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.

He’s a dick. End of.

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

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.

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.

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!!

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 by this, what has he done to get the process changed?

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 them first though

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 his true motivations are.

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 that reason most would decide to get on with something that definitely did require their attention. It doesn’t mean they’re not interested or lazy.