• freddy replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    Maybe there is value in having someone who sticks their head above the parapet and challenges popular emotive bills. There’s no way of knowing they are right if you’re not allowed to question them.

    Trying desperately to defend the indefensible, I imagine he’s latched onto the old legal cliche ‘hard cases make bad law’. It doesn’t follow that…[Read more]

  • roadrunner replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    Curious about this.

    My understanding, admittedly from study 30+ years ago, was that there was a ballot of the MPs who wished to put forward a PMB – i.e names drawn out of a hat. If an MP got a high position, top 20 for example, they were in with a chance and only then did they have to decide what the bill would contain.

    The other option is the…[Read more]

  • andypandy replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    31 times in a year no…[Read more]

  • oldguy replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    I’d imagine an MP will have a look at what’s going through the chamber in advance of turning up, or not as the case may be.

    Whether or not they attend will depend upon whether the whips tell them to and if not, whether they feel they’re needed. In this case I imagine most thought the bill uncontroversial and as such it’s passage was assured. For…[Read more]

  • gala replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    Once its passed a vote in the chamber a PMB is then subject to the same scrutiny as any other bill. Most PMB fail so it’s not as if the commons vote is just is rubber stamp to legislate against any shitty grievance an MP might have. Have a look at the shitty legislation the govt has enacted that he didn’t vote against to form an opinion on what…[Read more]

  • gary replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    He might have a point re: Finn’s Law – as cute and innocent as they are, a dog’s life is not as valuable as a human’s.

    Maybe there is value in having someone who sticks their head above the parapet and challenges popular emotive bills. There’s no way of knowing they are right if you’re not allowed to question them. Would be nice if they read…[Read more]

  • timo replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    The thing is he is quite happy to sponsor PMBs when it suits him (by some reckoning dozens of them). Given this he can hardly claim some point of principle when he obstructs others. Further, his track record suggests (pretty much proves actually) his problem isn’t actually process but any sort of progressive law. Finally if he is so bothered…[Read more]

  • dave replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    He has tried to use the same parliamentary mechanism to push a bill through to get people to pay for NHS treatment, so it’s not an objection to the mechanism in principle, it’s that he’s an unpleasant individual!!

  • fishfaced replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    Personally, I agree and he’s misjudged the upskirting bill issue (and in my daughter’s case, Finns Law, but that’s her opinion). Where he really seems to fall down as an MP is if he’s so upset by the process, surely he can have a say on it, especially as he’s in the ruling party!!

  • mule replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    It sounds like he’s trying to make a point about a certain aspect of Parliamentary process but he only does it for certain bills. He disguises one agenda with another.

    Overall I think he’s nasty piece of work. His agenda is reactionary in the extreme. I reckon even most Tory MP’s are embarrassed by his antics.

  • garygary replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    I can sort of understand what he was trying to prove (that laws should be well thought out and discussed) I believe in this case, he’s shot himself in the foot by applying his blanket “system” to this specific piece of legislation.

    His history, makes him appear as a awkward bollocks who’s simply trying to mess things up.

  • andrewB replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    I know very little about parliamentary process but judging by his voting history Chope has a remarkable facility for always being wrong.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope

  • kevinj replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    He’s a dick. End of.

  • fred99 replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    The serious ones may be better than legislation from a government with a strong majority because they have to gather cross party support rather than rely on MPs being unthinkingly obedient to the party line and the government whips.

    It’s just a theory.

  • fishfaced replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    Appreciate your point, I’m sure they do have a fair workload. But he’s derailed a number of bills purely because of this, not the bill itself. The reverse logic would be if those who turn up think the bill is more than reasonable, allow it through and set up a proper debate on the process as a separate issue.

  • micky replied to the topic Sir Christopher Chope in the forum Banter 1 day, 22 hours ago

    Thanks for posting that – I didn’t know why he’d derailed the two bills. Seemed like brilliant way to get the whole nation to think you’re dick, and as such I didn’t understand the motivation.

    This is quite a detailed point of the parliamentary process that not many folk are going to get. So, err, yes maybe he has a point, but on the other hand…[Read more]

  • Is he right?

    My daughter, for a project at school, has been following the progress of Finns Law. Sir CC derailed the second reading of this, just as he has derailed the upskirting bill.

    He has a history of objecting to private members bills generally as he believes the process of these is wrong and not debated properly. Given the news showing a…[Read more]

  • fishfaced changed their profile picture 1 day, 22 hours ago

  • micky replied to the topic Online voting? in the forum Banter 3 weeks, 4 days ago

    Phones and PC browsers are good enough for electronic banking. A vote is worth less than the contents of your bank accounts.

    Blockchain can resolve many of the problems of centralised servers being compromised and allow for anonymous auditing of votes after an election.

    The biggest issue I see is that it makes coercion possible when someone can…[Read more]

  • jill replied to the topic Online voting? in the forum Banter 3 weeks, 4 days ago

    Could this ever be done in something like a General Election?

    When I vote, its just me and the ballot box, but online, can my vote really be anonymous?

    Bad news. Ballot papers are numbered and they write down that number next to your name.

    “Today, to prevent fraud, every ballot paper carries a Serial number as well as a unique official mark.…[Read more]

  • Load More