They should get Nicholas Parsons to be the speaker and they should all have to obey the rules of Just a Minute.
[quote=ninfan ]now, I know you £3 Corbynites all wish that it could be different
Not me mate, and I still think he's a ****.
[quote=ninfan ]You think that this was an individual decision to trash the bill rather than an assassination on orders from above?
So those above are also ****s.
[quote=boriselbrus ]This is pathetic and I've emailed him asking him to justify it. You can teach opening an airway in a few minutes. This would save lives.
Which is what makes me really angry about this. I've certainly heard of people on first aid courses being quite upset when they've realised they could have saved a life if they'd had better knowledge. Sure some of the kids might be thick ****s like Mr Davies and forget what they've been taught, but some won't. You Mr Davies have blood on your hands (and by association ninfan you do too for supporting him).
Of course there might be something I'm missing here which means it's impractical, but it's not contained in Mr Davies' speech. It certainly STM that it's one of the more valuable things you could teach kids in school - as mentioned, it would only require a few hours every year - maybe they could do it before the summer break when they're on wind down and appear to have spare time?
More fundamentally this comes down to what our parliament is about. Should it be that only the party who got 37% of the vote gets to make policy to change things, or should it be possible for sensible suggestions to be considered whatever the source?
Ninfan, again: what do you think in general of private members bills?
Ninfan, again: what do you think in general of private members bills?
I think the best thing that parliament could possibly do is stop introducing new laws for a while frankly - under Blair it was, quite literally, several new new laws every day and has continued pretty much unchecked since then - the entire parliamentary system has become bogged sown in gesture politics an "political point scoring" has become more important to politicians of all parties than solving actual problems, with tickbox laws being introduced that serve only to remove discretion and recriminalise things that were already illegal.
(This of course is hardly a new complaint, William Cobbett was saying much the same in 1807!)
under Blair it was, quite literally, several new new laws every day and has continued pretty much unchecked since then -
Yet putting aside the total number of pieces of legislation, the actual number of private bills successful under thatcher and major was usually double if not more per year/session than under blair afterwards: i wonder where else these 'several new laws a day' were coming from? And should private members bills be cut because of pebbledashing legislation elsewhere in the political week?
Parliament.uk website us unclear how many members bills were debated/started but not made law however, so i can't see wherther the huge drop in private members bills made law under blair vs the conservative governments before was against a background of there being too many bills introduced or too few, or something else entirely.
Interesting also to wonder how many laws would have been more 'officially' supported by governments had they not been able to be put in more quietly as whips or handout bills. Would we still have had the following and if not how much later and in what form?
(shamelessly lifted from wiki):
Abortion Act 1967
Adoption Act 1964,
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965,
Charter Trustees Act 1986,
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996,
Knives Act 1997,
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997,
Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2003
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003
Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004
Sustainable Communities Act 2006
ninfan - how about for once instead of trolling and whataboutery you discuss the actual issue at hand on it's own merits? No didn't think so.
Waah waah waah Grum
The government didn't support it, it got nuked - don't like it, get an electable leader and form a government.
That's politics and thus, frankly, the 'actual issue at hand'
Diddums.
@ Juliansilson - yes, it is interesting, I think it's pretty clear that many of the successful ones have been essentially adopted or 'waved through' by the government of the day as something they broadly supported but didn't want to 'put their name to' for, possibly more partisan, political reasons.
That is a your reply to not trolling?
Its such as shame as you are a bright fella, well informed but instead of debating you prefer to take up positions you dont believe in yourself [ defend the indefensible] and then just goad folk.
I suppose we all have to have a hobby.
as i said earlier his position is whatever will cause the most offence and get the biggest rise and so it still is. This covers his opinion on all topics for ever...except guns and killing stuff as he really does like those.
Context -
[i]Topics started:
The Latest Filibustering Disgrace.
The Next US President.
Nuking ISIS.
What's happening in Hannover?
Jeremy Hunt - Did he write a book calling for NHS to be dismantled?
David Cameron complaining about cuts...
How are the consultant contract negotiations going?[/i]
Context -
Topics started:
[i]Countryside Alliance opposition to #trailforwales
Jeremy Corbyn's Enormous Marrow
EU :Travel time = Work time
Hunting Act Amendment...
Russell Brand 24
Peaceful Protesters again...
Migrants from Africa, what to do?
Huge oil find in the Surrey hills[/i]
Indeed.
The Latest Filibustering Disgrace.
The Next US President.
Nuking ISIS.
What's happening in Hannover?
Jeremy Hunt - Did he write a book calling for NHS to be dismantled?
David Cameron complaining about cuts...
How are the consultant contract negotiations going?
What's wrong with that?
No Zoos?
ninfan.. you're becoming a parody of yourself..
Your ancestors would be turning in their graves at what an utter fool you are being..
What an outdated, antiquated joke of a place Westminster is.
It's perfect. For the 17th century.
I suppose what we need are some private members bills on gun licencing, outdoor access/fight to roam and curbing the power of trade unions (even more!), then wheel an mp out to kill them on a Friday afternoon -then see how ninfan feels about filibustering. I have a sense that he is against too much unconnected bitty legislation and favours the 'creative' use of our constitution to manage this, but unclear from two answers now whether he would actually support the abolition of private members bills rather than address the misuse of parliamentary time (by both masses of bills and also fillibustering) in order to achieve this.
Personally I think private members bills are something to be held on to. Under a political system that favours single party government it is already near impossible for 'minority' mp's (if you can call the snp 'minority' nowadays but really I am thinking the even smaller parties) elected with enormous support locally to put forward legislation. The issue of complex or messy over-legislating can be dealt with elsewhere and by other means -figures suggest that the mess of laws (and on this I agree with ninfan, it was a bit of a mess) under Blair actually had little to do with private members bills -the successful ones actually halved under Blair compared to the previous two periods of government.
fight to roam
Well I suppose there was a certain amount of that with the gamekeepers on Kinder before the right to roam.
[quote=wanmankylung ]What's wrong with that?
Well some of them are a bit - how can I put this - "zoo fightery". Not that I have a problem with that - most of them are quite entertaining. More to the point though, the list is completely irrelevant if you play the ball not the man - something it appears ninfan is incapable of. I hadn't even noticed you started this thread, and I think I've made my feelings fairly clear.
Interesting MP response in that it seems to ignore his primary role. Maybe the government could review the whole process, unless of course that doesn't ultimately benefit the wealthier in our society.
Sad when we have to rely on politicians to determine whether you teach First Aid or not.
As for the tactic, pretty sad too. Imagine how proud you must feel if that was the highlight of your day? But nothing new in it.
And some want these people, running more and more of our society. Very odd....
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Sad when we have to rely on politicians to determine whether you teach First Aid or not.
The trouble is that the politicians have structured education so that it's difficult to find space in the timetable for things which aren't compulsory. I presume that's what you meant?
I meant, it's sad when we have to rely on politicians to determine whether you teach First Aid or not.
Yeah, I saw that was what you wrote, I was just exploring your understanding of the implications.
Oh, I thought you were stating what you presumed I meant.
I suggest appointing Nicholas Parsons as Speaker and introducing the rules of Just a Minute into political debate.
No deviation!! 😉
