How will the economy be affected by SNP MPs; will it be for richer or for poorer and

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's rare to see Tory MP's on Twitter at all. Mabye they should listen and learn. Might up that vote from a crap 37% next time, by actually engaging with people under 50 or anyone that uses social media next time.

I thought the comment was about parliament and (SNP) people supporting each other

do you like to see Tories supporting each other?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's about legislation not being debated, and MP's having the opportunities to state their views, through normal parliamentary channels, or the House of Lords, but instead, implementing serious constitutional changes through standing orders and slight of hand 'rule changes' ?

I did say that Salmond knew the rules backwards. He always on the ball when it comes to rule books. And he isn't afraid to say so. The Tories haven't thought this one through, either that or they don't think EVEL will fly through normal channels. And if Labour have seemingly given up on opposing the Tories every whim, the SNP certainly haven't. Thank goodness.

Actually it seems like this is really about how the Government should introduce one of their policies to change the rules of Parliament. The Tories were clearly of a view that it could be done one way (the Tories stood on EVEL as part of their platform so they have a mandate) and the SNP take a different view.

In such an instance it's the speaker doing his job to rule which is the correct way to go about this change.

There would be other ways to discuss this. For example the SNP as the third largest party will get to initiate a certain number of debates. They could use one of those to debate the proposed changes.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

I thought the comment was about parliament and (SNP) people supporting each other

do you like to see Tories supporting each other?

They never seem to be in the chamber. So it's a rare sight unless the TV camera's are there. Do I like the Tories supporting each other ? Sure. Why not. I don't agree with their politics much. But it's nice to see them all get on.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They never seem to be in the chamber. So it's a rare sight unless the TV camera's are there. Do I like the Tories supporting each other ? Sure. Why not. I don't agree with their politics much. But it's nice to see them all get on.

One wonders how the 'rare sight' is seen when TV cameras aren't there,
but the certainties of a true acolyte, never cease to amaze

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Actually it seems like this is really about how the Government should introduce one of their policies to change the rules of Parliament. The Tories were clearly of a view that it could be done one way (the Tories stood on EVEL as part of their platform so they have a mandate) and the SNP take a different view.

In such an instance it's the speaker doing his job to rule which is the correct way to go about this change.

There would be other ways to discuss this. For example the SNP as the third largest party will get to initiate a certain number of debates. They could use one of those to debate the proposed changes.

The Tories are sneaking it through, in such a way as to avoid much in the way of debate with the Labour party/Lib Dems/SNP and the House of Lords Gen. That's what Standing Orders are. That's it, and good luck to them with it. It all looks a bit shady, but that's nothing new with the Conservatives I suppose. But they seem reluctant to go through normal channels with EVEL for some reason. So I suppose they must have one (a reason ).

It's not something the SNP object to in principle, nor do I. But, best not to have the decks 'stacked' too much in one party's favour over it. It'll be extremely difficult to go back once it's in place. And will create 'tier's of MP's that didn't exist until now. So there really is a need to get it right in terms of the other three nation's MP's being able to vote on reserved matters. It's the defining of what an truly English law is that's the issue here for the other parties and MP's. And then, of course, there's the facts... Never a Tory strong point when there's some Daily Mail 'action' to whip up lol.

The impact of removing Scottish MPs from the records of historic Commons divisions is also estimated. Of approximately 3,600 divisions to occur between 26th June 2001 and 26 September 2014, 22 (0.6%) would have concluded differently had the votes of Scottish MPs not been counted.


The note also compares, for each division since 2001, the lobby in which the majority of MPs per constituent country of the UK have voted to the lobby in which the majority of UK MPs voted. In the current Parliament the lobby in which the majority of English MPs have voted has coincided with that of the majority of UK MPs for 99% of divisions. The majority of Scottish MPs has coincided with the majority of UK MPs for 24% of divisions; that of Welsh MPs for 26% of divisions.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07048

22 out of 3,600 votes in 13 years. Wow, who knew this law was sooooo badly needed to keep Scots/Welsh and NI MP's from voting. Bet that 0.6% of all votes is keeping the English, and English MP's awake at night eh.. But one does really have to ask... Why ? :think: What a complete waste of time and effort.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

One wonders how the 'rare sight' is seen when TV cameras aren't there,
but the certainties of a true acolyte, never cease to amaze

Well, when I said TV camera's I meant of course, TV camera's for the stuff like PMQ's and 'important' debates like 'MP pay rises' etc etc. Or something that might make the News at 10. Otherwise all anyone has to do is click over to BBC Parliament and have a quick look from time to time. Haven't you ?

The benches are empty on the Tory side. And not much better on the opposition side. However, the SNP have been there in numbers from early in the morning, till late at night. I'm not going to lie to you about it. It's just what's happening, however much it seems to offend your sensibilities. They're also ALL providing updates on Twitter and clueing followers/constituents in FOR specific debates, or maiden speeches coming up. BBC Parliament has probably never had so many viewers at once. It's all been very interesting to those following politics in Westminster.

The Tories/Labour and all the other parties should do likewise. It's really very engaging stuff. And could go a long way to waking up more of the electorate. Wherever they reside or whatever party they favour.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

22 out of 3,600 votes in 13 years. Wow, who knew this law was sooooo badly needed to keep Scots/Welsh and NI MP's from voting. Bet that 0.6% of all votes is keeping the English, and English MP's awake at night eh.. But one does really have to ask... Why ? :think: What a complete waste of time and effort.

If the effect is so small, why waste Parliamentary time debating it?

Or is it that the data set has been cherry-picked to include one of the few periods of time that Labour has won a majority without Scottish MPs.

I suspect if you took the period 1964-2014 you'd get a very, very different result.

kabayiri

I'm perhaps confused here.

Why should Tory voters worry about the mechanics by which the Conservative party get their manifesto commitments implemented?

I wouldn't be worried.

All this talk of "engagement"....pah, it's like new kids in big school, all excited about new surroundings. Let's see what this is like after 4 years of term.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

One wonders how the 'rare sight' is seen when TV cameras aren't there,
but the certainties of a true acolyte, never cease to amaze

You are supposed to buy into the concept of the SNP Westminster MP where "S" means Super.

The reality that we have just all elected a right old mix of good and not so good MPs across all parties doesn't quite have the same showroom appeal.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well, when I said TV camera's I meant of course, TV camera's for the stuff like PMQ's and 'important' debates like 'MP pay rises' etc etc. Or something that might make the News at 10. Otherwise all anyone has to do is click over to BBC Parliament and have a quick look from time to time. Haven't you ?

The benches are empty on the Tory side. And not much better on the opposition side. However, the SNP have been there in numbers from early in the morning, till late at night. I'm not going to lie to you about it. It's just what's happening, however much it seems to offend your sensibilities. They're also ALL providing updates on Twitter and clueing followers/constituents in FOR specific debates, or maiden speeches coming up. BBC Parliament has probably never had so many viewers at once. It's all been very interesting to those following politics in Westminster.

The Tories/Labour and all the other parties should do likewise. It's really very engaging stuff. And could go a long way to waking up more of the electorate. Wherever they reside or whatever party they favour.

a fair minded person might observe that a English MP at Westminster had a considerably greater constituency commitment compared to a Scottish MP


and they might observe that people all hanging out with the same cult is not very attractive : how about meeting non SNP people (maybe even English people)


Now do note that I am not accusing you of being fair minded as I know this could cause you to be considered an apostate within the cult and might lead to your expulsion / bricks through the window etc.