyalty is due first, last and always to constituents.

"My party right or wrong" would make us either Republicans or Stalinists.  

Why assume he is jumping because of "heat"?

Did the party ban honest disagreement while we weren't looking?


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#6)

by ChrisRoberts on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:18:55 PM GMT

To whom should such loyalty be held? His local constituency party or the government/parliamentary party? What happens when the disagree. Which is being disloyal?


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#7)

by ChaunceyGardener on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:34:00 PM GMT

MPs are elected first and foremost to be their constituency's representative in Westminster and NOT the Government's representative in the constituency.

This is something a few more of our MPs (including my own)would do well to remember a bit more often.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#8)

by Graham on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:30:37 PM GMT

He also signed the Colombia EDM, which was critical of Government policy, while a PPS. I suppose he became a PPS expecting better of a Labour government and resigned disappointed.


Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#15)

by nickparrott on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 06:35:03 PM GMT

Having a look at Jim Sheridan's record, he did actually rebel on whipped votes twice - once to oppose PR for local government in Scotland and once to oppose re-classifying cannabis as a Class C controlled substance.

Whatever he might be, he certainly isn't what you'd call a Guardian-reading liberal!


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#9)

by Ian G on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:47:24 PM GMT

Doesn't it say something about the state of our party that when someone resigns people immediately assume it's from cowardice or self-interest rather than principle?

I see there are rumours that the demand for a recall of parliament have been signed by PPS's to Jack Straw and Gordon Brown. It's getting pretty serious. If parliament was recalled there's no way that Blair would win a vote on the issue without Conservative support, and goodness knows what they'll do. We might even see a confidence vote.


Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#10)

by nickparrott on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:38:19 PM GMT

If Parliament is recalled they would probably have a debate on "International Affairs" or some such on a motion that the House do now adjourn, rather than a substantive motion.

Thus the only way people could register dissent would be to vote against adjourning the House, which has happened before, but as the Government do not in general contest such votes, they would not be a confidence vote.

But it certainly wouldn't look too good for Blair if a lot of Labour MPs chose to do so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#11)

by Ian G on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:22:51 PM GMT

I bow to your superior knowledge of parliamentary procedure, but if  'this house do now adjourn' was lost I would have thought  it would be followed by a vote on 'this house as confidence in the foreign policy of HM government'. (think something similar happened in the Major days)

A way off yet I know, but the current situation where the PM seems barely to have the support of the government never mind the PLP seems pretty untenable.

Of course today's events may rather change the agenda.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#13)

by nickparrott on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:55:41 PM GMT

Standing Order 13(2) provides that the "business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet [i.e. is recalled] shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the order paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the government may appoint" - IOW the government can put forward any motion it likes.

Only once has Blair used a recall to put forward substantive business, however, and that was the 1998 two-day recall after the Omagh bombing, which passed new anti-terrorist legislation. Usually there is a just a debate on a subject of the Govt's choice on an adjournment motion.

The precedent that I cited above was the debate on "Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction" on an adjournment debate following the recall of the House on 24 September 2002.

64 MPs voted against the adjournment motion, subsequent to the attempt by Tam Dalyell by to table an amendment to the motion that the House do now adjourn, which was rejected by the Speaker under the terms of SO13.

As it happens, even though the House voted against adjournment, procedurally it had to adjourn at that point anyway, so the vote had no effect, not even to keep sitting.

There would not be a confidence motion unless the Government decided to table one.

Normally a confidence vote would only follow the defeat of a Government on a substantive item of business - though Governments have sometimes tabled substantive motions or even legislation at a recall of Parliament.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#14)

by observer on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 04:07:29 AM GMT

Nick, while it's true that most governments who have lost adjournment motions haven't treated them as votes of confidence, the government could define it as one if they chose. The clearest example of this would be the Norway debate of 1940, and more recently two adjournment debates under Wilson in 1976 (this one delaying his secret resignation timetable by a few days) and Callaghan in 1977 - all of which were won by the government, although the Norway vote obviously succeeded in its objective.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#16)

by nickparrott on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 06:41:20 PM GMT

Very interesting post, observer. The Norway debate is obviously well known, but I don't know much about the examples from the 1970s. What was the Government's reasoning?

The Govt can certainly decide that pretty much any vote is a "confidence issue" and as I said they could also choose to table substantive business at a recall.

However, I don't think Blair would choose to do either in this instance.


[ Parent ]

Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#12)

by janestheone on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:30:39 PM GMT

Jim had to face a reslection battle when the number of Scottish seats was reduced after the establishment of the Scottish parliament.  Now he is facing reselection again, as all sitting Labour MPs are, in the next few months.  His local party has effectively deselected one MP and once they have done it they get a taste for it.  He is distancing himself from the government to get favour with party activists, who hate Tony Blair more than anyone else in the world.


Re: Jim Sheridan Resigns! (#17)

by nickparrott on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 10:50:13 PM GMT

There was an extraordinary article on the crisis by Kitty Ussher in yesterday's New Statesman. If the revolt includes her, then that's even more surprising than Jim Sheridan.

There's some commentary on this at The Daily and the article is here.


Jim Sheridan Resigns! | 17 comments (17 topical)