FabSwingers.com forum: MPs voting on CV act

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

Reply +quote

By *LIRTWITHUSCouple
over a year ago

Chester

Should be put to vote not snook through each time

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lbinoGorillaMan
over a year ago

Redditch

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

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands

I doubt whether dominic cummins will allow back benchers to have a say in his policy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the speaker hasn't allowed it to go through...bring back bercow I say

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

It was passed by Ayes 330 votes, Noes 24

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"It was passed by Ayes 330 votes, Noes 24"

Did it include the amendment?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"It was passed by Ayes 330 votes, Noes 24

Did it include the amendment? "

No.

Mr. Speaker didn't select any.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oonloverWoman
over a year ago

bognor regis

So essential we are at the mercy of wancocks

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford

"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

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ark Knight 2017Man
over a year ago

Ware

"It was passed by Ayes 330 votes, Noes 24"

And 300 of our elected representatives did not bother to vote! What does that tell us?!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread