terror bill passed by a single vote

[Fisher_Gate]

Yeah, and the govt would have lost the first whipped vote for 10 years - at a time when Blairs authority is seeping away don't you think this might have helped it along somewhat?

Not since it was a Tory amendment aiming to help the passage of the Bill:

" Mr. Grieve: We have approached the matter from the position that we do not like any extension of 14 days. Our earlier willingness to support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, if it was pressed, was based, first, on the desire to reach a consensus with the Government if it were possible to maintain it, and secondly, on the belief that 28 days was not some trade-off or Dutch auction, but the outer limit of what is acceptable. I emphasise that to the Home Secretary. If he were to say 21 days, I would be a much happier man. We pitched the limit very precisely because we thought it the proper place to do so.

I would much prefer not to see this aspect of the legislation happening at all, but if it is to happen, and if the Government are sincere—I trust the Home Secretary in a way that I do not trust every Minister—we will work with the Home Secretary to try to achieve the consensus that he has always desired and to make sure that the legislation commands widespread support not only in this House, but in the country. "

Tory spokesperson at the end of the debate yesterday.
Are you suggesting Respect should support this position?

 

[belboid]

I heard on the radio two LibDems who should have been there didn't turn up.

But I agree with the points raised on the amendments - when you are profoundly against a Bill, you shouldn't vote for or against specific amendments that tinker with it. As the amendments were Tory and basically kept the fundamentals of the Bill, I wouldn't have voted either.

As I understand it there was no vote on the substantive bill, which continues its Committee stage today.

I'd expect George to be there for any substantive vote and to vote against the whole bill. If he wasn't to be there for that vote I'd be concerned and want to know why, but that hasn't happened and I'm relaxed about yesterday's votes. If he was in the chamber he should have abstained, if he wasn't it's no great loss, as despite the hype in the media it is wrong to vote with the Tories just to try to defeat the government - each vote should be considered on the principles of the issue.

rubbish. total rubbish.

the amendment would either have led to the bill being withdrawn (very unlikely) or led to it being slightly weakened. the only reasopn not to support the amednment would be because you thought that by passing it, the bill itself would have a better chance of passing - but that is, from the rest of the votes, pretty clearly very unlikely to happen.

Do you happen to know where George was yesterday? He should have a very good reason not to have been ther - or dont you think he should bother attempting to speak on this issue?

 

[belboid]

Not since it was a Tory amendment aiming to help the passage of the Bill:

wrong amendment.

(assuming groucho was correct before - and I think I've seen someone else saying it was the one he quoted)

 

[Fisher_Gate]

wrong amendment.

(assuming groucho was correct before - and I think I've seen someone else saying it was the one he quoted)

Some very peculiar things though ...

Dennis Skinner voted for the Marshall-Andrews amendment (Division 74) but not for the Grieve (Tory) amendment (Division 75) - as did Ann Widdecombe!

But Gordon Prentice voted for Grieve but not for Marshall-Andrews ... as did Vincent Cable

Work that one out!

 

[TAE]

"In a tied vote the Speaker gives a casting vote, according to defined principles rather than on the merits of the question."
http://www.parliament.uk/works/commonsgeneral.cfm

I must be able to dig out an example, I can recall the tories requiring it once, but damned if I can remember on what.

Check the commons voting regarding the Maastricht Treaty / Social Chapter in the early 90s, saw it on TV last night - it was tied vote.

 

[TAE]

On 22 July 1993, on a Labour amendment to postpone incorporation of the Treaty until the Government adopted the 27th Amendment thereto (the Protocol on Social Policy or "Social Chapter"), the government tied 317-317 against the combined forces of some of the rebels, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and others. It was thus only by the Speaker's casting vote that the Government won (the Speaker casting her vote in accordance with the 1867 decision of Mr Speaker Denison not to create a majority where none exists), to date the most recent occasion on which such a vote has been called for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Rebels

 

[belboid]

Check the commons voting regarding the Maastricht Treaty / Social Chapter in the early 90s, saw it on TV last night - it was tied vote.

it was initially thought to be tied, but a recount found the ayes had won anyway (see my post 26) - tho I presume the Speaker did still have to vote initiaqlly, and did so in the way you state.

 

[TAE]

(see my post 26)

D'oh! Missed that one, sorry.

