 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Just heard on the news that it's time to renew the corona virus act. If you recall the Act had a time limit. Apparently back benchers want an amendment that they get to vote on restrictions before govt applies them. Awwww diddums the govt hasn't been listening to the back benches - welcome to the life of fucking minions. How often do MPs actually do what their constituents want when it comes to voting? We know many didn't re Brexit.
Do you think back bencher MPs deserve a vote? Or will that muddy the waters regarding the need for rapid actions?
I say, leave them wanting! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Of backbenchers get a say it might actually lead to some joined up thinking for once, seeing as the Cabinet couldn't think its way out I thought of a wet paper bag, so more power to them I say.
After all, it's partly why they're there in the first place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Having the elected representatives involved might lead to some clarity of message..
What we seem to have is government by decree and given this is a Tory party led pushback to the executive it tends to suggest they are not happy with the way things are going clearly and possibly with who is pulling the strings . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of backbenchers get a say it might actually lead to some joined up thinking for once, seeing as the Cabinet couldn't think its way out I thought of a wet paper bag, so more power to them I say.
After all, it's partly why they're there in the first place "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Surely by definition of the Act, it's authorising emergency powers. I believe we'll be in a worse state if the back benchers get a vote every single time.
The restrictions we're currently under were prewarned if cases went up. So what are the back benchers actually quibbling about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *i1971Man
over a year ago
Cornwall |
"Surely by definition of the Act, it's authorising emergency powers. I believe we'll be in a worse state if the back benchers get a vote every single time.
The restrictions we're currently under were prewarned if cases went up. So what are the back benchers actually quibbling about?"
. As it's emergency legislation it can't be held up through bickering and it's hardly as if they're not aware of what changes are being brought forward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Just heard on the news that it's time to renew the corona virus act. If you recall the Act had a time limit. Apparently back benchers want an amendment that they get to vote on restrictions before govt applies them. Awwww diddums the govt hasn't been listening to the back benches - welcome to the life of fucking minions. How often do MPs actually do what their constituents want when it comes to voting? We know many didn't re Brexit.
Do you think back bencher MPs deserve a vote? Or will that muddy the waters regarding the need for rapid actions?
I say, leave them wanting! "
They have the right to vote that is democracy but they must abide by the result something many MP's fail to understand |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Just heard on the news that it's time to renew the corona virus act. If you recall the Act had a time limit. Apparently back benchers want an amendment that they get to vote on restrictions before govt applies them. Awwww diddums the govt hasn't been listening to the back benches - welcome to the life of fucking minions. How often do MPs actually do what their constituents want when it comes to voting? We know many didn't re Brexit.
Do you think back bencher MPs deserve a vote? Or will that muddy the waters regarding the need for rapid actions?
I say, leave them wanting! They have the right to vote that is democracy but they must abide by the result something many MP's fail to understand"
And they get (or got) a chance to vote re the Act. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Surely by definition of the Act, it's authorising emergency powers. I believe we'll be in a worse state if the back benchers get a vote every single time.
The restrictions we're currently under were prewarned if cases went up. So what are the back benchers actually quibbling about?
. As it's emergency legislation it can't be held up through bickering and it's hardly as if they're not aware of what changes are being brought forward."
I'm glad someone understands what I'm getting at. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
If they need to vote on everything then what is the point of ministers. The act was passed, let the government make the decisions. To let MP's vote on everything is folly, we might as well have proportional representation.
At this rate I can see the civil contingencies act raising its head, but with a week government I suspect the crown may refuse its use which would be rare. I believe the tories were the last to use its predecessor act in 1974. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was passed by Ayes 330 votes, Noes 24
Did it include the amendment?
No.
Mr. Speaker didn't select any.
"
Because as I understand it doing so would have risked entering a legal minefield which he didn’t see as appropriate right now. He did strongly reprimand the government in his statement explaining the decision. We do government to be able to ask quickly but we do also need them scrutinised and held to account. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As they have generally been giving a long notice period before changes are introduced, it seems reasonable that the sovereignty of parliament is respected and that they scrutinise and help to shape laws whilst in creation. An exceptional emergency option could still be implemented quickly.
I think the proroging parliament tells us the level of respect there is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
After this mornings headlines, I doubt the government can be trusted with anymore legislation. The problem will be is that the civil contingencies act could be implemented, but the crown would need to approve the request, which in itself is not a one off request. Bonkers Boris could be removed from the decision making. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