 

[belboid]

I'd expect George to be there for any substantive vote and to vote against the whole bill. If he wasn't to be there for that vote I'd be concerned and want to know why

guess what!

he still wasn't there!

And where was he? On his fucking speaking tour. Disgusting.

And the more I think of it, the more this amendment should have been supported - it would actually make that section of the bill almost meaningless.

 

[Streathamite]

I am really staggered by the defence offered by WESPECK supporters over this - such desperate, stalinist defence of the Dear Leader who's just missed a glorious chance to give blair one of the biggest bollock-kicks he's ever had. it's eerily similar to how bushbots drone out the party line from neocon central.

 

[marty21]

i read that gorgeous george was speaking at a "commercial event" good to see he was lining his own pockets when he should have been representing his constituents

 

[Streathamite]

if that's true, that really would take the f-ing biscuit.

 

[belboid]

aah, bless - look what the poor lamb was having to do - clearly far more important than representing his constituents over a bill that is obviously utterly unimportant to them.

 

[marty21]

if that's true, that really would take the f-ing biscuit.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,1614943,00.html

apparently a company called "clive conway celebrity productions" was advertising an event in cork "and audience with george galloway" i'm sure a lot of his contituents were in the audience

ah, belboid beat me to it

 

[Streathamite]

christ alive. I just feel sorry for the good people of Bow. they've got up to 4 1/2 more years of this pratt.
c'mon then swappies - let's hear you defend this, and explain why his paid for celeb speaking tour was more important to the development of a 'serious socialist alternative to Labour' (Swappie cliche 275) than quite possibly really spanking Labour in the place he was elected to be in.
<settles back, lights fag, and awaits comedy hour>

 

[JTG]

Yeah, he was in Cork making money for himself. Sorry, according to the Indy his spokesman said he was 'reaching out' to people.

Also according to the Indy, the two Lib Dems who didn't vote were Vincent Cable (stuck outside the house talking to Make Trade Fair campaigners thanks to a security snarl up) and Alan Beith (at a funeral in Northumbria). Various Tories were at funerals, in hospital or in America on some long arranged junket (Michael Ancram).

So, Galloway and Ancram have the worst excuses then, everyone else, fair enough I'd say.

Hope Galloway loses his seat to Oona King next time around tbh.

 

[Maidmarian]

I suppose he may have had a "pairing" arrangement with another MP ???

 

[Streathamite]

I suppose he may have had a "pairing" arrangement with another MP ???

It is HIGHLY unlikely that any Labour MP would wish to do him that favour.

 

[Maidmarian]

Stranger things have been known !

Ed to add :

According to this :

http://www.revolts.co.uk/Three or One It Doesnt Matter.pdf

It looks as though the counting may be a bit off.

(Galloway`s still a creep though)

 

[darren redparty]

lok what I found
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=912
any comments respectoids?

 

[Pickman's model]

lok what I found
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=912
any comments respectoids?

 

[belboid]

lok what I found
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=912
any comments respectoids?

unbelievable!

oh, sorry, all too believable.

I'm fairly sure George has condemned pairing before as a way for MP's to avoid ddebates! Astounding, innit?

 

[Streathamite]

lok what I found
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=912
any comments respectoids?

darren - marry me
<hero worship>

 

[Pickman's model]

unbelievable!

oh, sorry, all too believable.

I'm fairly sure George has condemned pairing before as a way for MP's to avoid ddebates! Astounding, innit?

as though anyone would want to 'pair' themselves with galloway...

 

[marty21]

lok what I found
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=912
any comments respectoids?

classic, do you think he made arrangements for them to lobby him in cork?

 

[butchersapron]

Read closer boys and girls, that's for next weeks vote on the bill itself, not this weeks amendments. Nothing to stop people lobbying on those though.

 

[Streathamite]

okey-chokey, but still hypocritical of the buggers

 

[Maidmarian]

http://www.revolts.co.uk/Three or...nt Matter.pdf

Oooops !
Buggered link !

 

[marty21]

Read closer boys and girls, that's for next weeks vote on the bill itself, not this weeks amendments. Nothing to stop people lobbying on those though.

fair enough, but next week's bill might have been changed if the amendment he didn't vote on, was defeated

 

[butchersapron]

fair enough, but next week's bill might have been changed if the amendment he didn't vote on, was defeated

It might well have even been withdrawn...